[sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)

[Lake Sagaris]

Hi Eric

I'm not sure what photos you saw, and we certainly didn't see all of 
TransMilenio, but we did use the central section intensively during our 
visit last year, and travelled from the city centre to the northern 
terminal on the system as well. In general (there may well be some 
exceptions) the system respected the same stop lights as the regular roads 
did, so the only real change was that it does make it incredibly silly to 
jaywalk. We actually attempted this early on, so enthralled by the station 
we found that we wanted a picture, but were quickly discouraged by the 
onrush of cars and their disgusted drivers. Perhaps someone directly 
involved could comment on TransMilenio's overall strategy for dealing with 
intersections?

Best
Lake


At 03:07 PM 3/4/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Two small points on the BRT/MRT debate.
>
>i looked at the photos of the Transmilenio system in Bogota regarding the
>severance impact it might have on pedestrians and cyclists crossing the 
>system.
>The severance problem was definitiely made worse by the construction of
>Trans-Milenio.
>
>That being said, it also severed motor vehicle trips, which allowed it to
>function as a form of traffic demand management (ie. by restricting access 
>points
>into the downtown).  One could almost use the BRT to create a ''cordon" within
>which to impose cordon pricing.  anybody explored this? You would have 
>neither of
>these effects of a burried metro line.  Also, for better or worse, if you 
>build
>the BRT at surface and you are taking road capacity away from motorists, 
>the BRT
>can function as a TDM measure at the same time.
>
>Regarding the costs of operations, it would seem to depend on whether you
>consider large scale maintenance part of operating costs or not.  If you 
>exclude
>large scale maintenance in New York,  the subways have lower operating 
>costs than
>buses, but if you include large scale maintenance they are higher.  We have a
>habit in the US of calling large scale maintenance ''capital'' investment, 
>but in
>fact the entire capital budget of the NYCTA is not actually building anything
>new, it is just keeping the system from further deteriorating, other than some
>very slow signalling system improvements and perhaps marginally better trains.
>
>
>
>BruunB at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Additional issues to consider off of the top of my head include
> > 1) the peaking characteristics of travel -- rail is much better at meeting
> > large surges in demand since high frequency can be maintained all day 
> long at
> > the same operator cost, only the consist size changes.
> > 2) I have heard the Sao Paolo busways are atrocious to be located near. The
> > wall of buses is very noisy and severs the corridor, much like freeways 
> have
> > done to the US.
> > 3) The type of alignment used. Once building an elevated section or tunnel
> > anyway, the case for rail becomes much stronger.
> > 4) The number of corridors that need improvement. Cities that are more 
> linear
> > with with fewer corridors can better afford to concentrate investment than
> > ones that have a sprawling grid to cover.
> > 5) The higher the income level of passengers you are trying to attract and
> > the higher the income level of the vehicle operators, the more sense rail
> > makes.
> >
> > Eric Bruun