 | Another Reason to Love Sheryl Crow: She Might Be Peak Oil Aware... | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: February 10, 2008 |  |
| Tar Sands vs. Asphalt: Round 1 | The Oil Drum: Local | David Paterson: First Openly Peak Oil Aware Governor | |
66 comments on Bogota Part 2: Transmilenio Bus Rapid Transit
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
You must have a time portal - this was posted on March 2nd 2008, yet the date where I am is only Feb 3rd :-).
This BRT thing baffles me in a way. I am in the Northern Virginia area, and we just had a big subway expansion shot down by the Feds. The BRT people are always running around - they promise that BRT works just as well as even even heavy rail, only cheaper. To me this just says that some of the advocates of BRT just aren't grounded in reality. And some of the backers of BRT are small-government types and tax-haters who just don't want to spend on heavy rail.
I view BRT as an realistic alternative to light rail, not heavy rail. And if you need to build a dedicated roadbed, then why not just put down steel instead of asphalt, and have light rail instead of stinky diesel buses. My own gut was that BRT as proposed here is really just "designed to fail" in that if you do something on the cheap without proper planning, not many people will ride it, eventually the thing will be discontinued, and then the roadbed will be available for use by cars, and the road-builders can then use this as ammunition for trying to shoot down other transit projects.
Plus, people just don't like stinky diesel buses. I mentioned this to one BRT advocate, and they started talking about CNG or even fuel cells. Oh, please. Let's keep this grounded in reality. And in the long term, we really need to get off of fossil fuels completely, and these buses not only consume diesel (or CNG - not really any better), but they need tires, and roadbed maintenance as well.
First of all, there's nothing unreal about CNG, in fact the Orange Line buses in LA are CNG articulated buses. NYC has a fleet of hybrid buses, and I've even seen a fuel cell bus in service, though I think it was a unique example. The problems with Orange Line style BRT amount to the inability to provide crossing gates, the slowness of the buses, and the generally cramped interior of buses and lack of MU ability. Basically, what this amounts to is that service is considerably slower than a light rail line would have been (by at least 50%), and buses get more crowded. Another important issue is the narrowness of the busway, which has two lanes and no shoulder, with oncoming buses passing at 55 mph. It would have been safer with rails.
A side issue is that this is primarily a feeder service for the heavy rail Red Line, but the bus service has to run at half the headway, leading to bunching and a service of two buses every 10 minutes instead of one every five. Oh, and some sections of the pavement had to be replaced after something like 8 months, though I think they replaced asphalt with concrete in curves, so I think it should last a while longer this time around.
Nothing unreal, but anyone who reads this site is surely aware that natural gas isn't any kind of panacea.
I'm not partial to diesel, either. I don't know about fuel cells but electric buses work well all over the world.
These ones don't even need overhead wires:
http://www.tecnobus.it/home/en/prodotti.html
BRT done right can incorporate dual powered (hybrid) buses that run on electricity from catenary where it works but transition off or around it with battery power, charged by an engine of some type. The efficiencies on that would be phenomenal.
Consider the abject failure of the Shirley Busway (in DC area) versus the later Blue Line of DC Metro. Both servicing the same corridor.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00004.htm
Alan
"Plus, people just don't like stinky diesel buses. I mentioned this to one BRT advocate, and they started talking about CNG or even fuel cells. Oh, please."
Then the Electric BRT in Quito, Ecuador would be more to your liking. It is similar to Bogota in many ways, including very high ridership throughout the day, but quieter and cleaner, with a surprisingly smooth ride and great acceleration. Go there ... Quito is a nice city.
Trams in Quito would still have cheaper lifecycle costs and higher ridership.
Alan
Bogata's inspiration on this is Curitiba Brazil. They came up with this concept even earlier and implemented it to a similar level of success.
Good for them.
Obviously there are differences between the customer experience on a bus vs. a train car. Rail cars are smoother and less bouncy, and if electric do not generate local exhaust.
However, is it worth it, if you can haul four times as many people on a subway-like bus system as on a subway system that has the same cost?
The point Ericy makes about the system needing to be designed to succeed is key. It is easier to fail than to succeed.
For any but minimal traffic loads, lifecycle costs for buses are significantly HIGHER than any form of trains (streetcar, tram/Light Rail, Rapid/HeavyRail/subway).
There is NO WAY a busway can equal the capacity of a subway ! Headways (times between trains or buses), dwell (boarding) times, acceleration & deceleration, capacity/train or bus, etc. Lexington Avenue subway in NYC carries over 600,000/weekday.
The energy costs of rubber tires are multiples of steel rolling on steel. Buses only last 12 to 15 years, and they tear up roads (from memory road damage is proportional to either the 4th or 5th power of the axle load).
Buses attract significantly fewer people. (See my link elsewhere on this thread to Shirley busway vs. later Blue Line for apple to apple comparison).
And buses do not generate Transit Orientated Development. Quite frankly, people do not like riding on them.
And buses are MUCH inferior for handicap access. The photo of the wheelchair guy boarding appeared to be staged. Pulling a bus up to the edge of a platform 100+ times/day (without damage) means a gap wider than 1 inch most of the time. Also the Bogota stations appeared nearly impossible to access by wheelchair, and quite frankly, people do not like being in the middle of heavy traffic (fumes & noise and vibration).
Best Hopes for no more BRT, just some improved bus service,
Alan
I enjoyed your comments here and below.
In Portland I have recently enjoyed taking the bus to work more than the MAX. Something about the smaller scale means that people are less strange. There is less acting out. Partly it has to do with where the MAX is going or coming from versus where the #12 Sandy Blvd. is going or coming from... but I think that the light rail system somehow attracts louder and angrier people. Not sure why, but it is a reality in Portland. Having a bus driver in front to yell at people if necessary creates a different riding experience than a driver in a cab with no contact with the local ruffians and good citizens forced to mix in the back.
Recently concern with crime on the MAX reached a head and local politicians claim to be increasing fare inspections (they were pretty much nonexistent) and tasking police officers to ride trains (I'll believe it when I see it... not holding my breath.) If you look at the advantages that light rail offers... move more people with just one driver... it is also a disadvantage for safety. You need to add inspectors and police, or the system becomes a magnet for out of control and threatening people... obviating one of its purported efficiencies. In contrast the inefficiency of limited bus size is actually an advantage for safety and security, with fewer people per driver, and the inefficiency of manual fare collection is also an advantage for safety... the driver looks each person in the eye as they board, just as greeters do when you walk into the GAP, knowing that you are less likely to shoplift if you've been looked in the eye. I'm just sayin'.
---
I think one of the advantages of capital intensive rail systems is that anti mass transit efforts can't undermine them because of all the sunk costs and the political capital invested in creating the system. So just on that ground, a light rail system or trolley system is more durable and reliable. You can invest in a building along the route and believe that the rail system can't be moved. Invest in a building on a bus route with minimal capital intensive fixtures and someone can undermine the value of your property by lobbying city hall to change the route. But that's not strictly a technological feature of BRT... it's a political feature that could be fought with political will.
I do wonder whether, counter to all conventional thinking, it might be economical to create a very different kind of bus interior.... slightly higher fare, but with much bigger seats and legroom.... wifi access... a real commuter system that didn't involve quite as much close human contact? I hear that there are busses taken by Wall Street executives from Pennsylvania and New Jersey every day into the city... they pay a price and work for the duration of the commute. I'm thinking of something like that but for intra-urban commuting instead of suburb to city commuting... not quite for that high end market... something that maybe just had 3 across seating... reduce seats by 1/4, increase fares proportionately...
The #12 Sandy Blvd., Portland Oregon, morning commute:
Sealing up the drivers is a management decision (supported by the unions typically) that I disagree with.
I very much enjoy the interactions with the streetcar operators (each has their own character, and they display much more character than do the bus drivers.
Once, streetcars had a conductor on-board, but that has been lost to efficiency.
Open operators would certainly help the lead car, but the trailing ones less so.
IS the solution a wider section of people on-board ? Open cabs for operators ? Roving conductors ?
I do know that I HATED the "St. Charles Bus" post-Katrina.
Best Hopes,
Alan