Categoría: News & Events

"Plan of Action" defined to improve Lima's Metropolitano BRT

Source: EMBARQ
 
The Center for Sustainable Transport and Health in the Andean Region (CTSS-Andino) and Peru’s Development Finance Corp. (COFIDE) defined a «Plan of Action» to overcome operational problems of Lima’s Metropolitano bus rapid transit (BRT) system.
 
The recommendations follow an intensive Value Assurance Review (VAR) of the system. Results were presented to the Mayor of Lima Susana Villarán, who agreed to allocate $20 million to deal with problems confronting the city’s BRT.
 
Recommendations are related to operations, production cycles and programming, technology platforms, institutional aspects, and economic and financial performance. Problems and corrective actions were identified by a team of international experts, overseen by EMBARQ Latin America Strategic Director Luis Gutierrez, and CTSS-Andino Director Jorge Jara.
 
The plan of action requires an integrated set of corrective actions to be implemented both in the short term, within the next five months, as well as in the longer term, by December 2011.
 
These activities are part of the agreement signed between CTSS-Andino and COFIDE on January 17 to execute an ambitious five-year program to support urban development and sustainable mobility in nine Peruvian cities.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Indore rides into the future

City expands bus fleet in preparation for new bus rapid transit system.
 
Source: EMBARQ
 
The city of Indore added 63 modern, comfortable buses to its public transport fleet—an important step towards launching its new bus rapid transit (BRT) system.
 
The new vehicles joined the existing fleet of 103 buses operated by Atal Indore City Transport Services Ltd (AICTSL), an agency that was established in December 2005 with the objective of developing a support system for improving transport infrastructure in Indore. By mid-2011, 62 more buses will be added to the fleet.
 
New features of the buses include GPS tracking, passenger information systems, color-coded buses and special accommodations for women.
 
Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh was one of the chief guests who attended the launch event on February 19.
 
The buses were funded by the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM), a nationwide initiative launched by the central government in December 2005 to modernize 63 Indian cities with heavy investments in infrastructure and governance, totaling more than $20 billion over 7 years. Under the JnNURM, the Central Government announced financial assistance for fleet expansion of urban public bus service systems and other sustainable development in select cities, including Indore.
 
Indore received one-time assistance funding to procure 175 buses. Of these, 125 will be used for the city bus service, and the remaining 50 will be used for the new BRT system, which is expected to launch with a pilot corridor on AB Road by mid-2012.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Keeping the BRT dream alive

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
July 2009
 
I thought I had exhausted my plea to take Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) much more seriously in a country still driven by the emotion and ideology of rail solutions (which is some situations are eminently sensible, but not as an automated view that this is the only form of public transport for high capacity corridors). However a recent compliment on my submission to the Senate Inquiry in funding public transport has reignited the need to keep reminding all about the merits of BRT. A commentator with reputation emailed me and said “It’s the first time that someone has made me take it seriously.” The essential message from my Submission is summarized below.
 
The advantage of BRT systems, if properly designed, is that they can, for given finite resources, provide much better coverage of the network in delivering the necessary services. One of the great risks of more expensive heavy rail – and I would say, to some extent, light rail, although it has a lot of similarities to BRT – is that we must not focus on just trying to solve the central business district (CBD) problem, because the rest of the network, which is about 60 per cent of all trips in Sydney, is not going to have any money to be treated.
 
BRT, as we have seen in Brisbane and in many parts of the world, has the opportunity to provide the level of service that I think we need, given the capacity requirements of all the key corridors throughout the metropolitan area, not just in the CBD; to actually deliver much higher value for money. Generally speaking, although you could argue about the numbers, you can roughly get 100 kilometers of BRT for the price of a kilometer of rail, making assumptions about equivalent infrastructure like tunneling and so on. That is why I also would say that, if you want to know how to do it, Brisbane has done it extremely well, and yet in other States there is some reticence to even want to know what the Brisbane system is. It is almost heritage stuff these days. You travel around the world and there are five BRT systems and, if you are serious about looking at value for money pubic transport solutions, you would spend a few weeks in Brisbane. I have to also say that a lot of this is working because of the institutional environment, where you do not have many organizations planning the outcome.
 
From a Federal perspective, at the end of the day where will the money come from to fund significant public transport infrastructure? I would like to think that we would have a closer look at infrastructure bonds -I might even say expressly public transport infrastructure network and network bonds – (I was pleased to hear Lindsay Fox supporting this). I would also like to suggest that we have to rethink the whole issue of hypothecation, because we have underpriced this sector and we need to get it right, but we need to demonstrate what we are going to do with the revenue, so that those who use the system can see some return for the impost. I think one of the failings is that those who use the system at the moment, and who complain bitterly about the congestion and lack of time, are willing to pay but they want to see the benefit. It has to be made much more explicit, and I think the London congestion charging scheme with hypothecation is an excellent example of how you sell pricing to the community: you do not sell pricing, you sell revenue return.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Latin America’s Bus Rapid Transit boom offers lessons for the U.S.

Source: The City Fix
 
Bus rapid transit (BRT) is often the most feasible, quickly implemented and cost-effective way to improve mobility in the United States, concluded a distinguished panel of transport experts at this morning’s event at The Brookings Institution, “Latin America’s Bus Rapid Transit Boom—Lessons for Improving U.S. Public Transportation”.
 
The event, organized by the Latin America Initiative, invited guests to discuss lessons learned from some of the widely regarded best practices of BRT in Latin America and their applicability in the U.S., where rapid population growth, increasing congestion and shrinking municipal and federal budgets present an urgent need to find appropriate transportation and infrastructure improvements.
 
Panelists included Marc Elrich, councilmember for Montgomery County, Maryland; Robert Puentes, senior fellow at Brookings; Sam Zimmerman, urban transport advisor for The World Bank; and Dario Hidalgo, director of Research and Practice for EMBARQ. The discussion was facilitated by moderator Mauricio Cardenas, senior fellow and director of the Latin America Intiative at Brookings. The looming question: If BRT works so well in Latin America, how come we don’t see as many examples of it in the U.S.?
 
BUS RAPID TRANSIT BOOM
 
EMBARQ’s Dario Hidalgo gave an introductory Powerpoint presentation, “BRT: Made in Latin America”, on some of the global trends of BRT, highlighting examples of successful systems in Latin America. He recently compiled key indicators and status updates on major BRT systems around the world, showing that there are about 120 cities with BRT or bus corridors, with 97 of the cities launching their bus systems in just the last 10 years. Latin America, China and South Asia are leading this growth. According to Hidalgo’s research:
 
The existing BRT and bus corridors comprise about 280 corridors, 4,300 kilometers, 6,700 stations and 30,000 buses, serving about 28 million passengers per day.
In 2010, 16 cities completed new systems—including 14 in the developing world—and seven cities expanded their current systems. As of January 2011, about 49 new cities are building systems, 16 cities are expanding their corridors, and 31 cities are in the initial planning stages. This impressive growth may be attributed in part to the successes of Curitiba, Brazil; Bogotá, Colombia; México City, Mexico; Istanbul, Turkey; Ahmedabad, India; and Guangzhou, China. These cities show low-cost, rapid implementation and high performance BRTs, with significant positive externalities.
 
In Latin America, alone, there are 32 cities with BRT, representing one quarter of the world’s total length of BRT corridors. These systems serve a whopping two-thirds of global BRT ridership, or 18 million people per day.
 
Like all stories about BRT, the starting point of this morning’s discussion began with a short history of Curitiba, Brazil, commonly known for being the birthplace of BRT. The city launched its first bus corridor in 1972 and expanded it into a high-level BRT system 10 years later, with features like off-board fare collection and multiple entryways onto the buses. In Curitiba, BRT became the “backbone of a very well-thought out and developed land use and transport plan,” Hidalgo said.
 
The success of Curitiba spread across the continent, inspiring other cities to build similar systems, like Transmilenio in Bogota, Colombia, which has the highest throughput of all cities with BRT, with 45,000 passengers per hour in each direction—a rare feat, even for rail corridors. In short, Bogota became like “Curitiba on steroids,” Hidalgo said, adapting to the conditions of an already built city with bigger transit needs. Bogota proved that it could reduce car use, while increasing biking and walking and maintaining the level of mass transit ridership. The results? A drastic reduction in traffic fatalities, lower emissions, less congestion and faster travel times.
 
WHY BRT?
 
“[BRT] is mainstream now; it’s not on the edge of what you do,” Hidalgo said. He provided a dozen examples of new BRT systems in Latin America, including cities like Sao Paulo, Brazil; Leon, Mexico; Pereira, Colombia; Santiago, Chile; and Guatemala City, Guatemala. The ridership on these systems in one hour is comparable to what some mass transit systems in the U.S. see in one day. Operational speeds average at about 20 kilometers per hour (potentially, this could be even higher, like in Istanbul, where the Metrobus BRT runs 40 kilometers per hour on expressways.) Capital costs are also relatively low, making the systems attractive for cash-strapped city budgets. What we’re seeing now is that “BRT is a feature or an aspiration of most Latin American cities and should be for the U.S.,” Hidalgo said.
 
However, BRT is not a cure-all and does not exist without some barriers, Hidalgo stressed. Often, systems face rushed implementation, especially as politicians struggle to meet election deadlines. (Luckily, the flexibility of bus-based systems allows for them to adapt and improve over time, even after they’ve started operations.) There are also obstacles with tight financial planning. User fares on BRT are low, so financial sustainability requires high occupancy rates, but that can make the passenger experience less than ideal. An advantage worth noting, however, is that the vehicles and operations of all BRT systems in Latin America, besides Santiago, are fully paid by user fares.
 
Brookings’ Maruicio Cardenas noted that BRT in Latin America goes beyond pavement and buses. “These are more than transit systems; these are cultural transformations,” providing an anecdote of a member of the Bogota City Council who got kicked out of office because his car unlawfully invaded a dedicated BRT busway. “The community does not tolerate that.”
 
OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME
 
The World Bank’s Sam Zimmerman noted several other impediments to BRT, particularly in the United States. For one, there are aggressive lobbies for rail, as well as aggressive lobbies against BRT and buses. Railway manufacturing and engineering companies also have a stake in making “big money” from rail projects, so often they discredit bus systems. But even proponents of traditional bus operations threaten support for BRT by simply making the case for better quality bus systems, which ironically gives rail lobbyists ammunition to claim that BRT is “just another bus.” Finally, there are the upwardly mobile politicians and transit officials who think the best thing for their reputation is to build a rail system or rail line extension. “How many mayors who want to be president are running on the basis of promoting a metro?” Zimmerman asked.
 
There are also many misconceptions and “myths” working against BRT. Among them: buses are slow, unreliable, polluting, noisy, uncomfortable and low-capacity. In the case of high-level BRT systems, this simply isn’t true. Part of the problem contributing to these myths is that BRT doesn’t have consistent branding or marketing, or even a common definition. There may also be some racial or economic discrimination against bus systems, left over from a time period when people who rode the bus couldn’t afford any other choices.
 
Finally, there’s the notion that bus systems can’t be permanent, and therefore, aren’t appealing to real estate developers. However, this has been untrue in places like York, Ontario; Pittsburgh, Penn.; and Cleveland, Ohio, where there has been billions of dollars in public and private development around BRT stations. Of course, to truly spur development around BRT, there must be some supportive public policies, like “upzoning” or tax abatement. The argument of “impermanence” is itself a myth, according to Zimmerman. “It’s important to remember that BRT “is not a bus service; it’s an integrated system that includes stations, terminals and running ways,” he said. “We have to start thinking of BRT as a development tool, not just transportation.”
 
In the United States, there is an added obstacle to BRT at the federal level, among Federal Transit Administration staff, independent consultants, and local and regional authorities. The rigorous “alternatives analysis,” which forces planners to consider all transit options (not just their preferences) and the cost-effectiveness evaluations of transport projects are about to be eliminated. Part of the reason is that the process takes too long, Zimmerman said. Or, the evaluation criteria don’t always satisfy the particular stakeholders in question. “There is political pressre on the administration and Congress to dumb the process down to include foggy evaluation criteria,” Zimmerman said. “Land use and economic development are key issues, but there has to be be some kind of objective analysis of those effects.”
 
BRT IN THE ‘BURBS
 
Montgomery County’s Marc Elrich offered his experiences of generating support for BRT in Maryland as a concrete case study of how BRT might apply to the United States. Montgomery County, a suburb of Washington, D.C., is home to 1 million people and boasts several “mini-cities” or nodes of high-density development, especially along metro corridors. The county experiences the same dismal rates of traffic congestion as big cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. In response to these trends, the county has an aggressive plan for 120 miles of transit corridors to connect residential communities to job centers.
 
Elrich, who ran his election campaign based on “no growth without infrastructure,” realized there was no way to “build our way out of this problem” with traditional roads. When searching for alternatives, he admitted that he was biased towards rail at the beginning. But he quickly realized that rail solutions wouldn’t be feasible for his county, considering the cost (too expensive) and capacity (a quick Google search on “bi-modal rail vehicles,” for example, showed a model in Japan that could accommodate only 25 passengers.)
 
The most convincing argument Elrich found for presenting BRT to his skeptics was showing the cost-effectiveness of all the other options, including light rail, the county’s proposed Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), busways and rapid bus. “Rail-like vehicles,” as he describes BRT, proves to be the most attractive option, and it can adequately meet the county’s transport demand. “You don’t have to love buses, but what else are you going to do?” Elrich asked.
 
MODE NEUTRAL
 
While BRT is attractive for many reasons, it still is only one option. Brookings’ Robert Puentes urged the audience to be open-minded about all types of transportation ”We can’t be religious about these different modes; it’s just not that helpful,” he said. “We can’t have ‘the bus guys’ and ‘transit people’ and ‘highway guys.’…We have to think about this more as an integrated system, as opposed to what particular mode is best overall, because all of these things matter as part of a larger metropolitan plan.”
 
As Hidalgo said, “It’s not important if it’s a steel wheel or a rubber tire; what’s important is the service to the people.”
 

 
Read also a reference on the subject in The New York Times Green Column by Timothy Gardner
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Individualised marketing of public transport – time to take it seriously?

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
June 2009
 
The recent ‘debacle’ with changed timetables and routings on buses in Sydney is a salient reminder about the power of the customer. All good intent was exercised by the operator to improve services; however the residual crumbs of discontent were not factored in.
 
Is it not time to actually visit households and identify the types of bus services (timing and routing) that would make a difference? This bottom up customer-focused individualised planning pays dividends. We know – just look at the accumulating evidence on the travel smart voluntary travel behaviour change program in South Australia in particular, that shows how many individuals have been informed one-on-one about specific services that might be of value to them (which are often not well known by potential users of public transport). Such an approach is especially useful when households have recently moved into a neighbourhood and are less familiar with the options, and possibly more open to consider public transport before habit sets in, provided that the information provided is seen as being tailored to suit the needs of the potential switcher to public transport. After all we buy a car, borrow money, and work with a travel agent to construct a vacation or business trip as a one-on-one arrangement, so why not do it for planning regular commuting and other local travel?
 
How does the travel smart program work? There are various versions, but essentially, a telephone survey can be used to sample individuals and then to classify them as ‘regular users’ (R) of alternatives to the car, and for householders to nominate themselves as ‘interested’ (I) in reducing their car use. The sampled households so classified can be offered access to a range of maps and brochures on travel options. Following the delivery of the information face to face by the public transport operator, they might be provided with a free travel pass for one month as an expression of interest. Importantly all participants who ordered information must be given a reward. For regular users of public transport it might be in the form of a letter from the public transport operator, or a small gift. Following the identification of the sample of interested persons, a follow-up meeting to take a close look at the person’s current trip activity and where public transport may be able to be used would be worked through, and the free pass used to encourage trying a particular bus and/or rail service.
 
While the human resources might be substantial, so is the task of attracting people out of their car. Since there are so many reasons why people stick with their cars, then why not try and identify those people who are sufficiently close to considering public transport but need a little help from the bus operators or regulator to assist in identifying ways of making the switch. The focus on the population as a whole is far too aggregate in nature if we want to make a difference where it can count. This also includes being on the look out for pockets of serious discontent that would react the way people did in Sydney last month when a major timetable change occurred.
 
It is time that we also started to question the information that is provided in the spaghetti format of hard copy glossy timetables. I have great trouble understanding most of them. I wonder what the public think. Do we ever ask them?
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Mobility, sustainability and quality of life

 
Since 2003, ITLS Sydney organizes the Leadership and Policy Seminar Series, and last March they invited Enrique Peñalosa. This presentation was a joint venture between ITLS-Sydney, the Bus Industry Confederation, the Major Cities Unit (Department of Infrastructure and Transport), Infrastructure Australia and our Centre of Excellence. Please find the presentation details bellow.
 
 

Photo:
Dorte Ekelund, Executive Director of the Major Cities Unit at Infrastructure Australia
David Hensher, Director of ITLS
Enrique Peñalosa, Former Mayor, Bogota, Colombia
 
 
Date: 11th Mar 2011
 
Speaker: Enrique Peñalosa, Former Mayor, Bogota, Colombia; President, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), New York
 
Topic: Presentation by the Mayor who transformed Bogota into one of the world’s leading examples of mobility and equity
 
Bio: Enrique Penalosa is currently President of the Board of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy based in New York. He has lectured all over the world in governmental, academic and citizens’ forums. Mr Penalosa is an urban strategist whose vision and proposals have significantly influenced policies in numerous cities throughout the world. As former Mayor of Bogota, the 7 million inhabitants’ capital of Colombia, Mr Penalosa profoundly transformed the city, turning it into an international example for improvements in quality of life, mobility and equity to developing world cities.
During his tenure as Mayor, Mr Penalosa created TransMilenio, a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that is regarded as the world’s best for its capacity, speed and cost efficiency. A similar system in Curitiba, Brazil, was its inspiration.
An accomplished public official, economist and administrator, Mr Penalosa served as mayor from 1998 to 2001. Mr Penalosa helped develop a model for urban improvement based on all people having equal access to quality transportation, education and public spaces. During his tenure, Mr Penalosa was responsible for numerous initiatives to make the city more pedestrian-friendly, including building hundreds of kilometers of protected bicycle paths, pedestrian-and-bicycle-only promenades, greenways and parks.
Mr Penalosa is a 2009 recipient of the Goteborg Award for Sustainable Development; past Award recipients of the prestigious award include Al Gore. He received the Stockholm Challenge Award for organizing a Car-Free Day in 2000, banning car use throughout the entire city for one weekday in the year. He also removed 40% of cars during regular peak hours as part of a license plate restriction program. Mr Penalosa’s work and ideas have been featured in many international media including The New York Times, Financial Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, BBC World, PBS, and others.
 
Download presentation here.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Making Bus Rapid Transit safer in Belo Horizonte

CTS-Brasil provides technical recommendations following road safety audit.
 
Source: EMBARQ
 
The Center for Sustainable Transport in Brazil (CTS-Brasil) completed a «road safety audit» in Belo Horizonte along Ave. Antonio Carlos, a planned 16-kilometer bus rapid transit corridor.
 
Philip Gold, the road safety auditor, worked with the support of CTS-Brasil, as part of the Bloomberg Global Road Safety Program, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. The final report, including safety recommendations, will be delivered to city officials in March.
 
A road safety audit involves a careful examination of a proposed project to ensure that it performs to a high standard from a road safety perspective. Problems in the design are identified before construction begins, which helps save costs.
 
CTS-Brasil recommended that BHTrans, the city’s public transit agency, create a technical team of road safety experts to perform future audits and offered to train the staff. Director of CTS-Brasil Toni Lindau also suggested that BHTrans create a fully equipped BRT station, including bus docking and a loading and unloading process to provide future users a taste of a real BRT experience.
 
CTS-Brasil is highly involved with BRT projects in Belo Horizonte, working on issues ranging from accessibility and public health to operations and marketing. CTS-Brasil is also advising on how to reduce traffic bottlenecks using the EMBARQ BRT Simulator, a computer software tool that tests and improves the design of proposed BRT systems.
 
As the 2014 FIFA World Cup approaches, improving urban mobility has become a top priority for Belo Horizonte and other Brazilian cities hosting the games.
 
CTS-Brasil signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Belo Horizonte in August 2010 and has been providing technical support to improve the quality of the city’s BRT system.
 
The recent road safety audit was made possible with technical support from the following experts:
• Toni Lindau, President-Director of CTS-Brasil
• Brenda Medeiros Pereira, Transport Projects Coordinator of CTS-Brasil
• Marta Obelheiro, Transport Engineer of CTS-Brasil
• Philip Gold, Road Safety Expert from Gold Projects
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

The explosive growth of Bus Rapid Transit

Source: The Dirt – Connecting the Built & Natural Environments
 
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) existed in just a few cities twenty years ago but has quickly turned into a viable solution for the massive transportation challenges facing cities. With more than half of the world now living in cities and total global population expected to reach nine billion, perhaps more cities should be looking at how to include BRT, a relatively cheap, sustainable, and flexible transportation option in comparison with building more highway overpasses and underground metro systems.
 
Dario Hidalgo from EMBARQ, the sustainable transportation think tank at the World Resources Institute (WRI), kicked off a session at Transforming Transportation 2011 by explaining that 120 cities now have BRT with bus corridors. Worldwide, there are now 200 dedicated bus corridors running over 4,000 kilometers. These networks have 7,000 stations, providing stops for 30,000 buses. Each day, 27 million people, or about one percent of the global urban population, is now riding BRT. Los Angeles, the site of one of the few major BRT systems in the U.S., is in the lead in terms of number of kilometers covered, but falls behind when considering the number of residents using the system each day. Both China and India are seeing exploding growth in BRT ridership.
 
In addition, more cities are catching on — more than 15 cities started BRT operations in 2010, representing 13 per cent growth over 2009. Another seven cities are expanding their systems, 49 cities have BRT under construction, and 31 are starting to plan out new systems. Still, with the rapid expansion of BRT, there are growing issues as well, including “rushed implementation, tight financial planning, high occupancy rates, deterioration of infrastructure, and fare system fragmentation.”
 
BRT Expands Across the Developing World
 
Walter Hook, head of the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP), outlined some of the better designed BRT in developing countries as well as those facing challenges.
 
In Guangzhou, China, the BRT is a “hybrid full-featured direct service” system that carries some 800,000 passengers each day. Combined with a set of walkable, bikeable paths along the BRT stations, the system “has totally transformed the way the city feels.” The system is very smart: Existing municipal bus lines can rapidly enter and exit the dedicated BRT lane, which enables the city to leverage existing municipal “feeder” bus networks. Stations along the BRT route are off-set so there’s “more right of way.” In addition, BRT is integrated with the undeground metro system – “there’s a seamless network” and “no transfer penalty.”
 

Photo: Karl Fjellstrom, itdp-china.org
 
In contrast with Guangzhou’s system, TransJakarta, the BRT in Indonesia’s largest city, has had some teething pains. The buses run on clean natural gas (CNG), but the CNG refueling depots were placed way off the BRT paths, creating lots of logistical issues that raised the cost of running the network. While CNG was used to address Jakarta’s air quality issues, Hook says it’s important to deal with the “logistical problems” first when trying to reach environmental goals. In addition, lane enforcement in Jakarta has been “lax” in many places, meaning cars and bikes have taken over the lanes dedicated to rapid bus.
 
In Ahmedabad, India, there’s a 30 kilometer long system that serves 50,000 each day. It has all the features of BRT but includes new “squared roundabouts” that have been tricky because they require faster timing with traffic lights if only BRT is going to use them.
 
In Johannesburg, South Africa, Rea Vaya, Sub-Saharan Africa’s first BRT, is off to a solid start. Created in advance of the FIFA World Cup soccer tournament, Rea Vaya has “world class stations” and European buses. There are also plans to implement express and limited stop services, only possible because the city’s BRT infrastructure has multiple dedicated lanes. In addition, in some areas, stations were plopped down in the middle of one way streets, which was “very bold,” but they’ve largely worked.
 

Photo: Scania South Africa
 
Still, rolling out that city’s BRT system wasn’t easy. “There were regulatory and institutional issues,” largely due to the number of taxi associations involved and their ongoing wars with each other. “The taxi wars have led to a number of deaths.” One result of all of this has been revised certification processes for the city’s cabs, with the goal of making it easier to track cabs and deny some access to new BRT paths. This has been controversial because while denying cabs access to some routes is needed to preserve demand for BRT, it also means a loss of revenue for cab drivers. To address the cab drivers’ losses, the city had to spend extra, an almost 30-40 percent premium, to get the BRT in place.
 
Bogota’s Model BRT
 
Bogota’s BRT, TransMilenio, has been going for more than ten years now. There are 1.7 million daily trips but still “lots of politics” around BRT in the city, said the system’s general manager, Fernando Paez, largely because they’ve meant removing car lanes. The network is now 52 miles in length and will soon reach 72 miles. That’s just the first few phases — more than eight phases are planned. The city’s BRT has one control center, 1,215 buses and 515 feeder buses. More than a quarter of all bus trips in the city are now on TransMilenio’s dedicated lanes.
 
Interestingly, Paez said there were some two million square meters of public plazas and parks along the BRT network. When asked, Paez said the BRT network and plazas were developed together as part of an “integrated design strategy.” The adjacent parks and plazas help drive BRT usage. Research has been done on per capita usage of the public spaces around the BRT stations. In addition, Paez said they now have a “green street” pilot project along one of the lines to test how they can leverage the BRT infrastructure for stormwater management.
 

Photo: Transmilenio
 
Overall, there have been many upsides — economic development, an increased sense of civicness caused by the positive identity of the BRT, and improved safety and security. However, Paez said the city still needs to do more to “consolidate opportunities in urban development” offered by the BRT. Also, the city needs to increase the number of buses to deal with high occupancy rates, and address traffic control through feeder buses, an issue caused by congestion.
 
Implementing BRT in “Challenging Situations”
 
Colin Brader, a consultant for the World Bank, reviewed some challenges in implementing the BRT in Lagos, Nigeria and other cities like Jakarta and Johannesburg. He explained that “all have BRT in place so have been successful.” However, getting each system live “involved significant institutional or regulatory changes,” quite a bit of compromise, and flexibility so systems could “evolve to optimize and meet changing demands.”
 
Lagos residents previously faced horrendous travel conditions: Public buses had “variable fares,” passengers were subjected to “violence and intimidation,” and on top of that, there were “multiple transfer points.” A 12 kilometer ride could take 2-3 hours, certainly not unheard of in many big developing world cities like Bangkok. “Users want safety, security, and reliability” and the city largely gave them what they wanted. All major local politicians in the city got behind the concept, seeing it as a “people’s project,” and a massive consultation helped “depoliticize the implementation.”
 
Now Lagos’ BRT, which runs at 13 km per hour, has “dramatically improved” the lives of 170,000 people each day at a cost of $1.4 million per kilometer. In addition, it also exemplifies gender-sensitive design. Before the addition of queues, only the strongest could push their way aboard. “Women appreciated the imposition of the queuing systems.”
 
In a separate session, there was discussion on the need to collect better transportation data worldwide in order to build the case for more sustainable transportation options. While almost all countries have pretty good international air and rail travel data, very few have solid local data on walking, biking, or transit, which is crucial to putting funds behind more sustainable, low-cost urban options. Given good data is often at the foundation of good policy, more funds should be allocated to gathering and sharing data and even getting existing pockets of local data moved up to the national and international levels, enabling comparisons in the process.
 
One group, the Partnership on Sustainable Low-Carbon Transport, is calling for “Global Transportation Intelligence.” The Inter-American Development Bank also called for a set of urban “observatories” that can track transportation usage in cities and help inform sustainable transportation investments. As Sanjiv Lohia, Ministry of Urban Development in India, said, “instead of gazing at the stars, these observatories should be rooted at the ground level” where there is still so much unknown about human travel behavior.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Metrobus and equity / El Metrobus y la equidad (in Spanish)

Source: El Universal editorial by Onesimo Flores
 
El uso de carriles confinados para el transporte público es un tema que genera agrios debates en todo el mundo. En la ciudad de Los Ángeles, hace apenas semanas, se recortó un proyecto BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) que circularía sobre el boulevard Wilshire, debido a protestas de los automovilistas. En León, Guanajuato, hubo un alcalde que rebajó las multas por invadir los corredores del sistema Optibús y que promovía que los agentes de tránsito animaran a los automovilistas a utilizarlo en hora pico. Sí, oponerse o sabotear estos novedosos sistemas es atractivo políticamente, sobre todo cuando el grupo gobernante busca ganarse las simpatías de una clase media cada vez más autodependiente.
 
Sin duda, el automovilista se siente agredido por el confinamiento de carriles, particularmente cuando la implementación no incluye ajustes a las vías aledañas o a los sistemas de semaforización para mitigar el tráfico. Muchas de sus voces críticas se unen a la exigencia de invertir en trenes o metros, bajo la idea de que estos modos de transporte circularían sobre derechos de vía abandonados o bajo tierra. El discurso opositor se repite de diversas formas, pero diciendo lo mismo: inviertan en transporte público, siempre y cuando al hacerlo no afecten «mi derecho» a circular sin contratiempos en automóvil.
 
La actitud refleja una profunda inequidad. En nuestras ciudades, más del 70% de los viajes se hacen en transporte público, y sin embargo nadie habla de confinar el 70% de las avenidas. A lo mucho, se pide un carril por cada lado, que de cualquier manera ya está ocupado por estacionamientos o por cientos de microbuses que serían retirados con la implementación del sistema. Muchos gobiernos temen a la crítica, sobre todo cuando proviene de una clase media alta con recursos y acceso a micrófonos. ¿Y por qué no decirlo?, muchos tomadores de decisiones no son usuarios del transporte público, por lo que sufren “la pérdida” de un carril en carne propia sin entender realmente el beneficio.
 
Nadie discute la superioridad del automóvil sobre el transporte urbano. Es más cómodo, rápido y práctico. Sin embargo, nuestras ciudades no tienen ni la infraestructura ni el presupuesto para acomodar a una población donde la mayoría se desplaza en coche, por lo que estas ventajas disminuyen entre más lo utilizamos. La congestión, la contaminación, la elevada accidentalidad, la pérdida de escala humana y la segregación social tienen entre sus causas el explosivo incremento del parque vehicular en nuestras ciudades. Cada automóvil adicional que se incorpora al tráfico disminuye nuestra capacidad conjunta de disfrutar nuestra ciudad. Por ello, aunque parezca un reto titánico, es urgente fortalecer alternativas de movilidad para las próximas décadas.
 
Hoy por hoy, muchos ciudadanos evitan el transporte público porque es inseguro, poco confiable, lento, complicado de entender y porque no va adonde queremos ir. Utilizarlo representa la última opción, frecuentemente reservada para quien no puede pagar otra cosa. Corresponde al gobierno solucionar esta problemática, intentando al menos aparejar los cartones. Las vías exclusivas representan un “premio” para quien está dispuesto a renunciar a la comodidad de la movilidad privada. Ellos, los que contaminan y congestionan menos, quienes hacen más ejercicio y no evitan la convivencia, merecen circular más rápido.
 
Por esto celebro que el gobierno de Marcelo Ebrard meta el acelerador para lograr el crecimiento del Sistema Metrobús. Han pasado sólo algunas semanas del arranque de la Línea 3 y su secretario de Transporte ya anunció los corredores 4 y 5. El sistema es imperfecto, le falta integración con otros modos de transporte y tiene profundas problemáticas que resolver. Además, fueron 10 los corredores prometidos en campaña y el tiempo se agota. Sin embargo, el engranaje parece estar en marcha, y qué bueno. La Ciudad de México será muchísimo mejor cuando moverse en transporte público sea más rápido y conveniente que moverse en coche.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: It is time for some demonstration projects that are low risk and potentially high payoff

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
May 2009
 
In recent months I have been repeatedly asked by many individuals in government, industry and the media on what I would do to improve public transport in our major cities. We see many proposals – some sensible, some whacky and others brilliant but impossible to fund. So what would I ‘recommend’? Where do we start? Well let us recognize that there may be some very low cost initiatives that can be tested, and if they succeed then build on them; if they do not succeed then stop doing it. This clearly suggests that we cannot spend 5 years building something only to have it fail. There may well be some initiatives that can be tested immediately that might be the basis of identifying if there is a serious market of patronage growth that is worth focusing on, even with longer term more costly investments involving non-reversible commitments.
 
The one single initiative that I have been pondering on for some time, and testing on a few individuals, is a simple one. Given that frequency and connectivity are primary elements of any successful public transport initiative, why not select an area of a major capital city and triple the frequency of bus services (i.e., have buses serving existing routes with headways that are 3 times lower than currently exist). Or, even better, offer 5 minute headways in the morning and evening peaks in a particular geographical context where we have a sense that there is potential patronage growth. Some pundits might respond with – ‘who is going to pay and where are we going to get the buses and drivers?’
 
My response is – let us take an area in a major city where say 50 buses operate in the morning peak. Let us increase this to 150, and so we have to find 100 buses. Let us undertake the trial for 12 months (you must have at least this time so that the market can become aware of the new services and establish ongoing commitment). Leasing 100 buses would cost about $15m maximum (which can be sourced for buses about to be retired as well as spare capacity that exists amongst quite a number of operators). In addition, government should support the use of existing buses in the off-peak where there exists a great deal of spare capacity, and test a number of service scenarios. These scenarios should include 5 minute headways in the peak, 10 minutes in the shoulders and 15 minutes in the off-peak Monday-Friday (at least). We would need to source drivers and also ticketing machines compliant with the local area as well as destination signage and marketing of the new services. This seems a very small price to pay compared to commitments to expensive alternatives.
 
Where the new services deliver noticeable patronage growth, one should refine and extend the services; and where this is not evident, the services can be removed. There is nothing like testing the market in real time, compared to spending huge sums of money of patronage prediction models that so often bear little relationship to how the market actually responds. I encourage Minister’s of Transport and their senior advisers to take this opportunity seriously and act on it. The benefits may surprise everyone.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Another BRT line hits the road in Mexico City

Mexico City launches third line of Metrobus BRT. System now boasts 67 kilometers of dedicated busways.
 
Source: EMBARQ
Photo: CTS-Mexico
 
Mexico City’s Metrobús launched Line 3 on the 8th of February 2011. The trunk line of the city’s five-year-old BRT system is expected to move 120,000 passengers per day between Tenayuca and Etiopía.
 
The new line will include 17 kilometers of exclusive bus lanes, 32 stations with pre-payment and level boarding, two terminals and two bus depots. The construction of the new line cost 800 million pesos. Mayor Marcelo Ebrard spoke admist banners ushering in the start of the new line, calling Metrobús an «integral system to provide mobility and sustainability to our city.» He acknowledged there was a lot debate about whether or not the line would be completed by this week, «but they were wrong,» he said. «We keep working to benefit the people, to improve their quality of life.»
 
With the completion of Line 3, Mexico City is now home to 67 kilometers of dedicated busways, 113 stations and 280 buses, moving 620,000 passengers per day and reducing an estimated 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.
 
Line 3 of Metrobus is different than the other routes because the separated bus lanes are paved with concrete on major streets like Vallejo, Balderas and Guerrero. «It is the most extensive concrete application in the city and will last up to 80 years,” Ebrard said. Like other parts of the system, the new stations are fully accessible for those with limited mobility, and they feature good lighting and closed circuit TV cameras for security.
 
Metrobús Director Guillermo Calderón said that the new line will serve about 120,000 passengers per day, adding up to 32 million trips per year on the BRT system. The new system will “connect with the backbone of our public transport system: the metro,” he said. With the additional line, the city hopes to convert car users to regular BRT riders. Fifteen percent of passengers on Line 1 and Line 2 have left their cars at home.
 
“With this new BRT line, we expect to reduce up to 100,000 car trips per day” Calderón said. On February 8, the trips on Line 3 were free, so users could get to know the route and enjoy the system.
 
Other notable guests who attended the inauguration ceremony included Secretary of Transport and Roads Armando Quintero and the Chairman of the Committee of Governors of the Federal District Legislative Assembly Alejandra Barrales.
 
The Center for Sustainable Transport in Mexico (CTS-México) helped to launch and implement the first line of Metrobús on Insurgentes Avenue. The organization has since provided input on design, implementation and operations for the past five years.
 
For the most recent addition to the city’s BRT, EMBARQ provided technical expertise on traffic and safety improvements, such as the location of the exclusive bus lanes and the design of intersections. CTS-México worked with Pedro Szasz as bus operations advisor and Greg Speier to perform road safety audits—careful examinations of a proposed project to ensure that it performs to a high standard from a road safety perspective. About 70% of their recommendations were incorporated in the final designs and actual construction of the new line, improving mobility and safety for passengers.
 
In particular, CTS-México recommended not using a dangerous contraflow lane, which in Line 2 has resulted in high road injuries and deaths. CTS-México also helped to define the final terms of reference for a fare collection system, with support from Andre Ampelas. The communications team at CTS-México also provided key input for the design, names and icons for the stations and other user information material.
 
During the first days of operation, the 11 staff members of CTS-México supported Metrobus with data collection, observations and analysis under actual service delivery conditions, making recommendations for improved quality of service, including frequency, occupancy, and user information needs.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Bus of the future – New technologies helping universal access

Source: Euronews
 
In Rouen in France, engineers have been working within The European Bus System of the Future Project (EBSF) to make public transport a bit easier for people who use a wheelchair. The project is being coordinated by the International Association of Public Transport (UITP).
 
Check the video describing the prototype that is being developed:
 

 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

New fast track for Transantiago, Santiago de Chile / Nueva vía rápida para Transantiago, en Santiago de Chile (in Spanish)

 
Ministro Pedro Pablo Errázuriz inspecciona en terreno construcción de inédita via rápida sólo para buses del transporte público que unirá Peñalolén y el centro de Santiago sin transbordos.
 
Source: Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones de Chile
 

Photo: Transantiago
 
Una inspección en terreno a la primera vía rápida 100% dedicada al transporte público que se haya construido en Chile, realizó el ministro de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones, Pedro Pablo Errázuriz.
 
El secretario de Estado visitó esta mañana las obras de la nueva infraestructura para el transporte público de Santiago, que unirá las comunas de Peñalolén, Ñuñoa, Providencia y Santiago, de manera directa y sin transbordos, beneficiando a unas 160 mil personas que podrán tener viajes más rápidos.
 
La nueva vía, que requerirá una inversión total de $11.700 millones, será exclusiva para el transporte público, con semáforos e infraestructura preferente, lo que asegurará tiempos de viajes significativamente menores que en automóvil. Usando esta vía en su versión expresa, los tiempos de viaje desde Peñalolén hasta la Alameda bajarán a la mitad, pasando de 53 minutos a media hora.
 
Además, contará con infraestructura de primer nivel, como zonas pagas definitivas con torniquetes similares a las de Metro-, que permitirán controlar la evasión y dar mayor rapidez en el acceso a los buses. También, contará con paneles digitales de información variable, que señalarán cuánto falta para el paso del próximo bus, recorridos y servicios; y placas en braille para facilitar el acceso de no videntes.
 
Adicionalmente, el proyecto que estará listo en septiembre- contempla la mejora de 69 paraderos que serán iluminados con luz solar, dando más seguridad y comodidad a los usuarios, y la construcción de dos nuevos tramos de vías que permitan unir Peñalolén con Plaza Italia de manera directa.
 
Como autoridad estamos mejorando el transporte público de Santiago. Estamos ampliando la red de metro, mejorando recorridos, construyendo nuevos y mejores paraderos, cambiando buses antiguos por nuevos, renovando más de 10 mil señales de parada y ahora, dando un nuevo paso, con la construcción de la primera vía rápida 100% dedicada al transporte público. Pero para que esta sea una realidad necesitamos el apoyo de todos. Por eso, hago un llamado a querer y cuidar la infraestructura de nuestro transporte público, sostuvo el ministro Pedro Pablo Errázuriz.
 
Revisa el video con la descripción del proyecto aqui:
 

 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: We need a national vision statement

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
March 2009
 
Congested roads, overcrowded public transport services and delays in agreeing, and then implementing, the kinds of changes that are needed to respond to such challenges in our cities are symptomatic of a long term lack of strategic planning and investment in Australia’s transport systems and infrastructure more generally. From about 6 percent of Gross Domestic Product in the early 60s, Gross Fixed Capital Formation in the key economic infrastructure sectors (transport and storage, electricity gas and water, communications services) fell to a little over half this share in the 90s. Over half of this decline in share was in the transport sector. National Competition and National Road Transport reforms have helped deliver improvements in the efficiency of infrastructure utilisation over the last decade and a half, including in the transport sector, and investment levels have recovered somewhat in the last decade. Yet there remains a considerable catch-up in store and much thinking to be done about long term priorities.
 
There is a need to radically overhaul the policy and system planning processes that drive urban transport infrastructure and services in Australian cities. An inability or unwillingness to take a long term, vision based, approach has given us incremental approaches, which change with election cycles, or quicker. This will not resolve the long term problems of transport in our cities.
 
The long term pressures of responding to climate change, in particular, should drive a transformation in the way Australian cities approach their transport systems. This should flow through to how we shape out cities in coming years, and that a carefully targeted approach, affecting only a small part of our cities, can meet requirements. While transport infrastructure requirements attract most media attention, major transport pricing reform must accompany infrastructure development, to ensure that we make the best use of existing capacity. Pricing reform is a virtuous initiative, delivering its own direct welfare benefits and pushing travel choices in a direction that are more sustainable long term.
 
Infrastructure requirements in urban transport are substantial, partly reflecting three decades of declining investment share from the 1960s. Responses to investment backlogs and to emerging pressures must be framed in a way that helps to shape a more sustainable future, not simply be a response to “apparent” transport problems. Transformational change is required, not more of the same.
 
International experience suggests that champions can be very important in achieving transformational change of the scale suggested in this paper. This is currently a case of “situation vacant” in Australia. The Federal Government’s creation of Infrastructure Australia provides a unique opportunity to change this dynamic.
 
Food for thought
This commentary is based on joint research with Professor John Stanley
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

A bus-only brouhaha

Source: Los Angeles Times editorial
 
Bus-only lanes for Wilshire Boulevard are the latest casualty of the political wars over transit policy in L.A.
 
Ever wonder why L.A.’s public transit system seems haphazard, with rail lines that don’t go where they’re most needed and inadequate bus service? A political battle over bus-only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard serves as an instructive example of the ways the best-designed plans of transit engineers are often thwarted.
 
Wilshire is L.A.’s densest business and residential corridor, and it’s among the city’s biggest traffic nightmares at rush hour, which is why devoting a lane in each direction to bus use only is a good idea. More people already travel by bus than by car along the route during peak hours, and a fast bus lane would lure even more out of their cars, reducing pollution and radically reducing commuting times for bus riders.
 
The lanes, which have been in the planning stages for nearly a decade, were originally supposed to run from MacArthur Park to the Santa Monica border, except for a segment in the city of Beverly Hills, which opted not to participate. But when wealthy Westsiders complained about a loss of street parking and increased automotive congestion, politicians started looking to carve out chunks of the 9-mile route. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, carrying water for high-rise dwellers in the Condo Canyon neighborhood between Selby and Comstock avenues, led a push in December to cut that mile-long stretch. Then City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, no doubt after getting an earful from constituents in Brentwood, proposed deleting the entire segment west of Beverly Hills, which would leave just 5.4 miles of bus lanes.
 
At the behest of the L.A. City Council, transit planners are now studying the impact of Rosendahl’s carve-out; the full council is slated to decide whether to approve the longer or the shorter route in April. It’s unclear whether the mid-Wilshire-only option would jeopardize the $23 million in federal funds designated for the project, more than two-thirds the total cost. It is clear that it would render an attractive commuting alternative far less attractive, slowing Westside buses to a crawl for large parts of the journey.
 
Bus-only lanes are by no means an ideal solution for Wilshire’s traffic woes, which would be best alleviated by a subway line. But the so-called Subway to the Sea is many years away and may never materialize, and the lanes are the next best thing. It takes courage — something seldom seen among Westside politicians — to build an effective transit network; we hope the council exercises it this spring by approving the full route.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

The Transmilenio recipe / La receta Transmilenio (in Spanish)

Source: Animal Politico by Onesimo Flores
 
El Transmilenio de Bogotá es la estrella de rock de los sistemas de transporte masivo en el mundo en desarrollo. Desde su implementación a principios de la década pasada, demostró que era posible tener un sistema de transporte urbano de alta capacidad sin tener que recurrir a los costosos rieles o a elevados subsidios. No es casual que más de 700 delegaciones de transportistas y gobernantes de 49 países diferentes hayan visitado Bogotá para aprender de esta experiencia, ni que las empresas operadoras del sistema -antiguas cooperativas de microbuses- hoy compitan por contratos en lugares tan lejanos como Santiago de Chile, Guadalajara y Johannesburgo.
 
Para decirlo de forma clara: Transmilenio representa el punto de quiebre en la reciente explosión de sistemas bus rapid transit (BRT) en todo el mundo.
 

Y es que sí hay mucho que envidiarle a los Bogotanos. Basta ver algunos de los videos que preparó El Tiempo con motivo del 10 aniversario del sistema, y comparar lo que ahí se muestra con lo que ocurre en muchas ciudades de México. Según algunos estudios, el Transmilenio ahorra en promedio 20 minutos diarios de viaje a sus usuarios, y ha detonado una importante valorización de las propiedades aledañas. Su corredor principal mueve 45,000 personas por hora por dirección y el sistema completo alcanza 1.7 millones de viajes diarios, cifras comparables o superiores a lo logrado en muchos sistemas metro del mundo. Pero no solo es cantidad, sino calidad. La filosofía del sistema está basada en la idea de dignificar el transporte urbano, buscando convertirlo en un punto de encuentro para ciudadanos de todo tipo.
 
A pesar de algunos problemas y limitaciones, Bogotá está orgullosa de su sistema de transporte público. Sus promotores han sido tan exitosos, que el “modelo Transmilenio” es ya un verdadero producto de exportación, como demuestra la creciente lista de ciudades en proceso de implementar algún corredor confinado inspirado en esa experiencia colombiana.
 
Sin embargo, me parece que en muy pocos sitios han entendido que lo que hoy existe en Bogotá representa apenas el principio de un gran proyecto de reforma que está en marcha. La genialidad del Transmilenio no está basada simplemente en echar a andar algunos corredores de autobuses confinados, sino en establecer un mecanismo para incorporar gradualmente todo el transporte público de la ciudad a un sistema integrado de alta calidad. Y para logar eso todavía falta mucho.
 
Me explico. Tras diez años en operación, Transmilenio mueve apenas al 26% de la totalidad de los viajes en transporte público de la capital colombiana. Es decir, casi tres de cada cuatro viajes siguen haciéndose como siempre, en unidades viejas y destartaladas, con choferes que juegan carreritas disputándose el pan diario en cada parada. Esos viajes de barrio, alejados de las grandes troncales e indispensables para navegar eficientemente la ciudad, siguen fuera del sistema.
 

 

¿Cómo ampliar el alcance del Transmilenio sin desplazar a cerca de 16,000 transportistas que encuentran en esta actividad su sustento diario? ¿Cómo hacerlo sin impactar la tarifa y sin congestionar más a los de por si saturados corredores troncales? ¿Cómo proteger el proceso de una inevitable politización, en un contexto que incluye elecciones para alcalde en Octubre 2011?
 
Esta semana tuve la oportunidad de conocer a Fernando Páez, Gerente General del Transmilenio. Nos vimos en el marco de la Reunión Anual del Transportation Research Board, una de las más grandes convenciones de especialistas en la industria. Me sorprendió gratamente observar que Fernando no asistió al evento para presentar la ya conocida “historia de éxito”, sino a compartir los retos que vislumbra para el futuro.
 
En los próximos meses Transmilenio implementará su Fase 3, que busca integrar el sistema de corredores existente con el transporte colectivo tradicional. El proceso implica acelerar la formalización de los transportistas, diseñar un trazado más racional de las rutas y establecer reglas claras para establecer la tarifa y repartir los ingresos. La visión es que Bogotá cuente con un sistema de tarifa integrada y transbordos gratuitos, con frecuencias predecibles y confiables, con señalización clara y legible, y con sistemas de recaudo y de control de flota de avanzada. Lograrlo no será fácil y el proceso hasta ahora no ha estado exento de críticas razonables, pero al menos parece haber claridad sobre la meta y compromiso con la estrategia.
 
¿Qué tanto existe esta visión completa entre quienes hoy promueven “el modelo Transmilenio”? Hay muchos alcaldes y gobernadores mexicanos que prometieron o ya construyen corredores bus rapid transit. Muchos de ellos tomaron la decisión tras viajar a Bogotá. Ojala entiendan que la inauguración de una línea de BRT representa tan solo el comienzo del camino y no la meta, un ingrediente y no la receta completa.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Cities in focus | Los Angeles

Source: EMBARQ
 

 
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is doing something that no transit agency in USA has ever done: it’s marketing its products and services as if it were a private company bent on turning a profit. But for Metro marketing isn’t about increasing the bottom line. It’s about reducing traffic, cleaning the air and making people’s commutes in this auto-clogged city a bit less stressful:
 

 
For more information, read EMBARQ’s post on TheCityFix.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Guangzhou wins 2011 Sustainable Transport Award for innovative transport solutions

Source: ITDP
 

 
Cities worldwide are demonstrating innovation in transport planning by integrating bike, BRT and metro systems, with Guangzhou in China announced as winner of the 2011 Sustainable Transport Award. Guangzhou’s new world-class BRT system integrates with bike lanes, bike share and metro stations, raising the bar for all cities.
 
Walter Hook, Executive Director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), commented: “Guangzhou’s transformations are nothing short of amazing. The reclaimed waterways for public space inspired by another Sustainable Transport Winner – Seoul – are a drastic improvement and bold innovation. The new BRT system is changing perceptions about bus-based and high quality mass transit. We hope all cities, not least those in the US, will be inspired by these examples.”
 
The Sustainable Transport Award is given annually to the city that made most progress over the year to increase mobility for all residents while reducing transportation greenhouse and air pollution emissions and improving safety and access for cyclists and pedestrians.
 
The Nominees were (in alphabetical order):

• Guangzhou in China, where the BRT that opened in February 2010 is integrated with the city’s metro system, bike lanes and bike sharing stations. Sophie Punte, Executive Director, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Center, commented: “Guangzhou has demonstrated that future emissions can be avoided through BRT systems integrated with cycling and other public transport systems at relatively low costs.”
• León in Mexico, home of Mexico’s first BRT, now achieving a level of integration unsurpassed in the region. Dario Hidalgo, Director of Research and Practice at EMBARQ, explained: “León was Mexico’s pioneer in introducing integrated bus systems and BRT in 2003; now they have scaled their system from 35% to 65% of the transit trips, through route reorganization and continued inclusion of the local bus operators. León has also an extraordinary track record in active transport, keeping the biking and walking share above 39% of the total trips, one of the highest values in Latin American cities.”
• Lima, Peru, where the long-awaited BRT is the first step towards creating an integrated citywide sustainable transport system. Sergio Sánchez, Director, Clean Air Institute for Latin America, said: “Lima has finally made considerable progress with planning, designing and launching its new BRT system. We truly hope that this trend continues in coming years and that we will see the same progress in 2011 and the following years.”
• Nantes in France, where the integration of its bus light rapid transit with its tramway network presents a model of efficient coordination. Heather Allen, Senior Manager, Sustainable Development, International Association of Public Transport, argued: “Ambitious targets, vision combined with integrated planning and sustained investment have paid big dividends in Nantes. Last year it made significant progress in integrating its tramway and bus system, promoting bicycling and continuing to shift people away from cars. Its integrated transport system helps make it one of the most livable cities in Europe.”
• Tehran, Iran, where the introduction of congestion charging complements the city’s expansion of its metro and BRT systems. Lloyd Wright, Executive Director of Viva Cities, commented: “Over the past several years, Tehran has faced one of the world’s most severe air quality crises. The local climate, topography, and sharp growth in private cars have all conspired to create a lingering air quality emergency over the city. The national and local government have responded boldly. Investments in quality rail and BRT are re-defining public transport in Tehran, and a move towards new cycle and pedestrian infrastructure is helping to transform mobility patterns as well. Even more boldly, though, the government has begun the process of reducing fuel subsidies. In all, Tehran is developing a package of carrots and sticks that will hopefully steer the city towards a more sustainable mobility path.”

 
Finally, Manfred Breithaupt, Senior Transport Advisor, GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), said: “The Sustainable Transport Award has been growing in importance every year, and giving greater relevance to the topic of physical and fare integration is most relevant to increase attractiveness and acceptance of public transport. This has been done by many of the nominated cities during 2010. We at GIZ are very happy to be part of this initiative.”
 
The Nominees are chosen by a Committee that includes the most respected experts and organizations working internationally on sustainable transportation. Committee members include:

• Walter Hook, Executive Director, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
• Dario Hidalgo, Senior Transport Engineer, EMBARQ, The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport
• Manfred Breithaupt, Senior Transport Advisor, GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit)
• Sophie Punte, Executive Director, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Center
• Heather Allen, Senior Manager, Sustainable Development, International Association of Public Transport (UITP)
• Ralph Gakenheimer, Chair, Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation in Developing Countries
• Sergio Sánchez, Director, Clean Air Institute for Latin America
• Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty, Environmental Expert, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD)
 
The Sustainable Transport Award is given each year during the annual Transportation Research Board meeting in Washington, D.C. Past winners include:

2010 – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, India, for opening the first full bus rapid transit system in India.

2009 – Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York, United States, for making bold moves to achieve the ambitious goals of PlaNYC 2030.

2008 – Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, Paris, France for implementing a range of innovative mobility solutions with vision, commitment and vigor. Mayor Ken Livingston, London, United Kingdom for expanding London’s congestion charge program and developing other low emissions programs that dramatically impacted air quality.

2007 – Mayor Jaime Nebot, Guayquil, Ecuador for revitalizing the downtown, creating dynamic public spaces, and instituting a new public transit system.

2006 – Mayor Myung-Bak Lee, Seoul, Korea for the revitalization of the Cheongyecheon River and the implementation of its bus rapid transit system.

2005 – former Mayor Enrique Peñalosa, Bogotá, Colombia for the TransMilenio bus rapid transit system, bicycle integration, and public space reclamation.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Extra bus capacity in Sydney – does it make a difference to patronage growth?

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
February 2009
 
When asked what I believe are the essential elements of a successful patronage growth strategy for public transport, I mention ‘connectivity, frequency and visibility’. The first two elements remind us that the ultimate test of impact is a network test and not just patronage along a single corridor. Visibility refers to ensuring that potential patrons know where the PT vehicle can be boarded and alighted (and is especially relevant to buses). A delicate balance is required between coverage (which is clearly linked to connectivity) and frequency. A tendency in recent years has been to recognise the importance of network connectivity, but then to focus on investment in a corridor (or project-based) ‘solution’ to the accessibility and mobility challenge of metropolitan areas. On the upside, the project approach can define with great clarity exactly what investment is required and make the investment need more transparent when funding is sought from Federal Government (e.g., under the Infrastructure Fund) or from a public-private partnership (PPP). The downside is that system-wide investments that are difficult to compartmentalise as discrete projects often miss out for a serious injection of funding and have to be incrementally appended to a project-based planning system that is not ensured to be consistent with what a system-wide approach in the first place would arrive at. Instead we are forced to look for sub-optimal solutions that could be even more expensive than what we need if the focus was on network investment and not large scale stand alone corridor ‘solutions’. It appears that it is this ‘reductionsism’ philosophy that takes bite chunks of a system in isolation that inevitably results in over-supply of capacity in some locations and serious under-supply in the greater network. What can be done to resolve this? The Senate inquiry into public transport provides an opportunity to engage the Federal Government in a responsibility to link its funding (from all sources) to State governments to require a system-wide test on value for money and in particular to at least make the case that a specific project, especially those that absorb huge amounts of budget (with evidential cost overruns of about 50 percent), is indeed best value for money and that other explicitly evaluated alternatives are less attractive. We seem to have failed to do this in the recent past.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Cities in focus | New York City

Source: EMBARQ

 
New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Department of Transportation are on a mission to make the Big Apple the “greatest, greenest big city in the world” by ramping up bicycle infrastructure across the city, introducing Bus Rapid Transit to the Bronx, and pedestrianizing Times Square, among other bold transportation initiatives.
 
This video developed by EMBARQ shows how these measures are changing the New Yorker’s way of life:
 

 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

What can we do to improve service performance in transit operations?

Information based on the research that is being conducted by Felipe Delgado, Juan Carlos Muñoz and Ricardo Giesen.
 
Bus transit services operated without a control system tend to result in vehicle bunching, which leads to an increase in bus headway variance and a consequent worsening of both the magnitude and variability of average waiting times. This phenomenon is produced, among other factors, by the variations in passenger demand. The above suggest than in order to maintain headway regularity and reduce passenger waiting times, control actions needs to be taken.
 
The simulation presented in the video shows a high frequency and high demand transit service (design headway of 2 minutes) where buses reach capacity at certain stops. The corridor has 10 km of length, with 30 bus stops evenly spaced. Bus capacity for all buses is 100 pax.
 
Each square represents a bus stop while each circle is a bus. The color of buses change during the simulation representing different load levels:

• Green : Bus loads between 0 and 1/4 of bus capacity
• Yellow: Bus loads between 1/4 and 1/2 of bus capacity
• Orange: Bus loads between 1/2 and 3/4 of bus capacity
• Red: Bus loads between 3/4 and capacity

Two different strategies under the same conditions are compared:
 
No Control: that is the spontaneous evolution of the system, where buses are dispatched from the terminal at a designed headway, without taking any control action along the route.
 
HBLRT: two simultaneous decisions are considered every time a bus reach a stop: (i) should the vehicle be held and for how long, and (ii) should the number of passengers allowed to board it be limited and by how many. While the former is a useful control mechanism in order to delay buses, the later is potentially attractive to speed-up the service.
 
A warm-up period of 15 minutes is considered before any of the two strategies is applied.
 

 
Note than under the No Control strategy buses tend to bunch even if they are dispatched at regular headways from the terminal. It can also be noted that loads between buses at a given stop present a great variability, with an important number of red buses in the center of the corridor followed by yellow or blue buses.
 
When the HBLRT strategy is applied, three important results can be observed: (i) the control method quickly restores and maintains even bus spacings, (ii) the buses run faster than under no control strategy reducing the length of the cycle, and (iii) the bus loads among buses present better regularity than under no control strategy.
 
The reductions in cycle length suggest that the HBLRT strategy is beneficial from the operator point of view, since the low variability allows a more robust operation and planning at the terminals. Furthermore, the reduction in cycle time also decreases the number of buses needed to provide a given frequency.
 
The better regularity in bus loads is very relevant for users, since discomfort only happens at high load factors. So, a more balanced load factor across buses yields a more comfortable experience to users. Please note that a very uncomfortable bus is suffered by much more users than a quite comfortable one.
 
These findings therefore suggest that the HBLRT strategy improves comfort compared to the other strategies, allowing buses to travel less crowded and providing a more reliable experience.
 
 
References:
Delgado, F., Muñoz, J.C., Giesen, R. and Cipriano, A. (2009) Real-Time Control of Buses in a Transit Corridor Based on Vehicle Holding and Boarding Limits. Transportation Research Record 2090, 59-67.
Delgado, F., Muñoz, J.C., Giesen, R . (2011) Analysis Of Bus Boading Limits Real-Time Control Strategy: When and How Much Limiting Bus Boarding Improve Performance? Working paper.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Let’s flatten the camel and use all of our transport capacity a whole lot better

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
December 2008
 
In November each year I head north to spend one week as a member of a small international advisory panel (IAP), chaired by the Singapore Minister of Transport, the Honorable Raymond Lim. As part of the 2008 meeting a ‘World Urban Transport Leaders Summit’ was hooked onto the IAP activity. Attended by over 100 delegates, a big theme was the shape of our cities and the role that public transport might and should play. During the final panel session, there was a lot of discussion on the benefits of having a metropolitan setting with one high density node (namely the CBD) as the basis of ensuring the viability of public transport.
 
A number of senior and well articulated participants were horrified at the thought, especially those from developing economies where more density is the last thing they want. As the discussion ensued it became clear that there is a lot of global support for a move away from a CBD centric view of the world, in which all transport is radial to the cause of the CBD; often to the neglect of the rest of the system which caters for a far greater number of trips and demands for accessibility.
 
The largest capital cities in Australia – notably Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane – would in my opinion be far better off as liveable places if we stopped focusing so much on a single CBD, and recognized that we have cities of cities with great prospects of providing greater accessibility benefits. Some might say we already have refocussed; yet when one looks at what is happening on the ground, it is hard to see what strategic plans, actions plans, and vision statements actually meant. “Lost in translation’ comes to mind!
 
With a cities of cities focus, we can design our metropolitan fabric so that there is good connectivity between key nodes (i.e., a trunk level of service) as well as good connectivity to each of the nodes (i.e., a feeder level of service), which can use transport means that are very cost effective and capable of delivering the required levels of service capacity. (I distinguish between vehicle capacity and service capacity per hour; the latter is what maters and not the former and when this is accepted we can see the attraction of bus solutions in contrast to rail solutions for most of the truck corridors in our capital cities).
 
Importantly we are not talking about urban sprawl but about making good use of the existing urban setting in order to give greater accessibility and living environments to all. The next time someone talks about improving access to the CBD, ask them why and at what opportunity cost to the rest of the system.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Cities in focus | Arequipa

Source: EMBARQ

 
In 2009, Arequipa, Peru closed its most important commercial corridor – Mercaderes Street – to car traffic. The pedestrianization project is part of the city’s larger vision to modernize transit services, develop a bus rapid transit corridor, and build additional bicycling paths to improve mobility in the city’s historic downtown.
 
EMBARQ developed a great video about the effects of the Mercaderes Street Pedestrianization:
 

 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Will we ever have enough government funds to sort our infrastructure?

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
October 2008
 
The Australian Infrastructure Fund has recently received over $235bn worth of bids for the opportunity to access the $20bn Infrastructure fund. We are advised that a proper benefit-cost analysis will be applied in the determination of what projects will get up. While we strongly support the initiative of government, we raise the more fundamental concern about how seriously the evaluation process could possibly be in determining which requests will be approved. There is a feeling abroad that such processes end up funding a few very large mega projects that have strong political visibility but may well be down the list of benefit-cost ratios, regardless of the level of detail associated with the benefit-cost appraisal. What this suggests is that we have to find other ways of funding infrastructure if we are to make a difference. The skeptic in me suggests that $20bn spread across the nation might (and between many sectors such as telecommunications and transport) deliver no more than $2bn to a capital city for transportation. With the focus on rail ‘solutions’ in Sydney and Melbourne, which will cost around $6-7bn (despite government pronouncement of the order of $4bn), it is unlikely we will see enough financial action to make a big difference. Even more concerning, projects that promote systemwide and network-based solutions in contrast to corridors are unlikely to get up. This is not good news for the bus sector unless by some marvel of turn, we see the occasional bus rapid transit system (BRT), which could if taken seriously deliver at least ten times the amount of transport capacity for the same financial outlay as expensive rail ‘solutions’ (even with tunnelling where above-ground access is not available). Brisbane has recently completed tunnelling for its BRT, demonstrating that buses can operate efficiently in tunnels, despite claims to the contrary by those who support rail.
 
It is time to start thinking about alternative infrastructure funds. The obvious one, that built the Opera House, is a lottery. This alone, in a nation of gamblers and risk-takers, might be expected to deliver far more dollars for public transport that the Australian Infrastructure Fund will ever deliver. I am surprised that governments have not, at the very least, sought the views of the electorate on this very attractive way of finding the huge sums that we need. Let’s look at a scenario. Suppose PT lottery tickets were sold for $10 per ticket, and that 10 percent of the population in Sydney purchased two tickets through the year. This would raise in gross terms $80m per annum. If we deducted administrative costs and prizes, this sum might decrease to $60m per annum. Over five years, a period acceptable for a decent piece of infrastructure investment (compared to 10-12 years for rail)(ignoring inflation and adjustments into present value terms), we would raise a net sum of $600m. and build at least 20-25 kilometres of high quality (Brisbane-style) BRT.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Juan de Dios Ortúzar is elected as recipient of the Humboldt Research Award

On 11 November 2010 the Humboldt Foundation from Germany informed Juan de Dios Ortuzar that he had been chosen as recipient of the Humboldt Research Award. This foundation promotes academic cooperation between excellent scientists and scholars from all around the world.

This important award is granted in recognition of the researcher’s past accomplishments in teaching and research. The awarded academics have made a relevant impact in their discipline and are encouraged to continue accomplishing achievements in the future.

The Humboldt Foundation grants up to 100 awards annually. According to Juan de Dios, «all the knowledge areas can be elected; you must be nominated by a German professor and another academic, both of the highest category. The opinion of two other academics from other countries is also requested.»

The prize recipients receive EUR 60,000 and are invited to Germany for a period of up to one year, to be part of a long-term research project with German colleagues. Prof. Ortúzar will be travelling during July 2011, probably to a stay at Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) and the Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW-Berlin).

¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!

Tweet

Better transit, even on the cheap, doesn’t always come easy

Source: The Transport Politic
 

Photo: Chris Phan
 
A new bus rapid transit line opens near Eugene, Oregon as protesters argue against future investment.
 
With the rise of bus rapid transit and the increasing movement for better bicycling facilities have come a new form of community protest — a sense of indignation among some members of the affected areas about abandoning parts of the road that they had once assumed were to be entirely reserved for cars. From New York to Berkeley to Eugene, places more typically known for their liberal politics are becoming battle grounds over the right and wrong ways to use the street.
 
This week, Eugene’s Lane Transit District celebrated the opening of the $41 million, 7.8-mile Gateway EmX extension, a new BRT route that links downtown Springfield (a nearby town) with the Gateway Mall, the PeaceHealth medical complex, and other destinations. The first EmX (Emerald Express) route, a 4-mile $24 million link between downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield via the University of Oregon, opened in 2007.
 
From all outward appearances, Eugene is doing BRT just right. The new line has 60% of its right-of-way reserved for buses alone; it features extended buses with doors on both sides and commodious, neighborhood-integrated stations; it offers reliable and fast service every 10 to 15 minutes thanks to signal priority; customers can take advantage of level boarding and off-board fare collection; and it is very well routed, reaching the center of all the places it is meant to serve, not their margins as do so many transit corridors. In three years, ridership doubled and exceeded 20-year projections. Operations costs are low enough that the initial corridor may be profitable*.
 
For a medium-sized metropolitan area like that of Eugene, BRT of this sort makes for an ideal investment. The project could be completed more cheaply because the city agreed to allow the bus line to run in the center of the street. And more expensive technology, like light rail, would have likely provided unnecessary capacity for a medium-sized city like this**.
 
Nonetheless, the expansion of the EmX system has not been uncontested. Protesters from the west side of Eugene, where the next BRT corridor is supposed to go, have been fighting its construction for months. These opponents have suggested that the new $105 million line would hurt the nearby communities and lead to the elimination of jobs because it would reduce traffic throughput and require the acquisition of several residential and commercial properties.
 
The transit district expects to eventually construct up to 61 miles of EmX routes, crisscrossing the region on all of the major travel corridors.
 
The controversy over bus rapid transit in Eugene is the most recent of what has become a familiar meme in the annals of alternative transportation development. In New York, new bus rapid transit corridors and bike lanes have been accused of disrupting business and shutting down parking. In Berkeley, opponents have set their sights on a reserved bus right-of-way and argue that its construction will reduce retail activity, making regular commerce all but impossible. In Toronto, new Mayor Rob Ford has come out swinging against street-running light rail because he wants to end “the war on the car” imposed by the previous mayor, arguing that subway investments are more appropriate (and out of the way), despite their much higher costs.
 
These fears, however, have a lot more to do with the specter of disrupting the status quo than anything else. People who are used to have having all parts of the streets in their neighborhoods open to private vehicles at all times cannot imagine how it could possibly be a good idea to provide dedicated lanes for buses or for bikes. A recent New York Times editorial cartoon satirized this perception, raising the possibility that in the future every mode of transportation will get its own lane — except for the private automobile.
 
There is an alternative: Constructing transit rights-of-way out of the way of the street. Doing so, though, usually costs far more and is often less effective in connecting a community’s most vibrant districts. Thus the best option for transit investments — both in terms of cost-effectiveness and ridership growth — often requires taking space away from cars. That’s especially true in smaller metropolitan areas like Eugene-Springfield, which can do the most with the least amount of money if they choose to devote private automobile lanes to bus services.
 
For cities and transit agencies attempting to improve services in these budget-constrained times, keeping the communities along proposed new transit routes happy is essential. The argument in favor of dedicating lanes to buses or bikes must be a compelling one that ensures to a community that in exchange for lost car lanes and parking spaces, there will be an increase in traffic from people using non-automobile based modes. And the improvements must be good enough to convince the people along the routes that they will want to take advantage of them themselves.
 
Such arguments are not easy to make, but if a city wants to avoid — or at least subdue — conflict over transit improvements, it must engage them as strongly as possible. Otherwise, reasonable and cost-efficient investments like the EmX will be lost to squabbling.
 
 
* Operating costs, at $1.15/passenger, are lower than standard bus fare of $1.50/passenger.
** I should note that some have suggested that the initial line, with some of the corridor in one-lane sections, is not good enough to be real BRT. But with frequencies only every 10 minutes, the shared lane doesn’t pose much of a problem. And the transit agency has been able to reduce running times by more than 25% per trip — meaning something is being done right here. One concern is the new route’s loop segment along which alternating buses travel in either direction. This is a travel configuration that will likely confuse some users.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: Rethinking stereotypical segments of potential public transport users

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
September 2008
 
Passengers are individuals, so let’s seek out those who seriously might switch to public transport and stop trying to sell generic policies that are ignored by most
 
As populations age and remain healthier well into their senior years, the standard socioeconomic descriptors (i.e., age, income, car ownership, stage in lifecycle, occupation) that have evolved as stereotypes for public transport use begin to fail. It is commonly asserted that elderly* residents are prime candidates for public transport use, described as short on money and long on time and hence captive to public transport. Thus low fares go with long meandering routes with relatively low frequencies. Increasingly, however, elderly residents fail the stereotypical test. Many are relatively wealthy, have a driving licence and a car, lead active lives and are short on time**. Speed and comfort may be more important than low fares.
 
An alternative segmentation may be best defined by service perceptions and attitudes. Lieberman et al (2001) proposed a very interesting grouping based on the need for flexibility, speed and personal safety. They proposed six classes of individuals in terms of their travel requirements and expectations (see Figure 1):

• Road runner: high need for flexibility and speed and high sensitivity to their personal travel experience.
• Cautious runabout: high need for flexibility and speed but moderate sensitivity to their personal travel experience, distinguished from intrepid trekkers by their lesser concern for personal safety.
• Intrepid trekkers: high need for flexibility and speed but moderate sensitivity to their personal travel experience, distinguished from cautious runabout by their greater concern for personal safety.
• Flexible flyers: high need for flexibility and speed but low sensitivity to their personal travel experience.
• Conventional cruisers: low need for flexibility and speed but high sensitivity to their personal travel experience.
• Easy goers: low need for flexibility and speed and low sensitivity to their personal travel experience.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These segments mapped to socio-economic and demographic descriptors are likely to provide a more useful basis for seeking out potential patronage for public transport. The presumption that this classification can be ‘explained’ by age and income is likely to be false. In particular this classification process can materially assist the ‘search’ for high eligibility candidates for switching to public transport under individualised marketing programs to which we now turn.
 
Lieberman, W., Schumacher, D., Hoffman, A and Wornum, C. (2001) Creating a new century of transit opportunity: strategic planning for transit, Transportation Research Record 1747, 60-67.
 
Food for thought
 
 
* Strictly speaking the Australian official definition of an elderly person is someone over the age of 85. The age range 55-85 is referred to as ‘seniors’.
** They also have a strong preference for car use.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Sustainable transport moves center stage as Brazil’s 2014 World Cup looms

Source: Smart + Connected Communities Institute by Laurence Cruz.
 

Sustainable transport may not be the first thing people associate with Brazil – a country that typically calls up images of soccer, samba and coffee. But that may be about to change.
 
With an additional 2.98 million visitors expected to flock to South America’s largest country for the 2014 World Cup, urban planners are seizing what they see as a golden opportunity to upgrade sustainable transport systems in the 12 host cities. And in this nation of buses, that means special attention to state-of-the-art Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, which provide faster, more efficient service than ordinary bus lines. Federal, state and local governments in Brazil have already committed nearly $6.5 billion in urban transit investments for the purpose, a figure that’s expected to increase with private investments.
 
For more insight into Brazil’s approach to sustainable transport and in particular to BRT systems, Smart+Connected Communities Institute spoke with Toni Lindau, Ph.D., member of our Centre of Excellence and director of the Center for Sustainable Transport in Brazil (CTS-Brasil), which is part of EMBARQ.
 
 
What are the main challenges facing Brazil from a sustainable transport perspective as it prepares to host the 2014 World Cup?
 
Toni Lindau: Brazil’s government would say we are well on our way to a sustainable transportation system. Brazil is very proud of its ethanol program where gas purchased at the pump is about 25 percent ethanol from sugar cane. We are also much less dependent on cars than the United States, where public transportation accounts for only about 5 percent of urban travel. In Brazil, half of all motorized urban travel occurs on public transport, the vast majority of it buses. We are probably the bus nation of the world. Yes, buses pollute because they still run mostly on diesel, but society is now demanding much cleaner fuels like biodiesel, natural gas, clean diesel and eventually hydrogen beginning to come online.
That said, the World Cup is a great opportunity to upgrade our bus systems, and to move from ordinary, privately operated bus lines to BRTs, which Brazil has pioneered. We have corridors that run more than 100 buses per hour at the peak direction, and many of the buses are empty because there are too many lines overlapping and competing with each other. BRT systems provide optimized services with articulated or double-articulated buses that can handle about 15,000 passengers per hour, per lane, per direction. This is one of the main things we’re working on for the World Cup.
 
What are some of the main transportation projects taking place?
 
Toni Lindau: Brazil is planning nearly 300 miles of BRT corridors for the 12 World Cup cities. In Rio de Janeiro, the major World Cup venue, CTS-Brasil is supporting some very significant changes, including at least 75 miles of BRT corridors and about 185 miles of improvements in bus routes, such as bus lanes, better signaling, better user information, rationalization of bus lines and so on. And, of course, these BRT projects will remain after the World Cup and after the Olympic Games in 2016. There’s no point in planning systems that will not survive after these events.
 
You led development of a special BRT Simulator for EMBARQ to help with this kind of planning. How does that work?
 
Toni Lindau: The EMBARQ BRT Simulator is a software tool that’s specifically built to explore alternatives in BRT design. Many of the simulators used around the world were designed for individual vehicles like cars and then adapted for public transport. They have a strong bias from the developed world, meaning you put a bus here or there and make it run with the cars and so on. But instead of buses every 10 minutes, in Brazil we’re dealing with much higher flows, in some cases with buses every 10 seconds. So we designed the EMBARQ BRT Simulator to accurately represent a high-performance bus operation. The BRT Simulator helped Rio de Janeiro in its bid to host the Olympics. We used it to test proposed corridors that were still on paper and were able to predict bottlenecks and make some minor design adjustments in elements like vehicle sizes and station layouts that would lead to great improvements in performance.
 
What are some of the design choices you are making and why?
 
Toni Lindau: We’re borrowing many concepts developed in underground subway train systems around the world and using this knowledge to design fantastic BRT systems on the surface. For example, why design buses with narrow doors when this leads to long lines at stations and therefore slower speeds and lower capacity? Why design bus stops that can only serve one articulated bus at a time when you can design them to serve two or more buses and thus increase capacity? And why make passengers pay inside buses when they can pay outside, or make them climb up steps to board when you can design bus stops that put passengers at the same level as the bus, as in subway systems? Most unfortunately, as the BRT concept is not yet fully consolidated, many designers still use a trial and error approach and have to correct inefficiencies after the system starts to operate.
 
What top five pieces of advice would you give to sustainable transportation planners in other cities around the world?
 
Toni Lindau: In the United States and some other developed countries, there’s a tendency to use the term BRT to denote bus systems that present design improvements over the more conventional ones. In the developing world, we are yet to fully differentiate busways from BRTs. To design a true state-of-the-art BRT system, I suggest focusing on the following:

1) The power of image: There is no reason why BRT systems should not be beautiful in addition to having all the necessary components. Aim high. Don’t settle for a degraded BRT design or infrastructure to be improved in the future. We should aim to deliver the same high standard in surface systems that we see in the best underground subway systems.

2) User-friendly maps: Maps of bus lines are notoriously confusing due to the large number of overlapping and competing services, but BRTs don’t need to be. Look at the map of the London Underground. It’s color-coded and easy to understand. People visiting a World Cup city should be able to look at the BRT map and say, ‘OK, I can ride this.’

3) Interoperability: Transferring between lines in a transit system can be a major hassle. Even if the BRT corridors are not all built at once, they should share the same standards so that they are interoperable. BRT passengers should be able to transfer easily between the lines of different corridors and also have the opportunity of choosing services that benefit from running along several corridors.

4) Passing lanes: Don’t think of BRTs as running on a single lane and stopping at every bus stop. A high performance BRT system needs to benefit from the use a mix of services including a higher component of express and semi-express services that jump several stations. That means adding passing lanes at bus stops or an extra lane per direction in areas where demand is heavy.

5) Reliability: People want to know that a trip will take x minutes, not x + y where y is a big number. A bus service that takes anything from 15 minutes to one hour to reach a destination depending on traffic is very bad for users. Again, underground subway systems do a better job at this, but it needs to be replicated in surface systems. Travel times are more predictable if a BRT system has a center that controls operations in real time. The lesson is, don’t under spend on controlling the system. Go for high standards.
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
Tweet
 

Guide to inclusive design of BRT systems

 
Photo: CSIR
 
The World Bank released on September 2010 the «Technical and Operational Challenges to Inclusive Bus Rapid Transit: A Guide for Practitioners», which was compiled by Tom Rickert. This publication is a compilation of recent international experience aimed especially at practitioners in developing countries but hopefully also of relevance to other colleagues in the BRT world. It addresses specific concerns that have caused many BRT systems to fall short of their potential to serve all categories of passengers.
 
 
 
 
 
Download the publication here (English and Spanish version):
 
Technical and Operational Challenges to Inclusive Bus Rapid Transit: A Guide for Practitioners
 
Retos técnicos y operativos de los Sistemas Integrados de Transporte Masivo inclusivos: Una guía para los responsables
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet
 

Opinion Pieces: For whom the bell tolls

Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
 
June 2008
 
At the recent Colloquium in Canberra I spoke on the topic of infrastructure as a network system and not as a series of potentially disconnected projects in corridors. Prior to my talk I had raised a question in discussion time on the missed opportunity, through the public-private partnerships in toll road concessions, to require under contract the provision of dedicated lanes for buses throughout the entire length of all tollroads. The speaker who was the general manager of a tollroad company responded by telling me that buses do not work well on tolled roads because they need bus stops for the travellers who would need to get on and off at frequent intervals. He went so far as to suggest that buses are best as modes to feed trains and to not be considered as viable options on tollroads. Fortunately I was not the only person who found such a response quite amazing and wrong. He missed the point entirely that some of the most successful bus services in terms of patronage growth are those that deliver passengers over long distances (for example the Hills service between the Hills District and the central business district in Sydney).
 
The figure below shows very clearly, admittedly schematically, that buses can make a high difference to delivering long-haul metropolitan public transport, at a high value of money to the taxpayer which operate as both feeder and truck. What is missing in most Australian cities is a decent road network to be able to support much higher levels of service that buses are capable of delivering.
 

 
This should resonate will with the growing focus on infrastructure. No longer is the bus operator the constraint; it rests centrally in the inadequate interface between the ability of operators to do what they do best and the road infrastructure they are offered to perform on. Network planners will advise that successful network structures should be consistent with branching structures, overlaid express services, bus stops/stations located offcorridor and direct connections. Tollroads should be seen as crucial to this network solution since in recent years they offer the greatest prospects for a truly multi-modal corridor that can accommodate a greater amount of public transport activity over longer distances than any other public transport infrastructure project.
 
The message herein is clearly in support of bus-based public transport that can deliver service levels, as high, if not higher than conventional views about rail. Value for money is assured. Unfortunately my views will again be described as those of a bus-lover. How sad, since the mode is really irrelevant in the search for the best accessibility outcome per dollar outlay. In introducing my talk in Canberra I made a plea to have the audience remove its modal bias and listen to the arguments and evidence. Sadly I suspect that is impossible.
 
Food for thought
 
 
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
 
 
Tweet