Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

[IndioBravo]

Well done Bustero,very informative

[mwg12a]

@Bustero or Ronnie, when I was little as far as I can remember. Manila use to have that buses. that extended one with connector in the middle where the passengers can still walk through. I remember the interior was designed like a regular bus unlike this one it is similar toLRT inside. I dont think BRT would work for Manila, maybe in Cebu or Davao. besides MAnila has LRT/MRTs already, they needed to continue those projects so it will cover a wider part of Mtro Manila and adjacent cities and towns...

[dexter06]

Congratulations Bustero, it is good you posted several articles regarding BRT.

Regarding Jakarta's experience. I have tried Transjakarta's busway (as the locals call it). Indeed, the dedicated busway lane is advantageous to the riding public. Imagine, the distance equivalent of SM City (West Ave) to Baclaran took less than 30 minutes. The downside is that it got 1 lane of Jakarta's major roads adding to traffic woes, so much so that in several avenues, traffic authorities allowed private vehicles to use the busway lane to lessen the traffic.

Manila already has a mass transit system. So i do not think a BRT is necessary.

[kiretoce]

Originally Posted by dexter06

Manila already has a mass transit system. So i do not think a BRT is necessary.

Yeah, a chaotic mess of a mass transit system. Implementing a BRT system will bring all these bus companies under one administrative umbrella where they can be monitored and checked constantly. Also, the system will provice desinated bus stops for loading/unloading passengers and not just alight anywhere they want to. They can also standardize fares, and tickets/smart cards/passes distribution. Have uniformed buses, designated routes, and synchronized time schedules for buses arriving/departing at stations/bus stops.

[RonnieR]

Yes, I agree for those areas with LRT/MRT lines, I think BRT is no longer necessary however, for those roads that are not covered with rail transit, I think BRT would help. In Jakarta, even the secondary roads are now covered with BRT. The lower class or the average INdonesians now comfortably ride with the airconditioned, cleaned buses not using diesel or gasoline. To mwg12a, you mean, the trams? yes, I've heard about it, how come it was discontinued? Does it look like the one in Australia?

[bustero]

Re Bus lanes eating into to car lanes.

If you read the other links, the point made is very important. Mass transit is about social justice as it is about transportation. 90% of people within MM and urban areas use some form of public transport, yet their bus or jeep which transport 10x more people is treated the same as a few cars. Cars which almost always have just a few people who can usually afford to actually live nearer their work. It takes the same amount of time for a car and bus to traverse similar roads e.g. edsa or commonwealth yet the fewer number of public transport carry more people. This in a nutshell is what this is all about, the perspective that no traffic for cars is the way things should be because it is better for all, when the more important question is how do we get people from their homes to their destinations in the shortest amount of time possible to limit transit times and give everyone , specially those who have less and no access to private transportation, more quality time. This can not be addressed by BRT alone, it's only one type of system to address the whole issue. Nevertheless Philippine cities and MM in particular is in dire need of mass transit, with typical commutes over an hour for people with cars and more for those without, it is imperative that we address such needs as soon as possible. Changing zoning rules to redevelop the city and rail based transit will take a lot of time and money, perhaps even generational, yet here we are looking at something that will probably work for us.

Anyway for those areas which are served by rail, good, no need for more mass transit there but for the many other areas, EAst Manila, Novaliches Commonwealth (if mrt 7 does not push through), Camanava, C5, Sucat and Alabang zapote then this should be studied if it will work.

[IndioBravo]

Amen Bustero.The thing I also like about the BRT is,it's user friendly to old people and disabled people.Not all stations of LRT/MRT have got facilities for these sector of society.Example if you are on a wheel chair it will be very hard for you to travel via Jeepneys/LRT/MRT. BRT's provide seat and space for them.And ,this sector of society don't need to worry about choosing were to disembark because all stations will be disable and old people friendly.Indeed BRT is a "Class Leveller" (rich or poor,ordinary or special,old or young)Everyone can benefit from it.

[dinabaw]

@Bustero : if you remember in the early 80's upto early 90's Davao have Bus stations strategically placed around downtown it's not rapid though but basically efficeint serving inner areas of the city, i think we should try a second look i think this kind of system will serve well & eliminate over crowded jeepneys, tricycles and habal habals.

[bustero]

Yes, Back then Davao was still no traffic land so getting around was so efficient but not the case so now. I feel the small multicabs which act as our jeeps now are a step backward, they should be relegated to feeder lines not mainlines like Laurel or highway!

I think Davao is easily one of the urban places in the Republic which should be looking at this. If we could run a line from Calinan and Toril to San Pedro then to Panacan and the airport, that would be very efficient. And at this time Davao still has the space to do this. The nice thing about this is that eventually if you wanted you could use the existing right of way of the busways and convert it into to rail if really wanted too. At least the hardest part which is the right of way is already there.

[dexter06]

Originally Posted by kiretoce

Yeah, a chaotic mess of a mass transit system. Implementing a BRT system will bring all these bus companies under one administrative umbrella where they can be monitored and checked constantly. Also, the system will provice desinated bus stops for loading/unloading passengers and not just alight anywhere they want to. They can also standardize fares, and tickets/smart cards/passes distribution. Have uniformed buses, designated routes, and synchronized time schedules for buses arriving/departing at stations/bus stops.

Good points Kiretoce - that is the intention of the BRT and assuming that the BRT will replace the existing routes. What happened in Jakarta is the Transjakarta Busway did not replace the existing bus routes. The existing bus companies continue to ply their routes. Jakarta does not have an MRT/LRT unlike Manila, KL, BKK and Singapore.

Currently, the routes served by LRT 1,2 and MRT are also served by jeepneys and buses. I do not think that with the BRT, the buses and jeeps will stop operating.

I am not against the BRT per se, my only concern is how it will be implemented in MM especially that the BRT will eat up one lane from MM's roads. If MM authorities are seriously considering the BRT, they have to consider the effect of reserving one lane for the BRT.

[spearhead]

Well done bustero!

To others who are questioning the implementation of BRT in mm, actually the report didn't mention yet anything where they gonna install the busways and which part of metro manila. I think its none sense though if they will replace, or atleast compete with the MRT/LRT lines, but i'm assuming that they are thinking instead about complementing the rail lines. So which ever part of metro manila that didn't have an immediate access to any mass transit like the rail lines (MRT/LRT), i hope that's where they gonna build the BRT lines.

Nevertheless, its not only the idea of having a BRT lines that will save us money and travel time, but likewise, implementing a modern and reliable regular bus transit system w/ organized bus routes and schedules (similar to BRT system but have no dedicated busways) that will be replacing the existing jeepneys, that are currently operating both at national and arterial roads around metro manila and its surrounding provinces, will surely make the NCR as a better place to live and work.

[neyoneyo80]

they've done such project in Brazil, i guess

i just hate multicabs especially the puj version !!!!! they shouldnt be allowed (sana) on major thoroughfares... my wish, though, is that the multicabs would replace the remaining tricycles (for instance those plying in Agdao District) and the trisikads... imo lang po

Originally Posted by bustero

Yes, Back then Davao was still no traffic land so getting around was so efficient but not the case so now. I feel the small multicabs which act as our jeeps now are a step backward, they should be relegated to feeder lines not mainlines like Laurel or highway!

I think Davao is easily one of the urban places in the Republic which should be looking at this. If we could run a line from Calinan and Toril to San Pedro then to Panacan and the airport, that would be very efficient. And at this time Davao still has the space to do this. The nice thing about this is that eventually if you wanted you could use the existing right of way of the busways and convert it into to rail if really wanted too. At least the hardest part which is the right of way is already there.

[RonnieR]

Originally Posted by dexter06

Good points Kiretoce - that is the intention of the BRT and assuming that the BRT will replace the existing routes. What happened in Jakarta is the Transjakarta Busway did not replace the existing bus routes. The existing bus companies continue to ply their routes. Jakarta does not have an MRT/LRT unlike Manila, KL, BKK and Singapore.

I am not against the BRT per se, my only concern is how it will be implemented in MM especially that the BRT will eat up one lane from MM's roads. If MM authorities are seriously considering the BRT, they have to consider the effect of reserving one lane for the BRT.

Yes, I agree, MM should consider the one lane that will be taken by BRT. However, in jakarta, the buses that are affected by BRT were controlled. There is a major difference in Manila and Jakarta. In Indonesia, most of the public transpo are either partly owned or fully owned by government unlike in the Philippines, thus it is easier to control the number that will be allowed to run.
I still believe that BRT system is favorable to MM in areas such as C5, EDSA, Commonwealth, portion of Roxas Boulevard, Ortigas Ave, Magsaysay Boulevard, Osmena Highway, and the like.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by neyoneyo80

they've done such project in Brazil, i guess

i just hate multicabs especially the puj version !!!!! they shouldnt be allowed (sana) on major thoroughfares... my wish, though, is that the multicabs would replace the remaining tricycles (for instance those plying in Agdao District) and the trisikads... imo lang po

You're not alone. There are filipinos who will support you. We are the progressive minded filipinos who doesn't settle for less, because it is indeed that the production and operation of PUJ's are step backwards. I dont mid if they build those electric jeepneys, but as long as they are properly controlled, its ok. I don't know why the government can't simply replace them w/ buses that can carry more passengers and are much safer in the road, when they can ask some foreign investors to invest in our mass transit, if the cannot afford to buy more reliable and modern buses. They sould also implement some new laws to control the population of our PUJ's, tricycles, multicabs, pedicabs, and buses. All they need is to train these drivers for a new system, w/ the cooperation of LTO that should have been educating and producing much better drivers that didn't go through dishonesties when it comes to issuing their licences.

[systematica]

Originally Posted by bustero

These figures are somewhat misleading. Capital costs for Light Rail usually include the trains, whereas capital costs for a "Busway" do not include the cost of the buses.

Also, operating costs per passenger are higher with BRT. If the system is to operate at constant capacity, as I'm sure it would in Metro Manila, LRT is still cheaper in the long run.

BRT is great for suburban settings where rapid transit use is mostly periodic. This allows the BRT system to gear up and wind down on demand. It is great for cities where rush hour is only a couple of hours each morning and afternoon.

I live in a city that, after 25 years of experimenting with BRT, we are finally and thankfully getting ready to move on to Light Rail. There is near consensus that Light Rail is better for the urban sections and that BRT will be limited to the suburbs.

I could see BRT routes emanating from LRT nodes in Manila. It would be good to have some order and discipline to transit modes in the outer areas of the metropolis.

[bustero]

I agree those figures are fairly generalized and may not reflect costs accurately.One reason the chart above was presented was that way was that one key success factor in many third world cities was the fact that many lines were privately run by bus companies and that if the city were to provide the bus ways the companies would then alter their bus to conform with the system. This way key stakeholders would support the initiative and the total budget would actually go down.

I do believe those that most everyone here can agree that total system costs on a per kilometer basis on the capital side will have a difference of multiples from a bus to a rail based system. For sure the running costs of BRT would be higher.

The question that needs to be address is will the overall increased variable expense offset the capital differences after it's been properly amortized so that a complete total cost of ownership can be an apples to apples comparison. Specially for most developing nations it seems that way. The more succesfull BRT systems worldwide do not run at a deficit compared with typical rail based systems.

In general choice of mass transport is as much a discussion on fiscal policy as it is on it's pure technoeconomics. For gov'ts with severely limited budgets where should it spend it's money is a key consideration, hence faced with transportation needs cost benefit analysis beyond pure economic measures (things like social costs, quality of life, etc) may be applied. So even if BRT is not the most efficient, because the GOP can't afford to put all it's money in building rail lines, it still may make sense just because it can put it address the mass transport issue with less money allowing it to allocate bigger shares for other needed programs.

[urbanodelacruz]

Originally Posted by systematica

These figures are somewhat misleading. Capital costs for Light Rail usually include the trains, whereas capital costs for a "Busway" do not include the cost of the buses.

Also, operating costs per passenger are higher with BRT. If the system is to operate at constant capacity, as I'm sure it would in Metro Manila, LRT is still cheaper in the long run.

BRT is great for suburban settings where rapid transit use is mostly periodic. This allows the BRT system to gear up and wind down on demand. It is great for cities where rush hour is only a couple of hours each morning and afternoon.

I live in a city that, after 25 years of experimenting with BRT, we are finally and thankfully getting ready to move on to Light Rail. There is near consensus that Light Rail is better for the urban sections and that BRT will be limited to the suburbs.

I could see BRT routes emanating from LRT nodes in Manila. It would be good to have some order and discipline to transit modes in the outer areas of the metropolis.

Systematica, Ottawa's experience is not exactly a good analog for Metro Manila. For one, your city's population is a scant 1.1M for the metro -and that's spread over 5300km2, so you're BRT is trying to service densities of 200/km2. e.g. you do get higher service costs per passenger because there are so few of them to serve.

Compare that to the densities in cities where BRT have been unqualified successes:

• Mexico City: 5700/km2
• Bogota: 3900/km2
• Jakarta: 12600/km2
• Curitiba: 3200/km2

So Metro Manila falls in line nicely at 17,400/km2.

Secondly, the suburban spread of Ottawa-Gatineau is ten times that of Metro Manila's 640km2. So rubber-on-road operating costs are definitely higher.

UDC

[systematica]

Originally Posted by urbanodelacruz

Systematica, Ottawa's experience is not exactly a good analog for Metro Manila. For one, your city's population is a scant 1.1M for the metro -and that's spread over 5300km2, so you're BRT is trying to service densities of 200/km2. e.g. you do get higher service costs per passenger because there are so few of them to serve.

Compare that to the densities in cities where BRT have been unqualified successes:

• Mexico City: 5700/km2
• Bogota: 3900/km2
• Jakarta: 12600/km2
• Curitiba: 3200/km2

So Metro Manila falls in line nicely at 17,400/km2.

Secondly, the suburban spread of Ottawa-Gatineau is ten times that of Metro Manila's 640km2. So rubber-on-road operating costs are definitely higher.

UDC

While the figures might show that Ottawa is not dense, again it is a misinterpretation of statistics. The city's area is 4/5 rural, so in reality, about 700,000 people live in an area of 560 km2. That's an urban density of 1250 km2. Not that impressive, but we do not all live in acre-sized lots.

In fact I would argue that BRT was actually successful here when the city had less people. Despite modest growth, we've outgrown our BRT system in about 25 years.

I can see BRT working in Manila if it is implemented on a wide scale, carving out right-of-ways along every major radial avenue out of the city. Finding space will be quite difficult as the stations do take up space to be successful. With the volumes involved the stations will need to accommodate a large number of buses. Also a huge part of the traffic problem in Manila is in the intersections — i don't know how you would avoid these short of building an untold amount of fly-overs.

[IndioBravo]

Tuesday March 11,Jeepney strike.Observe our streets.This will show how passenger jeepneys actually contribute to the horrendous traffic.You will see how clear our streets are without them.But if what the jeepney assoc. are saying is true ( Traffic enforcers having quotas and earning from it,then it is unfair.)

[Manila-X]

Everybody hate jeepneys but I like them. As I said it before and I'll say it once again, Jeepneys are a Filipino symbol. Jeepneys are some of those that gives Manila a character