Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

[RonnieR]

This is a very good project.

[bustero]

Ayun, if Manila will not lead the way then let Cebu or even Davao do it. Perhaps we can get better results from an enlightened leadership in the secondary metro's!

[bustero]

Looks like those progressive cebuano's are moving faster, good news.

Bus transit system to be tackled
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/ceb...icle_id=117355
By Doris C. Bongcac
Cebu Daily News
First Posted 12:11pm (Mla time) 02/07/2008

Representatives from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are arriving in Cebu today to meet with City officials and discuss the possibility of establishing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system here.

But Mayor Tomas Osmeña said that the visit does not promise anything yet.

He could only hope that the ADB representatives would decide to help the city government fund the conduct of a feasibility study and prepare the engineering plans for the BRT which Osmeña wanted established along the northern corridor.

Mayor Osmeña has long dreamed of having a BRT system here, which he will pattern from the BRT system model in Curitiva in Brazil.

Under the BRT system, the Cebu City government will allow buses to ply major city roads like Governor Cuenco Avenue as an alternative mode of transportation.

The BRT system is considered one solution to ease traffic congestion in the city.

City Planning and Development Officer Nigel Paul Villarete said that the city government may test the operation of a BRT in two major routes: along the Banilad-Talamban Road and in the vicinity of the Central Business District.

Another possibility is to have a BRT as a means of transportation around the 300-hectare South Road Properties.

Villarete said that “we have to conduct a feasibility study first before we can solicit help for funding (for the establishment of the BRT system here).”

Villarete said that the city only has a vehicle alighting survey along the Banilad Road.

Mayor Osmeña, Villarete, Councilor Sylvan Jakosalem and City Traffic Operations and Management (Citom) executive director Arnel Tancinco were in Manila on Monday and Tuesday to attend a seminar by ADB and World Bank.

The possibility of establishing BRTs in third world countries like the Philippines was discussed during the two-day seminar.

Osmeña said there is a possibility that ADB will help the city come up with a feasibility study and engineering details of the BRT that he wanted established along the seven kilometer stretch of the Governor Cuenco Avenue that traverses barangay Banilad and Talamban.

He said that funding for the establishment of a BRT, system may also come from the World Bank or any private sector partner.

Osmeña said that operating a BRT which may be done within the next two years, would require at least P100 million, which already includes the purchases of buses and other needed equipment.

Despite the city's plan to operate a BRT, Jakosalem said he will make sure that the PUJs will not be taken from city roads.

Osmeña said that he would also try to minimize dislocation of PUJs.

But BRTs will also be given priority along the four-lane Governor Cuenco Avenue a means of transportation as compared with private car



Heavy traffic begins at Gov. Cuenco Ave.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/ceb...icle_id=116886
By Doris C. Bongcac, Jolene Bulambot
Cebu Daily News
First Posted 12:52pm (Mla time) 02/05/2008

CEBU CITY, Philippines - Unlike the first three days, heavy traffic congestion started to be felt along the flyover construction site in Governor Cuenco Avenue in Banilad on Monday.

A “no fault zone” was declared on a portion of the construction site on Monday to ensure the continuous flow of traffic in the area.

This means that traffic enforcers are ordered to strictly implement the traffic rules within the designated area.

Public utility jeepneys were barred from loading and unloading passengers along the at least 200-meter stretch from the vicinity of Foodland to Gaisano Country Mall.

Still, traffic was heavy from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Monday.

Agustinito Hermoso, legal officer of Department of Public Works and Highways in Central Visayas (DPWH-7), said the inconvenience may be severed when WTG Construction starts the actual construction in a few days.

Portions of the construction site were sometimes closed to traffic Monday when the DPWH and the contractor's engineers conducted the preliminary works.

With the implementation of the “no fault zone” policy, public transportation was required to load and unload passengers at the Country Mall pocket lane.

Commuters, who wanted to transact business within the construction site, were complaining.

“Layo na kaayo mi ug lakawon kay dili man mi panaugon diha. Naa man untay PUJ stop diha dapita (We had to endure a long walk because jeepneys are not allowed to unload passengers near the construction site when there is supposedly a PUJ stop in the area),” said one commuter.

Citom enforcers explained to the affected drivers and passengers that they were only following the instructions given by their superiors.

Jesselito Baring, who lives near the construction site, asked President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to move the project implementation during the summer months.

He said other affected residents should band together and support the call of the Cebu Business Club for a postponement.

“We are asking the President to cancel the project kay we don't believe that it is the solution of the problem. There are a lot of people who are already supportive of this move asking the President to intervene,” he said.

He said the recommendation of Dr. Primitivo Cal to widen the roads was more acceptable than the flyover.

But Hermoso said that unless DPWH central office issues a suspension order, the implementation will push through as scheduled.

They will also go on with the planned acquisition of at least 21 parcels of land needed to establish a service road that will expand the two outer lanes of the avenue near the construction site.

Hermoso said that DPWH-7 gave the lot owners seven days to present proof of ownership of the affected properties for the release of compensation.

In the meantime, Mayor Tomas Osmeña led a four-man delegation for a two-day discussion on the viability of putting up a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in urban centers in the country.

The seminar, which would end Tuesday and was organized by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, was participated in by local officials from Metro Manila and Davao.

“There is a general sentiment to already upgrade our existing transport systems and apply it to the needs of time,” Villarete said.

He said they would also want to take advantage of the seminar to solicit the help of the World Bank in putting up a BRT in Cebu City.

They wanted the system tested especially along the city's northern corridor.

But a feasibility study will be conducted to determine the viability of the BRT along the Banilad-Talamban areas.

Until then, the city government will adopt more immediate measures that include the construction of a flyover to address congestion in the area. /With reports from Correspondent Chris A. Ligan
CEBU CITY, Philippines - Unlike the first three days, heavy traffic congestion started to be felt along the flyover construction site in Governor Cuenco Avenue in Banilad on Monday.

A “no fault zone” was declared on a portion of the construction site on Monday to ensure the continuous flow of traffic in the area.

This means that traffic enforcers are ordered to strictly implement the traffic rules within the designated area.

Public utility jeepneys were barred from loading and unloading passengers along the at least 200-meter stretch from the vicinity of Foodland to Gaisano Country Mall.

Still, traffic was heavy from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Monday.

Agustinito Hermoso, legal officer of Department of Public Works and Highways in Central Visayas (DPWH-7), said the inconvenience may be severed when WTG Construction starts the actual construction in a few days.

Portions of the construction site were sometimes closed to traffic Monday when the DPWH and the contractor's engineers conducted the preliminary works.

With the implementation of the “no fault zone” policy, public transportation was required to load and unload passengers at the Country Mall pocket lane.

Commuters, who wanted to transact business within the construction site, were complaining.

“Layo na kaayo mi ug lakawon kay dili man mi panaugon diha. Naa man untay PUJ stop diha dapita (We had to endure a long walk because jeepneys are not allowed to unload passengers near the construction site when there is supposedly a PUJ stop in the area),” said one commuter.

Citom enforcers explained to the affected drivers and passengers that they were only following the instructions given by their superiors.

Jesselito Baring, who lives near the construction site, asked President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to move the project implementation during the summer months.

He said other affected residents should band together and support the call of the Cebu Business Club for a postponement.

“We are asking the President to cancel the project kay we don't believe that it is the solution of the problem. There are a lot of people who are already supportive of this move asking the President to intervene,” he said.

He said the recommendation of Dr. Primitivo Cal to widen the roads was more acceptable than the flyover.

But Hermoso said that unless DPWH central office issues a suspension order, the implementation will push through as scheduled.

They will also go on with the planned acquisition of at least 21 parcels of land needed to establish a service road that will expand the two outer lanes of the avenue near the construction site.

Hermoso said that DPWH-7 gave the lot owners seven days to present proof of ownership of the affected properties for the release of compensation.

In the meantime, Mayor Tomas Osmeña led a four-man delegation for a two-day discussion on the viability of putting up a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in urban centers in the country.

The seminar, which would end Tuesday and was organized by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, was participated in by local officials from Metro Manila and Davao.

“There is a general sentiment to already upgrade our existing transport systems and apply it to the needs of time,” Villarete said.

He said they would also want to take advantage of the seminar to solicit the help of the World Bank in putting up a BRT in Cebu City.

They wanted the system tested especially along the city's northern corridor.

But a feasibility study will be conducted to determine the viability of the BRT along the Banilad-Talamban areas.

Until then, the city government will adopt more immediate measures that include the construction of a flyover to address congestion in the area. /With reports from Correspondent Chris A. Ligan

[flymordecai]

Originally Posted by bustero

Ayun, if Manila will not lead the way then let Cebu or even Davao do it. Perhaps we can get better results from an enlightened leadership in the secondary metro's!

Yeah, if Cebu or Davao will do it...it's likely that MM will follow suit.

[barrera_marquez]

It will be useful in Cebu and in Davao but will be a totally useless crap in Metro Manila since we do not have space to create special lanes for them and we already have LRT/MRT, let's just continue what we have started in rapid transit. Maybe a rubber-tyre metro could satisfy our needs here in MM.

[nayki]

Kung ganito kaluwag ang mga kalsada sa metro manila na lalagyan ng BRT walang problema.. Kaso di na applicable sa mga major roads ng manila ang BRT dahil masyadong maliliit.

[barrera_marquez]

that's commonwealth avenue right? you do not know how bad it is to travel in that road during rush hour! not to mention may gumagala raw na multo riyan. at saka tatayuan iyan ng MRT line 3. bakit mo pa lalagyan ng BRT?

In a gamma world city like Manila, BRTs would just add a burden to the city's expenses since LRT and MRT systems are already planned since Marcos regime. Here is the map:

[nayki]

Di ko naman sinabi na dapat lagyan ng BRT ang Commonwealth, ang sabi ko kung ganyan lang sana kaluwag ang mga kalsada sa metro manila baka applicable pa ang BRT

[barrera_marquez]

Originally Posted by nayki

Di ko naman sinabi na dapat lagyan ng BRT ang Commonwealth, ang sabi ko kung ganyan lang sana kaluwag ang mga kalsada sa metro manila baka applicable pa ang BRT

sorry.

pero yung mga maluluwag na kalsada ay endanged na sa metro manila kasi sa mga sidewalk vendors.

[nayki]

peace bro

Oo nga kaya nga tama lang ginagawa ni Bayani na linisan ang mga kasada sa mga vendors at iba pang obstruction para makabawas ng heavy traffic.

[kratos1211]

Make the buses stay and use the yellow lane on EDSA properly and fall inline in the terminals, no overtaking. parang BRT system na rin.

[barrera_marquez]

Originally Posted by kratos1211

Make the buses stay and use the yellow lane on EDSA properly and fall inline in the terminals, no overtaking. parang BRT system na rin.

problema: yung mga bus, BUStos kaya sila.

[bustero]

Actually Manila needs to BRT much more than the secondary cities.

One first needs to take a look at the MM transport needs from a systemic basis and not a traffic paradigm. Traffic bothers us all but in the end the focus on kph averages on roads does not give a true picture of how many people are actually moving on them from point a to point b. The more appropriate measure is to see how much time the whole population takes for their usual commute times. This very much includes walking, rail, tricycles, buses, cars etc. Most measurements for traffic are have an automobile bias, and in this society only a fraction get to use this manner of conveyance. So kph per hour captures only one aspect of overall commuter problems. Now regardless of technology let's say we apply the idea of getting the most people from one place to the other in big volumes in the quickest amount of time possible. It does not take much common sense to realize that Using mass transit which can carry 100 people in one direction is more efficient than 50 to 100 cars going in the same direction. In other words quicker mass transit should be higher priority over plain simple fast moving traffic.

Now take this to Metro Manila, even if you close of certain parts of the road like commonwealth or C5 or EDSA exclusively to an MRT or some other form of mass transit, most people will agree this is a better deal and a public good.

Take it one step further, we know there are at least 4 more lines of rail being planned. Line 4, Line 5, Line 7 and Line 8. How many are actually on the ground, maybe line 7, maybe. Now look at the economics, More than billion for Line 7 rather than perhaps 100 Million for something similar. As a taxpayer would you not ask questions! Even more importantly how fast will these four lines ever come up to begin with. It takes years of complex legal, financial, engineering to come up with these things. In the meantime the need is here and now so that City planners can actually determine the shape the city to come. I'd say put it on now, if other cities can have 100 km of lines in a few years so can we and we can then address the real commuter transportation issues rather than viewing it strictly from a traffic standpoint.



Here's a very good article on the how's and why's very applicable arguments for here as well.


High capacity bus system and the road beyond

Madhav G. Badami

Bus Rapid Transit systems, like those being implemented in Delhi and other cities, can carry significantly far more people than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many as some rail systems. By using road space efficiently and with minimal conflicts between modes, these systems can help meet mass mobility needs cost-effectively, safely, and equitably.

The HCBS (High Capacity Bus System) project being constructed in Delhi has recently been criticised in the press. Among other things, concerns have been raised about its implications for the flow of motor vehicles along the same corridor, but most importantly, the concept of HCBS, and its appropriateness in cities like Delhi, has been questioned.

Actually, more than 30 cities across Asia and Latin America, including those with large populations such as Beijing, Jakarta, Shanghai, and Mexico City, have implemented, or are implementing, such systems (Beijing intends to have a 100-kilometre network soon). But my purpose is to address the appropriateness of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — the term used internationally for HCBS — in Indian cities. Per-capita income, and with it, personal motor vehicle ownership and activity, are growing rapidly in these cities but the majority is poor, and cannot afford even the least expensive motorised modes. The share of trips conducted by public transit, despite its sorry state, continues to be high. Public transit that is reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread is vitally important in Indian cities, because low-income commuters will likely continue to depend on it for their economic survival, and also to curb personal motor vehicle use and mitigate its impacts.

While some Indian cities are implementing or considering Metro and other rail-based mass transit projects, it will be several years before they become fully operational, and most cities — particularly the medium sized ones — will have to rely predominantly on buses for their public transport needs for a long time. Besides, even when systems such as Metro (which cost over $40 million per km to build) are implemented in their entirety, they are unlikely to significantly reduce motor vehicle activity. Because of the high cost per km, the overall network is necessarily quite circumscribed. Further, because the bulk of urban trips are conducted over short and medium distances, and the time to access mass transit is relative to the journey time for these trips, the number of motor vehicle owning commuters who would use such a circumscribed network is likely to be quite limited, relative to the total number of motor vehicle users in rapidly growing and motorising metropolitan regions.

The potential to attract such commuters is further constrained in the case of Metro systems in Indian cities because, while fares have to be high in order to recoup their costs, motorised two-wheeled vehicles, the bulk of the motor vehicle fleet, offer their highly price-sensitive users door-to-door capability, unmatched navigability in congested road conditions and ease of parking, and the ability to carry passengers and luggage, at low cost. It is therefore far more likely that these vehicle users can be attracted to buses, provided they offer quality service at a reasonable price, than to expensive options such as the Metro. Besides, feeder buses will in any case be needed for Metro and other rail-based systems to be effective.

But buses, important as they are for affordably meeting mass mobility needs, perform inefficiently in congested, mixed traffic. This is precisely where BRT comes in. BRT systems like those being implemented in Delhi and other Asian and Latin American cities, by having buses run in dedicated lanes in the central median, and passengers board and alight rapidly, can potentially carry significantly far more people per hour than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many per hour as some rail systems. This enhanced effectiveness is important for existing users and also for attracting personal motor vehicle owning commuters. Not only that, because BRT systems involve buses, personal motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians using road space with minimal conflicts with one another, in their own lanes, all modes are able to operate more efficiently, therefore potentially allowing the movement of a significantly higher number of people per hour overall, while also causing vehicular energy consumption, air pollution, and accident rates, to be significantly reduced.

As importantly, BRT systems are significantly less expensive than equivalent rail-based mass transit — Bogota’s BRT cost about one-seventh per km relative to Mexico City’s Line B Metro, while providing the same passenger capacity. This comparison of the actual performance and cost-effectiveness of equivalent BRT and Metro in similar contexts shows that a far more widespread network, potentially serving more passengers, may be provided with BRT than with Metro, with the same investment. Also, BRT can be constructed and expanded more readily and flexibly, using existing road infrastructure. BRT systems are therefore ideally suited, when properly designed and implemented, to be low cost mass transit solutions that are appropriate for Indian and other rapidly motorising, low-income country cities. Of course, rail-based mass transit can play an important role in certain circumstances, as in Mumbai. And where rail-based mass transit is being built, as in Delhi, such systems and BRT can, and should, be designed to complement each other.

Important as mass transit options are, measures to curb personal motor vehicle activity and ensuring access for pedestrians and cyclists are also essential, for mitigating rapidly worsening urban transport impacts, but also to ensure that mass transit is effective. Mass transit will do little to curb vehicular congestion and other impacts unless it attracts personal motor vehicle users in sizeable numbers. It cannot do so as long as transit is less time advantageous than personal motor vehicle use, and the monetary and time cost of personal motor vehicle use is low. This is why the provision of mass transit has to go hand in hand with policies to price personal motor vehicle use to cover its market if not its social costs, and to discourage their use. While such policies would be unacceptable without providing adequate quality mass transit, mass transit will not be truly effective without measures to curb motor vehicle activity.

In this regard, one aspect of motor vehicle use that needs serious attention in Indian cities is parking. Studies worldwide have shown that parking availability and pricing are a major determinant of automobile use. As long as parking is abundant, and priced low or is free, the perceived cost of driving will be low, and personal motor vehicle users will have little incentive to even consider mass transit, high quality though it may be. Parking control and pricing will be difficult to implement, especially for two-wheeled motor vehicles, which can be parked easily anywhere, but it would help curb motor vehicle use, render mass transit more attractive and serve as a means of funding it, and make traffic flow more efficient for all modes. Implementation difficulties may be eased by carefully phasing in the supply of parking, and its control and pricing, simultaneously with expanding reliable, convenient and affordable mass transit.

Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists is so compromised, due to rapid motorisation and provision of infrastructure to accommodate it, that walking and cycling have become extremely difficult and hazardous; pedestrians and cyclists account for the majority of road accident deaths, although they contribute the least to them. Providing adequate facilities for these modes is not only just in Indian cities, in which the majority does not own personal motor vehicles, it will also benefit mass transit. Because of compromised access, even short trips, which account for a large proportion of all trips, and are the most capable of being conducted on foot or bicycle, are made in personal motor vehicles, needlessly increasing congestion and other impacts, and making it less likely that mass transit will be considered, given that the ease of getting to it is crucially important in this regard.

It is imperative that, in addition to providing reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread mass transit, we appropriately price and curb personal motor vehicle use, and provide for pedestrians and cyclists. These measures, which would enhance the effectiveness of mass transit, mitigate urban transport impacts, and serve the interests of all, including personal motor vehicle users, will admittedly be difficult — politically, if not technically — but must be implemented if we want our cities to be liveable. Not to do so is to take the fast road to collective misery, as much for personal motor vehicle users as for everyone else.

(Madhav Badami teaches in the School of Urban Planning and the McGill School of Environment at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.)

http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/05/stor...0553611000.htm

[barrera_marquez]

Originally Posted by bustero

Actually Manila needs to BRT much more than the secondary cities.

One first needs to take a look at the MM transport needs from a systemic basis and not a traffic paradigm. Traffic bothers us all but in the end the focus on kph averages on roads does not give a true picture of how many people are actually moving on them from point a to point b. The more appropriate measure is to see how much time the whole population takes for their usual commute times. This very much includes walking, rail, tricycles, buses, cars etc. Most measurements for traffic are have an automobile bias, and in this society only a fraction get to use this manner of conveyance. So kph per hour captures only one aspect of overall commuter problems. Now regardless of technology let's say we apply the idea of getting the most people from one place to the other in big volumes in the quickest amount of time possible. It does not take much common sense to realize that Using mass transit which can carry 100 people in one direction is more efficient than 50 to 100 cars going in the same direction. In other words quicker mass transit should be higher priority over plain simple fast moving traffic.

Now take this to Metro Manila, even if you close of certain parts of the road like commonwealth or C5 or EDSA exclusively to an MRT or some other form of mass transit, most people will agree this is a better deal and a public good.

Take it one step further, we know there are at least 4 more lines of rail being planned. Line 4, Line 5, Line 7 and Line 8. How many are actually on the ground, maybe line 7, maybe. Now look at the economics, More than billion for Line 7 rather than perhaps 100 Million for something similar. As a taxpayer would you not ask questions! Even more importantly how fast will these four lines ever come up to begin with. It takes years of complex legal, financial, engineering to come up with these things. In the meantime the need is here and now so that City planners can actually determine the shape the city to come. I'd say put it on now, if other cities can have 100 km of lines in a few years so can we and we can then address the real commuter transportation issues rather than viewing it strictly from a traffic standpoint.



Here's a very good article on the how's and why's very applicable arguments for here as well.


High capacity bus system and the road beyond

Madhav G. Badami

Bus Rapid Transit systems, like those being implemented in Delhi and other cities, can carry significantly far more people than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many as some rail systems. By using road space efficiently and with minimal conflicts between modes, these systems can help meet mass mobility needs cost-effectively, safely, and equitably.

The HCBS (High Capacity Bus System) project being constructed in Delhi has recently been criticised in the press. Among other things, concerns have been raised about its implications for the flow of motor vehicles along the same corridor, but most importantly, the concept of HCBS, and its appropriateness in cities like Delhi, has been questioned.

Actually, more than 30 cities across Asia and Latin America, including those with large populations such as Beijing, Jakarta, Shanghai, and Mexico City, have implemented, or are implementing, such systems (Beijing intends to have a 100-kilometre network soon). But my purpose is to address the appropriateness of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — the term used internationally for HCBS — in Indian cities. Per-capita income, and with it, personal motor vehicle ownership and activity, are growing rapidly in these cities but the majority is poor, and cannot afford even the least expensive motorised modes. The share of trips conducted by public transit, despite its sorry state, continues to be high. Public transit that is reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread is vitally important in Indian cities, because low-income commuters will likely continue to depend on it for their economic survival, and also to curb personal motor vehicle use and mitigate its impacts.

While some Indian cities are implementing or considering Metro and other rail-based mass transit projects, it will be several years before they become fully operational, and most cities — particularly the medium sized ones — will have to rely predominantly on buses for their public transport needs for a long time. Besides, even when systems such as Metro (which cost over $40 million per km to build) are implemented in their entirety, they are unlikely to significantly reduce motor vehicle activity. Because of the high cost per km, the overall network is necessarily quite circumscribed. Further, because the bulk of urban trips are conducted over short and medium distances, and the time to access mass transit is relative to the journey time for these trips, the number of motor vehicle owning commuters who would use such a circumscribed network is likely to be quite limited, relative to the total number of motor vehicle users in rapidly growing and motorising metropolitan regions.

The potential to attract such commuters is further constrained in the case of Metro systems in Indian cities because, while fares have to be high in order to recoup their costs, motorised two-wheeled vehicles, the bulk of the motor vehicle fleet, offer their highly price-sensitive users door-to-door capability, unmatched navigability in congested road conditions and ease of parking, and the ability to carry passengers and luggage, at low cost. It is therefore far more likely that these vehicle users can be attracted to buses, provided they offer quality service at a reasonable price, than to expensive options such as the Metro. Besides, feeder buses will in any case be needed for Metro and other rail-based systems to be effective.

But buses, important as they are for affordably meeting mass mobility needs, perform inefficiently in congested, mixed traffic. This is precisely where BRT comes in. BRT systems like those being implemented in Delhi and other Asian and Latin American cities, by having buses run in dedicated lanes in the central median, and passengers board and alight rapidly, can potentially carry significantly far more people per hour than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many per hour as some rail systems. This enhanced effectiveness is important for existing users and also for attracting personal motor vehicle owning commuters. Not only that, because BRT systems involve buses, personal motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians using road space with minimal conflicts with one another, in their own lanes, all modes are able to operate more efficiently, therefore potentially allowing the movement of a significantly higher number of people per hour overall, while also causing vehicular energy consumption, air pollution, and accident rates, to be significantly reduced.

As importantly, BRT systems are significantly less expensive than equivalent rail-based mass transit — Bogota’s BRT cost about one-seventh per km relative to Mexico City’s Line B Metro, while providing the same passenger capacity. This comparison of the actual performance and cost-effectiveness of equivalent BRT and Metro in similar contexts shows that a far more widespread network, potentially serving more passengers, may be provided with BRT than with Metro, with the same investment. Also, BRT can be constructed and expanded more readily and flexibly, using existing road infrastructure. BRT systems are therefore ideally suited, when properly designed and implemented, to be low cost mass transit solutions that are appropriate for Indian and other rapidly motorising, low-income country cities. Of course, rail-based mass transit can play an important role in certain circumstances, as in Mumbai. And where rail-based mass transit is being built, as in Delhi, such systems and BRT can, and should, be designed to complement each other.

Important as mass transit options are, measures to curb personal motor vehicle activity and ensuring access for pedestrians and cyclists are also essential, for mitigating rapidly worsening urban transport impacts, but also to ensure that mass transit is effective. Mass transit will do little to curb vehicular congestion and other impacts unless it attracts personal motor vehicle users in sizeable numbers. It cannot do so as long as transit is less time advantageous than personal motor vehicle use, and the monetary and time cost of personal motor vehicle use is low. This is why the provision of mass transit has to go hand in hand with policies to price personal motor vehicle use to cover its market if not its social costs, and to discourage their use. While such policies would be unacceptable without providing adequate quality mass transit, mass transit will not be truly effective without measures to curb motor vehicle activity.

In this regard, one aspect of motor vehicle use that needs serious attention in Indian cities is parking. Studies worldwide have shown that parking availability and pricing are a major determinant of automobile use. As long as parking is abundant, and priced low or is free, the perceived cost of driving will be low, and personal motor vehicle users will have little incentive to even consider mass transit, high quality though it may be. Parking control and pricing will be difficult to implement, especially for two-wheeled motor vehicles, which can be parked easily anywhere, but it would help curb motor vehicle use, render mass transit more attractive and serve as a means of funding it, and make traffic flow more efficient for all modes. Implementation difficulties may be eased by carefully phasing in the supply of parking, and its control and pricing, simultaneously with expanding reliable, convenient and affordable mass transit.

Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists is so compromised, due to rapid motorisation and provision of infrastructure to accommodate it, that walking and cycling have become extremely difficult and hazardous; pedestrians and cyclists account for the majority of road accident deaths, although they contribute the least to them. Providing adequate facilities for these modes is not only just in Indian cities, in which the majority does not own personal motor vehicles, it will also benefit mass transit. Because of compromised access, even short trips, which account for a large proportion of all trips, and are the most capable of being conducted on foot or bicycle, are made in personal motor vehicles, needlessly increasing congestion and other impacts, and making it less likely that mass transit will be considered, given that the ease of getting to it is crucially important in this regard.

It is imperative that, in addition to providing reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread mass transit, we appropriately price and curb personal motor vehicle use, and provide for pedestrians and cyclists. These measures, which would enhance the effectiveness of mass transit, mitigate urban transport impacts, and serve the interests of all, including personal motor vehicle users, will admittedly be difficult — politically, if not technically — but must be implemented if we want our cities to be liveable. Not to do so is to take the fast road to collective misery, as much for personal motor vehicle users as for everyone else.

(Madhav Badami teaches in the School of Urban Planning and the McGill School of Environment at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.)

http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/05/stor...0553611000.htm

these lines are put for more efficiency, mas maganda kasi ang mga rapid transit sa Metro manila kasi maraming tao ang kinakailangang bumiyahe, isa pa, trapik na at wala na ngang pwesto, lalo pa nating palalalain ang sitwasyon. Sobra-sobra na ang sakripisyo ng mga motorista, sa langis, sa trapik, at pati sa kotong. So I say, let the BRT be deployed in Cebu and Davao instead since hindi raw magiging profitable ang LRT/MRT doon unlike Manila.

Anyways, we pay taxes for good services, not for stripped-down services like BRT. Agree pa ako sa rubber-tire metro pero sa BRT in Manila. Why do we need them here if they are needed more in other cities? Problema na ang trapik sa masikip na daan, lalo lang nating palalalain kapag naglagay pa tayo niyan.

para masaya, may ipapakita ako sa inyo:

[IndioBravo]

I think you are missing the point,Metro Manila needs a "comprehensive" mass transport system.BRT is one of the options as it is cheaper to implement.Mass transport means for everyone,from people who can't afford cars to people who inspite of their physical disability need to have normal lives and be able to travel with ease.BRT can provide this basic need, which is still not being provided by politicians.If people on their own cars get caught in the traffic because they were affected by BRT? Tough! Then they just have to deal with it,for BRT's are basically made for the majority of the people who can't afford to but their own cars(which most of the people in the metro are anyway).

[barrera_marquez]

Originally Posted by IndioBravo

I think you are missing the point,Metro Manila needs a "comprehensive" mass transport system.BRT is one of the options as it is cheaper to implement.Mass transport means for everyone,from people who can't afford cars to people who inspite of their physical disability need to have normal lives and be able to travel with ease.BRT can provide this basic need, which is still not being provided by politicians.If people on their own cars get caught in the traffic because they were affected by BRT? Tough! Then they just have to deal with it,for BRT's are basically made for the majority of the people who can't afford to but their own cars(which most of the people in the metro are anyway).

hindi pa ba comprehensive ang LRT/MRT, kalat na nga ang network nila kahit hindi pa buo ang network nito.

[IndioBravo]

Copy you mate!But if you live in Manila you will know that mass transport system is`one of the basic needs that is basically forgotten by the politicians we have.I'm sorry to say that LRT/MRT's though they are of great help,still fails to do it's job because of it's limited lines.And we need mass transport NOW! BRT's can fill that gap.But at the end of the day,no matter how much we debate on this matter,one thing is for sure.Politicians in Metro Manila does not prioritize Mass Transpo,and because of this mentality the people who cannot afford to buy their own cars,most specially the poor old and disabled will continue to be transport outcasts.

[RonnieR]

Originally Posted by kratos1211

Make the buses stay and use the yellow lane on EDSA properly and fall inline in the terminals, no overtaking. parang BRT system na rin.

I beg to disagree. Have you seen the actual buses and operations of BRT? I have seen two cities with BRT. The buses are more modern compared to the ones that travel in Metro Manila. They are organized, with ticketing system similar to our LRT/MRT, bigger capacity for passengers, with exclusive lanes. The government should provide a comfortable mode of transportation to the greater majority of the people. The common tao would surely benefit this BRT.

I've seen BRT even in four lane road (two lane per side), thus it is applicable to secondary roads as well. If you noticed the map earlier presented (to the one who posted, thank you!), not all roads are covered with rail. I believe BRT would solve the problem and jeepneys (the symbol of 1950's) would be gone, and finally would enhance the look of Metro Manila and other major cities that would implement it.

[bustero]

I think one key idea that takes hold of people who are against BRT (or more bus lanes in general) is that Transport Planning is mostly about lessening traffic. This is taken from a mostly private motorist point of view where in if you take one more lane out of a road then there is less roads for you to drive in and hence more traffic. But if that one lane that has been taken out has some sort of mass transport System, be it rail or Bus, then it will probably transport more people in that lane than if it had been occupied by mostly private vehicles.

A good example of this is actually in front of our Eyes.

When MRT3 was being planned all the motoring and bus groups howled that the removal of a lane would create so much more traffic. Fast forward to today where that system (mrt3) actually is at a breaking point from overuse. It transports more in the two lanes it occupies than all of the other lanes put together and then some. Just imagine if they needed to ply by private car, FX, or bus. How much more traffic would actually occur!

The choice now between using rail based or Bus type systems for mass transit is primarily a matter of economics. What can you afford. We all know that the GOP is working on 4 rail based projects right now primarily serving MM. By all acounts this is not enough so do we wait for another 10 years or more probably more before we put up the next 10 to 15 lines that we actually need when there are other effective and practical alternatives such as BRT that exist? MM and the rest of the other cities does not have that luxury. We are all in a competition for investments to grow and infrastructure is a primary key to increase productivity which INvestors look at. We need such Mass transit systems NOW, ASAP.

[3cr]

I agree. I say let's have both. Why does it have to be either or? After all not all areas/cities/cbds are accessible to MRT/LRT. I do think BRT and MRT/LRT can co-exist and complement each other to reduce traffic as well as smog in our cities/cbds and we'll be better off in the process. Even better is we can use these new buses mentioned in the article Tyronne posted...

Originally Posted by tyronne

LTFRB: Old buses out, hybrids in
Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage...StoryId=115165



The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) will phase out old buses to give way to pollution free-hybrid units.

The LTFRB said the phase-out will be carried out this year on buses that are more than 15 years old.

"Buses that will not be used anymore will be bought for scrap by financing institutions and will be recycled. The money will then be used as deposit for new units," said LTFRB chairman Thompson Lantion, citing a directive from Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza.

Hybrid buses will be powered by electricity and compressed natural gas, making them safe from pollution.


China-made hybrid units will cost about P6 million each. These are the ones currently being used in the United States, China and Macau.

Bus operators said they can recover the amount from the oil which they will be able to save. They also said transportation fees may also go down with the new buses.

Officials said that an initial 200 units will be distributed to bus operators.

The Department of Transportation and Communications sees the hybrid bus as a solution to the increasing prices of petroleum products since it is powered by natural gas.

"This is cheaper. So if your fuel is cheaper, the driver will have a bigger take home pay," said DOTC Undersecretary Ann Lontoc.