daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 24th, 2014, 11:25 PM   #501
simval
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by blasll View Post
1. As a matter of fact Bogota has a lack of road infrastructure for the amount of cars running on them. Hence, you get huge traffic jams all over the city. It actually needs many more roads to cope with the ever increasing amount of cars.

2. The big roads weren't there, the city spent a significant amount of money expanding many of them in order to fit the system.

3. Colombia is a democracy, not an authoritarian state.

4. Inform yourself.
1- Bogota is dense, with a population around 7 millions. Nevertheless, it does have quite a few urban highways and large boulevards. I'd like to know of a 7-million city without traffic jams... cars are just completely space inefficient and will always create jams in large cities, no matter how much road you build.

2- The fact that they could build the Transmilenio and still have 2 to 4 lanes in each direction for cars shows that the roads they had prior to it were extremely wide.

3- You misunderstood. There are certain democracies in which the executive leaders have a lot of power, like in Colombia and most of Latin America, then there are democracies with a lot of checks and balances like the United States. When I said Bogota could do it because it was more authoritarian, that's what I meant, the mayor has a lot more power than mayors do in American cities.

4- I am always ready to admit faults in my knowledge when proven wrong, this isn't the case here.
__________________

NickABQ liked this post
simval no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 24th, 2014, 11:37 PM   #502
Motul
Oh Gloria Inaccesible
 
Motul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Guajira
Posts: 5,717
Likes (Received): 13974

Mayors have more power because they don't respond to the president, but in fact there are MANY checks and balances they have to keep.

As a matter of fact, Bogota's mayor was just forced out of office this last week and banned from political life for 15 years. Why? Because he managed the city waste disposal situation in an "inefficient way".
__________________
Follow those who are seeking for the truth, but run away from those who have found it

︷︸︸ ︷ ︸︷
︷︸



North South Cone, Best Cone.

Last edited by Motul; March 24th, 2014 at 11:49 PM.
Motul no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2014, 03:52 PM   #503
santy1401
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 191

Quote:
Originally Posted by simval View Post
1- Bogota is dense, with a population around 7 millions. Nevertheless, it does have quite a few urban highways and large boulevards. I'd like to know of a 7-million city without traffic jams... cars are just completely space inefficient and will always create jams in large cities, no matter how much road you build.

2- The fact that they could build the Transmilenio and still have 2 to 4 lanes in each direction for cars shows that the roads they had prior to it were extremely wide.

3- You misunderstood. There are certain democracies in which the executive leaders have a lot of power, like in Colombia and most of Latin America, then there are democracies with a lot of checks and balances like the United States. When I said Bogota could do it because it was more authoritarian, that's what I meant, the mayor has a lot more power than mayors do in American cities.

4- I am always ready to admit faults in my knowledge when proven wrong, this isn't the case here.

WTF.

Respectfully I tell you, "there are none so ignorant that he who ignores his own ignorance."
santy1401 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2014, 04:20 PM   #504
santy1401
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 191

Bogotá, Colombia- BRT

TransMilenio is a bus rapid transit system that serves Bogotá, the capital of Colombia. The system opened to the public in December 2000, covering Av. Caracas and Calle 80. Other lines have been added gradually over the next several years, and as of 2012, 12 lines totalling 112 km (70 mi) run throughout the city becoming the world's largest system of bus rapid transit.



image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

Subte station
__________________

TopWatch liked this post
santy1401 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2014, 05:48 PM   #505
twentyfivetacos
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 251
Likes (Received): 140


And I thought Brisbane's busway was a disaster.
twentyfivetacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2014, 10:10 PM   #506
ode of bund
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Shanghai-Edmonton, Places where ETBs are molested.
Posts: 228
Likes (Received): 70

Here is an image of BRT LRT side by side.

ode of bund no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 09:03 AM   #507
SurfRail
Yemeni Ambassador
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 3,857
Likes (Received): 1733

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAronymous View Post
Seperate bus lane ≠ BRT

According to me BRT can work well in developing nations, areas with an urban layout unsuitable for (above ground) rail transit and in regions where normal buses don't attract a lot of people but the cost for rail is too high. Also I am of the opinion BRT should be used supplementary, as a rail network should still be the main goal to be achieved.
Brisbane's network is definitely a bus rapid transit system by any measure. The bit photographed is just one element of the inner city, and not the most expensive bit.
SurfRail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 02:27 PM   #508
SgWay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,535
Likes (Received): 802

Malaysia is building its first BRT in the Selangor suburb of Sunway which will be 8km and connect the Seri Setia commuter train station to the future Kelana Jaya line LRT station at the suburb coded USJ6 with seven halts.

Total cost is about RM500 million with an expected completion date by early 2015.

The elevated BRt will use Chinese BYD K9 electric buses. 15 units have been ordered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
http://www.brtsunwayline.com/bus-rapid-tra...e-schematic-map

BRT Halt 1 (Interchange with KTM Setia Jaya station)



BRT Halt 2 (Sunway Mentari)



BRT Halt 3 (Connected to Sunway Pyramid via walkway)



BRT Halt 4 (Sunway Medical Centre)



BRT Halt 5 (Monash/Sunway Uni)



BRT Halt 6 (near Summit USJ)



BRT Halt 7 (Interchange with LRT station)

A BYD electric bus on trial in KL. 15 electric buses will ply the 8km elevated BRT track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darereek View Post

sources and credit to: http://chinaautoweb.com/blog1/wp-con...byd-k9-bus.jpg

Our ordered zero emission bus, look like a big angry cat!
The builder of the BRT line is a major developer company with interest in the Sunway suburb. They are footing Rm99 million for the cinstruction costl. They will also connect the BRT line to their flagship mall Sunway Pyramid by a rather extensive pedestrian bridge. The BRT will also be accessible to students at Sunway Collehe and Monash University in Sunway city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
Integration between Sunway Pyramid and BRT

Latest pics from Malaysia forums on 20th march

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
20/3/2014

Piers between Station 4 and 5



Depot and park & ride





Station 5, near Monash University



BRT viaducts between Station 5 and 6, towards USJ 6, as seen from Monash

SgWay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 02:42 PM   #509
SgWay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,535
Likes (Received): 802

The Malaysia Land Tramsport Commission is also planning a BRT corridor along the congested Federal highway connecting Kuala. Lumpur to the port city of Klang.

A feasibility study has been completed and submitted to secure possible financing from the federal government.

Expected is cost is RM1 billion but this is just an estimate.

Kuala. Lumpur is currently embarking in a massive MRT project and LRT extensiom. There is already a commuter service along the KL-Klang corridor and a new Kelana Jaya-Klang line plan has also been submitted, hence its unclear if the BRT or LRT will take priority. Some say the LRT is preferred albeit very expensive at RM8 billion as the BRT construction will definitely create chaos on the Federal Highway and proof unpopular with motorists.


Quote:



KUALA LUMPUR: A dual-carriageway bus rapid transit (BRT) system will operate between Kuala Lumpur and Klang on the Federal Highway, ensuring smooth and timely travel to and from the city.
"The technical studies for the project have been completed and is awaiting financial approval," Works Minister Datuk Fadillah Yusof told the New Sunday Times.
The new public transport system is expected to cut down travel time, especially during peak hours.
The BRT system will run on lanes separate from other traffic. It will ensure buses will never encounter congestion.
"It is not elevated, but will run along the highway," said Fadillah.
He added that the generous land reserves available on both sides of the highway were enough to build the bus lanes without reducing the size or number of lanes on the highway itself.
A BRT system uses conventional buses but runs on specially constructed infrastructure.
The system usually runs in the centre of the road or highway to reduce traffic delays.
Passengers would buy tickets at stations before boarding the bus, just like on the LRT.
BRT stations will be at the same level as the buses to save time and improve access to the bus.
BRT systems are being used in Jakarta, where it transports 350,000 passengers a day. In Istanbul, 800,000 people commute daily; in Curitiba, Brazil, 2.3 million passengers ride it daily; and, in Ghuangzhou, China, a million commuters are transported a day.
Fadillah said the government was emphasising public transport to relieve congestion.
Building more highways and roads would not solve traffic congestion as the number of cars on the roads kept increasing, he said.

Fadillah said public transport was the way forward for Malaysia's major cities.
The new transport system is expected to serve 2.76 million people in Klang, Shah Alam, Subang Jaya and Petaling Jaya.
source: New Straits Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
KL-Klang BRT

http://www.spad.gov.my/projects/2013...ntext=projects

Friday, 20 September 2013
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a specialized bus priority category. It is designed to accommodate the high level of demand for public transport by incorporating aspects of mass transit. This essentially means a rail-like service but deployed in a shorter timeframe, using far less resources and done at the fraction of the cost of establishing new rail services.

Main Features:
• Exclusive lanes on the Busway.
• Pre-boarding payment.
• Single system operator for revenues and payments – multiple bus operators with common ticketing.
• Closed/Open system on the Busway and at terminals and stations.
• High capacity buses.



Background
• One of the 11 initiatives under the NKRA-UPT, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) networks in Greater KL (GKL) initiative is being implemented by the Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD).
• SPAD has recognized 12 BRT corridors in Greater KL/Klang Valley Public Transport Master Plan-Draft (2010) under Bus Transformation Plan section.
• KL–Klang Corridor has been identified in KL BRT Report (2011) as one of the potential BRT Corridors and this BRT project is planned to be operational by 2016.



Examples of BRT Worldwide

• Bogota, Colombia


• Guangzhou, China


• Rouen, France


• Jakarta, Indonesia



Benefits of BRT:

• For operators BRT:
- Improves service performance.
- Improves service reliability.
- Improves in operation performance.
- Improve in service ridership.

• For the public:
- Shorter travel time.
- Better reliability and comfort.
- Better coverage and door-to-door service.
- Better bus and station amenities.
- Better lifestyle.
- Improved quality of life.

• For the government:
- A less expensive transit alternative.
- Quicker solution.
- Environmentally friendly.
- Operating flexibility.
- Increase transit ridership in select corridors.

Benefits of KL-Klang BRT:

• For operators:
- Operation speed average @45 kmph. Faster than mixed traffic.
- Frequency of 30 seconds, high capacity @ 14000 pphpd.

• For the public:
- Less delay in traveling with 50% improvement.
- More coverage (90%) & integration with other modes of transport.
- Metro-class stations, accessibility and connectivity.
- Better bus comfort and safety.
- Improved mobility & lifestyle for higher quality of life.

• For the government:
- Cheaper than rail (BRT @ RM25mil/km).
- Can be implemented by 2016, quick transit solution.
- Promotes green environment, urban wellness.
- Phased construction & staging, minimum service disruption.

BRT Hybrid Operation System
• Along Kl-Klang BRT corridors, 27 BRT stations are being planned.
• KL-Klang BRT corridor will adopt BRT hybrid operational system, applying both direct service and trunk-and-feeder system.


BRT Impact Assessment
• Do nothing is not an option. Less roads and more transit is the way forward.
• To curtail the increase in congestion along Federal Highway due to increased population in future years, by providing faster, safer, more comfortable, affordable and attractive public transport option.
• While BRT helps to manage traffic conditions (by implementing “push & pull” factors), it also helps the economy by reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emission and also minimizing travel time hence maximizing productivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK90 View Post
__________________
SgWay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2014, 09:03 PM   #510
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 17,229
Likes (Received): 11945

In Sao Paulo we also have an elevated BRT line called Expresso Tiradentes (formerly Fura-Fila), which derives from a long sad tragic series of failed plans in the 90s.







It was originally planned to use electric guided buses. The prototype was left to rot








during tests circa 1996





source




Last edited by mopc; March 26th, 2014 at 11:10 PM.
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 10:12 AM   #511
Blackraven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Makati (in the Philippines)
Posts: 2,294
Likes (Received): 234

image hosted on flickr


^
Yikes overcrowding

I think they need to reduce population or create additional modes of transport (i.e. underground/overground train)
__________________

SAS 16, geometarkv liked this post
Blackraven no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 06:34 PM   #512
simval
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackraven View Post
image hosted on flickr


^
Yikes overcrowding

I think they need to reduce population or create additional modes of transport (i.e. underground/overground train)
Another thing I notice about this is how unpleasant and inconvenient the station is for users. To get to the station or or get out of the station, you need to cross wide roads full of cars, which is done by using pedestrian bridges which take a lot of time to climb up and down.

I wonder how much time it takes to walk from the nearest building to the station, 3 minutes? 4 minutes? That has got to hurt the development potential in the vicinity of stations.

To be fair, that's not a problem unique to BRTs, it's a problem with all rapid transit systems using highway alignments, which is often very tempting to reduce construction costs. But highways and very large boulevards create barriers for urban developments, so building rapid transit lines alongside them necessarily means that the station is built on the periphery of neighborhoods and not in their middle, and that access to it is necessarily poor in some ways.
__________________

NickABQ, Klausenburg liked this post
simval no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 08:22 PM   #513
NickABQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Albuquerque, Denver
Posts: 604
Likes (Received): 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by simval View Post
Another thing I notice about this is how unpleasant and inconvenient the station is for users. To get to the station or or get out of the station, you need to cross wide roads full of cars, which is done by using pedestrian bridges which take a lot of time to climb up and down.

I wonder how much time it takes to walk from the nearest building to the station, 3 minutes? 4 minutes? That has got to hurt the development potential in the vicinity of stations.

To be fair, that's not a problem unique to BRTs, it's a problem with all rapid transit systems using highway alignments, which is often very tempting to reduce construction costs. But highways and very large boulevards create barriers for urban developments, so building rapid transit lines alongside them necessarily means that the station is built on the periphery of neighborhoods and not in their middle, and that access to it is necessarily poor in some ways.
My design team does a lot of TOD and transit planning here in Denver and that is probably the biggest challenge we face; the fact that our LRT system is located in the middle of highway ROWs. Development gets infinitely harder.

It may be less of an issue in cities where the focus of mass transit is less on TOD and more about moving critical masses of people. However, TOD and integrated transport infrastructure is still good urbanism and city-building.
__________________
YO SOY DE BURQUE!


I Love South Africa

Klausenburg liked this post
NickABQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 09:24 PM   #514
Ace1974
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Yikes overcrowding

I think they need to reduce population or create additional modes of transport (i.e. underground/overground train)
Blackraven, while overcrowding isn't exactly great, it's better than the typical American paradigm regarding LRT and HRT, which is empty. To put this another way, it will be much easier to convince the political powers that be to expand and enhance the system with too much crowding versus too little.

(Having used TransMilenio, I think the worst aspect of the system involves the confusing routing of the lines. If one was to implement it here in the US, I'd color code it and keep it as "metro" simple as possible.)

With regards to the "expense over time/expense in the short term" argument, I'm uncertain if that can remotely be a valid argument in most of the United States, where both heavy rail transit and light rail transit projects have failed to capture (in general) a significant portion of the population's trips around the MSA that they live in.

Outside of NYC, the most used HRT is the Washington Metro (I live here,) and it's averaging under a million trips a day. Counting two-way trips as "one person getting there and back," that means that less than 10% of the MSA population is using the highly expensive Metro to get around. (I've lived in Atlanta and was born and raised in Miami: don't even get me STARTED on those pathetic percentages. MetroFail!)

I think BRT can offer the United States an effective way to solve its conundrum with regards to transit and changing the prevailing, car-centric transportation paradigm. With HRT and LRT, the capital costs are so high, a metro area typically can only start with a limited system: a line or a segment of a line.

This encourages failure: people want coverage in their premium-level transit alternatives. I'm not looking it up, but I believe the largest complaint regarding the Metro in DC is that it doesn't go everywhere...and that's a success. So, if one spends a lot on the initial capital costs, but the system doesn't offer coverage, getting the next phase funded becomes a political challenge, because people didn't leap to use this expensive transit alternative due to the one-line, one-segment, limited coverage issue.

BRT, even the most elaborately appointed and premium level system, costs dramatically less than LRT and HRT to get up and running. For the same chunk of change, one can roughly get three times more than one would get with LRT and five times more than one would get with HRT.

(BRT=20 million a mile; LRT=60; HRT=100. And again, this is a "TransMilenio" styled BRT with passing lanes and enhanced features competing with a basic LRT and HRT application. A money miser metro area could offer something approximating a hybrid streetcar/LRT system for 10-15 million per mile, no doubt.)

So, right out of the gate, your new BRT system would address an issue that bedevils American metro areas: coverage. In addition, with bypass lanes at the stations included in a premium BRT application, your initial infrastructure investment would provide your transit system with the ability to offer local, express and direct services without the need for another expensive rail line installation.

Or...one could save money and not provide that ability, but get even more equivalent "local" station to station coverage.

In addition, since going from one exclusive busway to another doesn't require switching operations and track work, but rather "driver making left turn," once the lattice work of busway is laid down, the system can offer a lot of "lines."

To put this another way, two lines of rail transit can either spur at the ends and share a central spine, or they can cross at different planes and transfer at the center. Two exclusive busways that cross at the center can create several lines of transit based on transit need: initially a north-south and and east west, then maybe four "L" lines, then maybe four reverse "L" lines, then maybe a whole perimeter of the cross, or two top and bottom T lines...there's a lot of options and the impression of getting a lot of services immediately for the money.

I also think that since so much of our suburban and exurban road network is wide and huge as it is, the BRT-boulervardization of a corridor kind of solves three issues at once: it uses an existing resource efficiently, it encourages (at least along the corridor, and with effective zoning and policies,) a spine of density in the 'burbs with which to lay a new, denser urban fabric upon, and it brings a premium level of mass transit out to places that don't have it or haven't accepted it into their transportation paradigm.

I truly think, ESPECIALLY in America where we're both super-spread-out and anti-public funding, and yet, in need of our epochal 80 year reinvention, that BRT can and should provide a bridge to effective transit and a new urban form. I totally agree with the idea that LRT and HRT are more desirable in the long-term, but I also truly believe that BRT can and should be employed to "get us there." And who knows? Perhaps this initial investment in BRT will remain as we build more LRT/HRT on top of the system.

For Miamians, in adjusted dollars, they spent about 2.5 billion on the Metrorail for about 25 miles (roughly.) It just started going to the airport and still doesn't go to the beach, nor to the denser, older 'hoods north of Downtown along US1. It doesn't go to West Kendall or FIU, and it's frankly a bit of a schlep to the meat of the Gables and the Grove from their stops.

Or...Miami could have gotten 125 miles of BRT and not had the "cache" of a subway system, but would have had a transit system with comprehensive, exclusive lane coverage.
__________________

Klausenburg, SAS 16 liked this post
Ace1974 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 09:41 PM   #515
mopc
Registered User
 
mopc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Santos Sao Paulo
Posts: 17,229
Likes (Received): 11945

Yes, for cities that are not megacities, BRT maybe better because with the same cash, you build a more comprehensive network.

In the case of Bogotá above, the city needs at least two underground metro lines. It's too large to rely on BRT alone.

Even Curitiba, the cradle of the BRT, a city that is 1/3 the size of Bogotá, has advanced plans for a metro system.

Rio de Janeiro, slightly larger than Bogotá, is implementing an extensive, 4-line BRT system, but it already has 2 metro lines (another under construction) and a 5-line suburban rail system.

Belo Horizonte is building its BRT but already has 1 metro line and two more in the oven.

No city with over 2 million inhabitants can rely on BRT alone.
mopc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2014, 11:27 PM   #516
twentyfivetacos
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 251
Likes (Received): 140

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace1974 View Post
BRT, even the most elaborately appointed and premium level system, costs dramatically less than LRT and HRT to get up and running. For the same chunk of change, one can roughly get three times more than one would get with LRT and five times more than one would get with HRT.
WRONG. In developed countries BRT is a lot more expensive than light rail. Check out the Busway network in Brisbane, Australia if you want to see how insanely expensive BRT can cost in a first world country. The reason why BRT is so expensive in developed countries is because it requires a lot more room than light rail to move the same amount of people.
twentyfivetacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 02:26 AM   #517
Ace1974
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
WRONG. In developed countries BRT is a lot more expensive than light rail. Check out the Busway network in Brisbane, Australia if you want to see how insanely expensive BRT can cost in a first world country. The reason why BRT is so expensive in developed countries is because it requires a lot more room than light rail to move the same amount of people.
And yet, one can also look to implementations in France, in Israel, in the United States (albeit in varying degrees of "premium,") and elsewhere to discover that BRT is significantly less expensive than LRT and especially less expensive than HRT.

Here's an example from the same mass transit system.

LA's Orange Line cost $350 million the 18 miles. That's $25 million per mile, for their exclusive lane, premium station BRT system. Incidentally, that includes laying out the cement for the actual busway.

LA's Gold Line cost $859 million to build the 20 miles. That's $63 million per mile for their LRT. Incidentally, this line used existing rail that required some changes to convert it to LRT use, but not a complete new build of track.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm all for light rail and heavy rail.

But we live in a country where, for the most part, people just don't use mass transit. The investments into transit are viewed as failures, which delay further investments into more mass transit. If we can follow LA's example (or improve upon it)....and spend less than 40% per mile than we would on a comparable LRT...in a country where mass transit ain't used, why not take the opportunity? Get some actual transit fabric started and then expand with the better, more premium services?
__________________

Klausenburg liked this post
Ace1974 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 06:26 AM   #518
simval
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace1974 View Post
And yet, one can also look to implementations in France, in Israel, in the United States (albeit in varying degrees of "premium,") and elsewhere to discover that BRT is significantly less expensive than LRT and especially less expensive than HRT.

Here's an example from the same mass transit system.

LA's Orange Line cost $350 million the 18 miles. That's $25 million per mile, for their exclusive lane, premium station BRT system. Incidentally, that includes laying out the cement for the actual busway.

LA's Gold Line cost $859 million to build the 20 miles. That's $63 million per mile for their LRT. Incidentally, this line used existing rail that required some changes to convert it to LRT use, but not a complete new build of track.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm all for light rail and heavy rail.

But we live in a country where, for the most part, people just don't use mass transit. The investments into transit are viewed as failures, which delay further investments into more mass transit. If we can follow LA's example (or improve upon it)....and spend less than 40% per mile than we would on a comparable LRT...in a country where mass transit ain't used, why not take the opportunity? Get some actual transit fabric started and then expand with the better, more premium services?
Again, you are looking only at capital costs, you are ignoring the operating cost advantage of rail transit. Over time, if a line is well used, rail transit will save agencies a lot of money while running the system, so rail transit may very well be cheaper in the long run.

Yes, with the same capital, you can build more BRT lines, but if the cost to operate those lines is so high that the local agency is unable to run enough buses to keep up with demand, the result is not good.

What sprawled out and minor cities may look at is simply applying the concept of limited buses. Instead of stopping every eight mile, you can have limited buses with a stop every fourth of a mile, or even half-mile, running ideally in bus lanes. This can significantly speed up bus service and make it more attractive for many, and reduce operating costs (the faster the buses go on average, the less expensive it is for the same frequency and capacity of a line). It also makes buses more competitive with driving.

The only thing you've got to be careful about then is to make sure the stops are well located not to lose too much ridership because of greater average walking distance to them.

BTW, BRT isn't quite popular in France. A few cities have them, but if ridership increases above a certain level, they will often upgrade the lines to tramways. An why not since the French tramway (LRT) lines cost as little as 30 millions per mile for a starter line (Besançon).
simval no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 05:59 PM   #519
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace1974 View Post
Outside of NYC, the most used HRT is the Washington Metro (I live here,) and it's averaging under a million trips a day. Counting two-way trips as "one person getting there and back," that means that less than 10% of the MSA population is using the highly expensive Metro to get around. (I've lived in Atlanta and was born and raised in Miami: don't even get me STARTED on those pathetic percentages. MetroFail!)
Nice analysis, but there are two things worth mentioning:

A) It's isn't a big deal, if system captures only 10% of total city population, as long it's highly loaded (but not over-)
B) Rail transit are usually perceived as premium mode of transit, so it would more likely attract passengers car-owners.
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2014, 10:54 PM   #520
twentyfivetacos
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 251
Likes (Received): 140

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace1974 View Post
And yet, one can also look to implementations in France, in Israel, in the United States (albeit in varying degrees of "premium,") and elsewhere to discover that BRT is significantly less expensive than LRT and especially less expensive than HRT.

Here's an example from the same mass transit system.

LA's Orange Line cost $350 million the 18 miles. That's $25 million per mile, for their exclusive lane, premium station BRT system. Incidentally, that includes laying out the cement for the actual busway.

LA's Gold Line cost $859 million to build the 20 miles. That's $63 million per mile for their LRT. Incidentally, this line used existing rail that required some changes to convert it to LRT use, but not a complete new build of track.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm all for light rail and heavy rail.

But we live in a country where, for the most part, people just don't use mass transit. The investments into transit are viewed as failures, which delay further investments into more mass transit. If we can follow LA's example (or improve upon it)....and spend less than 40% per mile than we would on a comparable LRT...in a country where mass transit ain't used, why not take the opportunity? Get some actual transit fabric started and then expand with the better, more premium services?
The Gold Line has a 3.7km long tunnel while the Orange Line was built along a former rail corridor and runs through low density suburban sprawl. The Orange Line should be a lot cheaper. Even if the Orange Line was built as light rail and the Gold Line was built as BRT the Gold Line would still be more expensive. The Gold Line is also around twice as busy as the Orange Line.

The Orange Line isn't proper BRT anyway as it has lots of intersections with normal traffic. Proper BRT like what is built in Bogota and Brisbane is completely separate from traffic. As far as I know Brisbane is the only first world city stupid enough to build fully grade-separated BRT and it's been an absolute disaster. The busway reached capacity within 5 years of it being built and the idiots are now considering building a 5km long busway tunnel at the cost of around 5 billion dollars. I have no problems with building bus lanes if you have room for them but spending billions of dollars on tunnels for low capacity buses is just insanity.

This German guy has a good explanation why Brisbane's Busway network is such a disaster.
http://schwandl.blogspot.com.au/2011...-brisbane.html
twentyfivetacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
brt, bus rapid transit, public transport, urban transport

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium