Article is in an achitecture blog, but desribes their approach to effective urban transport.
http://architizer.com/blog/lessons-from-brazil-urban-acupuncture-with-architect-turned-mayor-jaime-lerner/
"Lerner’s most notable claim to fame is his sweeping implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) in the once traffic-choked streets of Curitiba (population 1,760,500). The city constructed this BRT system in dedicated lanes in the densest areas of the urban core, yielding an impressive 50,000 passengers per day in the very beginning of the system’s existence. Presently, the system carries a whopping 2.6 million passengers per day. The system survives without government subsidies, Lerner says, and it pays for itself while offering a cheap and fast transportation mode for residents.
On the typical desire for fixed rail transit, Lerner says that such a system was not remotely feasible in Curitiba, given the hefty financial cost of digging tunnels and laying rails. A BRT system on average costs “50 times less,” and offers the same level of service as a subway, with buses arriving by the minute, making wait times virtually nonexistent. The city built sleek, glass, tube-shaped stations to evoke the look and feel of a modern train stop, with level boarding and off-board fare collection, making for even faster service. “If you want to break paradigms, offer better alternatives,” Lerner said of the BRT system."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BRT works well only if you have a source of cheap labor, busses being unable to form vehicles that are longer than three sections. This tends to limit ridership if operating large amounts of busses in unfeasible; LRT trains often run with four MUed vehicles. While there are added costs to putting in rails for LRT, the costs may be repaid in lower labor costs.
maintenane costs are much much highter for buses than railcars, even including maintenance of track and power distribution, and buses wear out and must be replaced much sooner.
BRT seems to fall somewhere between express buses and light rail. A major drawback is that dedicated bus lanes often mean that roadway capacity for vehicular traffic is correspondingly reduced. This issue has been brought up in Chicago, leading to opposition to proposals to institute Bus Rapid Transit on Ashland Ave.
I suppose it should also be noted that these aren't "off the shelf" busses, either. They are high floor, and have several doors on the side. As a result, they must be specially designed, losing the cost advantage over specially designed rail transit cars.
I have been they and ridden this system some years ago. It seemed rather 3rd world with somewhat throwback high floor under floor engined vehicles. To a certain degree some of this concept was adopted on the central core of the trolley bus network in São Paulo. (Last time I was there it was "temporarily" being operated by motor buses due to subway construction). But I think the most telling item is that Brazil continues to build heavy and light rail in its biggest cities, Rio, São Paulo, Brazilia etc. and light rail in its medium sized cities. So this concept doesn't seem attractive enough to break that pattern. Just following old habits? Perhaps.
The "light rail" savings usually touted to sway municipal decision makers occur because even trolleys can have relatively fewer drivers than a 40-60 passenger bus. Lerner got Volvo to make 270-300 person articulated buses
There are, of course, lots of factors beyond vehicle size. I find it interesting that they are comparing BRT to Heavy Rail in the first post. Heavy Rail has a far greater capacity per operator, IIRC it is about 12,000 vs about 200. I looked and was unable to find the large capacity bus, my understanding is that about 250 is the maximum even with a bi-articulated bus. Light rail trains seem to average about 350-400.
To look a little closer to home, Pittsburgh PA has operated buses over dedicated busways for 20 years or so with success. From what my remote co-workers tell me they buses are the accordian type, big join in the middle of the bus to allow swings through the city streets due to size.
NorthWestIIRC it is about 12,000 vs about 200.
Maybe 1200?
Yes, it was a typo. It depends on the vehicle and train length. If the car is around 50ft long, a capacity of about 120 is standard. For longer 65-75ft long cars, capacity is greater, though train lenghts are usually shorter.
Austin has two Rapid Bus Technology routes (801 and 803). I rode the 801 yesterday from Tech Ridge Park and Ride to downtown.
The bus is easy to board - there are three doors. My seat was reasonably comfortable, and the interior of the bus - reds and pastels - was pleasing to the eye. The buses on the 801 route are articulated; the ones on the 803 route are not. Presumably the anticipated passenger loads dictated using a smaller vehicle on the 803 route.
The ride was smooth were the pavement was smooth, but it was rough where the pavement is not so good. All up the train provides a smoother ride.
The 801 runs the same route as the Number 1 bus, but it skips many of the stops made by it. It takes 10 to 15 minutes less time to get downtown from Tech Ridge on the 801 than it does on the Number 1, which takes approximately 1 hour, 15 minues to get from Tech Ridge to the CBD.
The RBTs don't have dedicated lanes in Austin, but the operators are able to control the traffic lights, to a certain extent, to help speed them along.
The stations are clearly marked with an outsized red sign. They have an electronic message board that shows the arrival time of the next bus plus the arrival time of the following bus. They also provide some shelter from the elements.
If I remember correctly it cost approximately $3 million per mile, including the cost of the equipment, to layout the 801 and 803 routes. For comparative purposes, it cost nearly $50 million per mile for the DART light rail system. This includes the cost of the equipment.
On November 4th Ausin's residents will have an opportunity to say yea or nay on a proposed light rail line. It will run from the airport to downtown and on to UT and Highland Mall. The opponents say that the cost of the light rail, which will be built from scratch and, therefore, will not be able to use former or existing rail rights-of-way, as was the case for most of the DART light rail system, will be more than $145 million per mile. The highest previous estimate that I saw was $89 million per mile. In any case, the difference between the cost of the RBT and light rail is impressive.
Bus Rapid Transit is a Third World Solution to a Third World Problem in Third World Countrys. In the USA most people have cars and to draw them out of cars you have to provide something better.
seppburgh2 To look a little closer to home, Pittsburgh PA has operated buses over dedicated busways for 20 years or so with success. From what my remote co-workers tell me they buses are the accordian type, big join in the middle of the bus to allow swings through the city streets due to size.
railtrail Bus Rapid Transit is a Third World Solution to a Third World Problem in Third World Countrys. In the USA most people have cars and to draw them out of cars you have to provide something better.
Whether BRT is a third world solution is debatable. It is working well enough in Austin, as well as several other cities, to cause transit planners to push for its expansion. It is more cost effective than light rail. Whether it is so over the long run depends on numerous variables, i.e. population shift, equipment replacement, labor costs, etc.
Nothing has gotten significant numbers of people out of their cars in Texas. In Dallas, which has the longest light rail system in the United States - 91 miles, only 1.8 per cent of the population in the cities served by the light rail system use it.
In Texas most people prefer their cars and pick-up trucks for commuting. They don't have to sit next to someone who is shouting into a cell phone and may be a stranger to soap and water. They can set the air conditioning to their liking and listen to their favorite radio station or CD without having to wear ear phones.
Personal vehicles are more comfortable, convenient, and pleasant than public transit vehicles, no matter what form the transit vehicles take. Most Americans, I suspect, are not going to give up the convenience of commuting by personal vehicle until the cost becomes prohibitive.
And the total cost of commuting by car, etc. is getting cheaper by the day! Gasoline costs less than $3 a gallon in my neighborhood, with some stations offering it for $2.85 a gallon. This does not bode well for transit planners.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.