News & Events Archives - Página 9 de 10 - Bus Rapid Transit

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?

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!

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

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

Cities in focus | Istanbul

Source: EMBARQ

Photo: Ganace Doré

With 64 million vehicles crossing it in 2005, the Bosphorus Bridge had become a major bottleneck for Istanbul commuters traveling between Europe and Asia. In March 2009, the historic mega-city unveiled the world’s first inter-continental bus rapid transit line – easing congestion, reducing travel times and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Check this interesting video developed by EMBARQ about Istanbul’s transport system:

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

Tweet

Opinion Pieces: Future directions to fund our roads that buses use

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 2008

The provision of road infrastructure globally is undergoing major institutional change as governments increasingly hit budgetary constraints on traditional sources of public sector financing. The funding of roads from common sources (e.g., fuel taxes) is becoming more problematic than ever before. While in some jurisdictions it is a matter of allocation, in other contexts, it is a more serious concern about the total amount available to allocate. In California, for example, a 2007 Road User Fee Task Force Program issued a White Paper from the Californian Performance Review (CPR). Initiated by the Californian Governor with reporting back directly to the Governor’s Office, it has been promoted in response to the diminished proceeds from fuel taxes. Funding ‘by the gallon’ from fuel-use taxes no longer suffices, despite some additional Federal Government contributions.

The ‘new’ funding sources are primarily private capital and road user charges. The growth in congestion in many urban areas accompanied by increased emissions (air pollution and enhanced greenhouse gas) from cars and trucks has refocussed interest on 42 user charging to both reflect efficient internal cost recovery as well as to internalise the increasingly damaging negative externalities of road transport activity. Kilometre fee development (all networks), with/without fuel tax compensation is an example of the future direction. Paying by the mile is now on the political agenda in California. As little as 0.1 of a US 1 cent fee per use-mile, it is suggested, would generate annually $US310m towards the road funding bill in California.

As an illustration of a dramatic institutional reform linked to the provision of road infrastructure, the Dutch Transport Minister, Camiel Eurlings, announced in early 2008 that satellite-based road user charging will be implemented throughout the Netherlands to reduce congestion and finance future road infrastructure. The ‘kilometre price’ proposed is to be differentiated by location, environmental properties of the vehicle, and time of day (effectively a peak/off-peak or congestion charge)*. It is to be introduced for all vehicles on all roads in the entire country, starting with trucks in 2011 and phasing in a scheme for cars from 2012 to 2016. The Dutch government plans to scrap road tax as well as purchase tax on new cars when the system is introduced. Eurlings states this will provide a fairer system which taxes vehicle use, rather than ownership. Indeed, the minister says that more than half of Dutch road users will actually pay less under the road user charging scheme. According to calculations by motoring organisations, only motorists who drive more than 18,000kms a year are likely to be worse off under the new scheme. Importantly, the Dutch government has determined that the costs of operating the national road user charge will not exceed five per cent of the proceeds.

This must be good for road based public transport. With a Federal government repeatedly supporting a greater engagement in the cities in order to tackle road congestion, amongst other agendas, the activity overseas must be good news for Australia if we listen and learn and do something about it.

Food for thought

* The road user charge scheme will be facilitated by GPS/speed sensor vehicle tracking, calculated by onboard electronic accumulating odometers, remotely assessing travel from central computers that are capable of applying a range of charging regimes. These include uniform road-use charges and congestion pricing (differential charging according to traffic conditions) including adjusted-upward charges for road use in remote areas (perhaps excluding local residents) where maintenance costs are high and distances travelled are relatively less. Graded distance fees can also be introduced if desired – possibly on equity grounds.

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

Tweet

Audit to reduce risks of accidents on the TransCarioca BRT project for Rio de Janeiro

Source: CTS Brasil

Photo: Marta Obelheiro, Carsten Wass and Brenda Medeiros. Source: CTS Brasil

Concerned about improving road safety and reduce traffic deaths, the city of Rio de Janeiro promoted an audit of the BRT projects in progress, preparing the city as one of the venues of the games of the FIFA World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. The audit is one of the activities under the Technical Cooperation Agreement signed with EMBARQ Network and its Center for Sustainable Transport of Brazil (CTS-Brazil), and it is begining with the Transcarioca project, which links the north and west of Rio de Janeiro.

To perform the work, Carsten Wass from Denmark, an expert in road safety, arrived to Rio de Jaineiro. He is being advised by transportation engineers from CTS-Brazil, Brenda Medeiros and Martha Obelheiro.

The road safety audit reviews the route, bus stops and signaling pathways still in the design face of the project, and it proposes amendments to reduce the risk of traffic accidents.

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

EMBARQ BRT Simulator presented in the International Green Economy Business Exchange

EMBARQ BRT Simulator capabilities and applicability were presented by Daniela Facchini on the first International Green Economy Business Exchange promoted by Sao Paulo State Secretariat for Environment. It was the first time that sustainable transportation was included as one of the main topics in an international event focused on sustainability. The State of Sao Paulo has established, by the State Policy on Climate Change, the target for reducing 20% of the emissions of GHG by 2020.

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

Opinion Pieces: Time to be innovative with freeway and toll roads

April 2008

One of the topics in any discussion about ‘what to do with growing traffic congestion and the dominating role of the car’ is to find ways by which we can still allow car users to travel without incurring any extra costs, while providing opportunities for car users who are willing to pay more to save time. Since buses also use roads, then there may be real cost-effective opportunities that enable buses to be the beneficiary of any innovative car strategies. There is one which has been staring at us for a long time – the HOT (high occupancy tolled) lanes for high valued car trips and buses.

This is how it might work. Let us use the M4 in Sydney as an example and assume that we are able to provide three lanes in each direction (at present there is a mix of two and three lanes in each direction). The inner lane would become the HOT lane so that the inner and outer lanes are available for entry and exit from the road. Some investment would be required to move the other two lanes slightly to the left and right respectively, to enable a distinctive separator for the HOT lane. The rule of use of this HOT lane would be based on a distance-based charge (or even a fixed premium toll) for car users willing to pay a greater amount to have a higher guarantee of travel time savings (essentially buying time savings and travel time reliability or predictability). The buses would use this lane as well and be exempt from the tolls. Importantly the toll level must be varied as evidence of traffic build up occurs in the HOT lane (as is done in Southern California for cars), so as to deliver target travel times.

In Southern California, the HOT lanes are the innermost lane (i.e., the one by the median). The have limited access and egress points which also helps to control the volumes of traffic. There is an exit/entrance about every three regular exits/entrances to the freeway, so that a vehicle that wishes to use the HOT lanes must anticipate its exit and get off in plenty of time to transition across the remaining lanes to exit. This should work well with a 6-lane freeway.

This idea may sound like bus lanes; however it is different in that we have a way forward of funding the initiative through the differential between the baseline toll on other lanes on a tollroad such as the M4 and the premium toll for cars. We would advise car users that the increment in toll that delivers a faster trip will be used to reinvest back in delivering more HOT lanes that can also benefit public transport. No more will we see cars users complaining about the empty capacity of a red-painted bus lane, for they can use the HOT lane with buses without impeding travel times of both modes, as long as car users are willing to pay a premium in toll.

Strategic thinkers would surely see this as having great merit.

Food for thought

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

New corridor opens on Arequipa's Bolivar and Sucre streets

Pedestrian-only paths mark progress for planned BRT system.

Source: EMBARQ

Photo: Henry Zuñiga

The city of Arequipa, Peru transformed its downtown Bolivar and Sucre Streets into pedestrian-only areas, as part of the ongoing construction work to prepare for the new System of Integrated Transport (SIT).

Mayor Simón Balbuena Marroquín unveiled the newly renovated streets in an opening ceremony on December 6. The city is still waiting to complete the remaining road infrastructure and select bus operators for the new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that will pass through the historic city center.

More than 147 homes along Bolivar and Sucre Streets received a new facade. The roads were re-constructed with new asphalt and concrete, complementary to the distinct character of the historic «White City» of Arequipa, which is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Improvements were also made to the water and sewage services and underground wiring. The corridor also includes new decorative street furniture, such as benches, metal trash cans, and trees.

Balbuena emphasized that, in spite of the project being stalled for three months because of political reasons, the new construction brings the SIT-AQP BRT project one step closer to reality, especially for residents living along the corridor.

Arequipa Mayor-Elect Alfredo Zegarra Tejada has promised to support the project, which includes maintaining the bidding process for operations and management, contracting finances from the Andean Development Corp. (CAF), and constructing additional infrastructure, when he assumes his new position on January 1.

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

Opinion Pieces: Frequency and connectivity – key drivers of reform in urban public transport provision

March 2008

Public transport investment is being touted as a key springboard for a sustainable future, especially in large metropolitan areas with growing populations. Whether such investment will turn the tide away from automobility is a big question; however regardless of the likely outcome, any commitment to improved public transport has a growing number of options to pursue. Although variations in rail systems typically loom dominant in many strategic statements on urban reform, ranging from heavy rail through to metro rail and light rail, there is a growing interest worldwide in ways of making better use of the bus as a primary means of public transport, and not limited as a service that feeds a rail network.

In establishing a role for public transport, it should be enshrined in the motto of delivering ‘frequency, connectivity and visibility’ that is value for money as defined in terms of net social benefit per dollar outlaid. Connectivity refers to the provision of services that offer door-to-door services with minimum delay and almost seamless interchanges. Visibility is predominantly ‘knowing where the mode is going from and going to, and when’.

There are many ways in which bus transport can be developed as part of an integrated network-based public transport system, typified by the best practice bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in South America such as Curitiba in Brazil and TransMilenio in Bogota, Colombia. Bus Rapid Transit is “…a high-quality bus based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective urban mobility through the provision of segregated right-of-way infrastructure, rapid and frequent operations, and excellence in marketing and customer service. BRT essentially emulates the performance and amenity characteristics of a modern rail-based transit system but at a fraction of the cost. A BRT system will typically cost four to 20 times less than a light rail transit (LRT) system and 10 to100 times less than a metro system.”

Recent research shows the appeal of BRT in Los Angeles when comparing the Orange line BRT with the Pasadena, California Gold Line light rail (LRT), both of which connect to the Red Line subway and have similar service patterns and length. The BRT is performing considerably better than the LRT. The latter costs considerably more and carries fewer riders. Capital costs per average weekday boarding for the BRT line is $US16,722 in contrast to $US45,762 for the LRT line; cost per revenue service hours for BRT and LRT are respectively $US243.18 and $US552.54; and cost per passenger mile are respectively $US0.54 and $US1.08. These are impressive evidence of the value for 45 money from BRT compared, in this instance, to an LRT system. Metro rail and heavy rail would be even more unattractive within the service capacity range studied.

What lessons can be learnt from the most successful BRT system in Bogota, Columbia, the TransMilenio, and what is its applicability to Australia. The most important findings relate to connectivity and network integrity, reinforcing the view that it is all about networks and not corridors per se. They suggest that BRT is capable of playing a role in the achievement of a wide set of objectives such as sustainable accessibility and urban renewal when implemented as part of a holistic package of integrated strategies. Importantly it is the commitment to a network of BRT routes (and not a corridor view of planning per se), which gives a metropolitan area the opportunity to enhance the accessibility and urban renewal benefits from corridor level to metropolitan wide level. The relatively low capital costs have made this possible in many countries within a relatively short time frame (up to 5 years often). Whether this is a transition strategy to other forms of public transport or an end in itself should be determined by how the market responds. It is not uncommon to see BRT promoted as a transition to light rail, metro and even heavy rail (e.g. in Brisbane and Pittsburgh), partly to get something started within constrained budgets, but to also appease anti-bus groups who see public transport as singularly rail. What is encouraging is that the success of many of the BRT systems has resulted in its expansion without the need to go to a rail ‘solution’. Carrying capacities of BRT (see Figure 1) are increasing all the time and moving the case solely for rail off of many agendas.

Food for thought

Figure 1: The changing capacity capability of the modes

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

“The oportunities and challenges to implement BRT systems in Brazil” – Roundtable during ANPET

During the 24th Annual ANPET Conference (Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Ensino em Transportes – do Brasil), celebrated in Salvador, Bahia between 30 November and 2 December, Toni Lindau coordinated a roundtable to adress the subject «The oportunities and challenges to implement BRT systems in Brazil». The other participants were Gustavo Nogueira, BRT division of Mercedez Benz in Brazil, Wagner Martins, from LogitConsultoria, and Francisco Ulisses from the Secretaria de Transportes e Infraestrutura of Salvador.

The speakers addressed the concept of BRT systems and the elements that characterize a good project and the main requirements for the implementation of a BRT in a city. The discussion was focused in the challenges that Salvador faces to implement a BRT system with more than 40 km to structure, in a sustainable way, the urban transport of the city facing the World Cup 2014.

Photo: Gustavo Nogueira, Francisco Ulisses, Luis Antonio Lindau and Wagner Martins

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

TransMilenio: Ten Years Down the Line

Source: The City Fix

“Road space is the most valuable space a city has; it’s more important than diamonds,” according to former Mayor of Bogotá Enrique Penalosa, who oversaw the first phase of the Colombian capital’s bus rapid transit (BRT) system, known as TransMilenio, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this month.

Ten years ago, Bogotá’s streets were invaded by a disorganized and outdated network of individually owned vehicles. The city of 7.5 million people was highly polluted and congested, and “businesses around transit corridors were declining and closing or were replaced by low-key pawn shops, auto part shops, and even smutty nightclubs and hourly motels,” says Dario Hidalgo, director of research and practice at EMBARQ. “Public space was encroached by hawkers and cars parked on top of sidewalks.”

Today, merely a decade after the implementation of TransMilenio, the city is a shining example of how integrated transit policies and transportation networks can transform the urban environment.

“After the system was launched, the city regained hope,” Hidalgo adds. “People started believing that good things can be done.”

TransMilenio brought a revival to the transit corridors of the city. The high-capacity bus system now boasts 84 kilometers of busways, 104 stations, 10 integration points, integrated feeder services and advanced centralized control. It includes more than 1,000 buses that move 1.6 million passengers per day. And TransMilenio’s Avenida Caracas is known as the best performing single BRT corridor in Latin America, in terms of peak usage, transporting 43,000 passengers per hour in each direction, according to the report, “Modernizing Public Transportation”.

Bogotá has become so easy to navigate by public transportation that its citizens approved a referendum endorsing an annual car-free day. (Despite citizen interest, there were not enough votes to approve a referendum to make the city car-free by 2015). TransMilenio’s implementation has occurred alongside the installment of one of the world’s most extensive network of bike paths, CicloRuta, as well as hundreds of new parks and plazas. Businesses are thriving. New homes have been constructed. And the ultimate benchmarker of success: nearly a million people, or 10 percent of the population, have left their cars at home for a more convenient and cost-effective public transportation system.

However, the system is not without need for improvement. Bureaucratic contracts with service providers make tweaking small components of the system difficult. And as Hidalgo says, “The TransMilenio system still needs attention and improvements, especially in two aspects: buses and selected stations are overcrowded and road surface needs permanent and timely maintenance.”

Given TransMilenio’s central role in improving transit and quality of life in Bogotá, and its importance for elevating the concept of BRT globally, we’ll be celebrating TransMilenio’s first decade over the next few weeks. Stay tuned for photo essays from The City Fix and the release of a new EMBARQ case study on Bogotá’s bus system improvement.

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

Opinion Pieces: Why are bus operators not taking advantage of alliances to share costs and grow business?

February 2008

If one studies the airline industry, one is struck by the amount of alliance activity amongst two or more operators. These alliances come and go, and are restructured regularly and re-focussed as required. In aviation, such alliances range from very light alliances such as purchasing fuel together to get a bulk or super bulk discount, to maintenance cost sharing, and heavy alliances in code sharing of flights amongst
passengers booked onto different airlines.

For many years of lecturing in the NSW Certificate of Transport Management (CTM), I have suggested that there are many opportunities for bus and coach operators to work cooperatively together in getter better deals on cost inputs, even if the operators may compete for patronage business (this is known as cooperative competition). It is good for all, since it ensures greater efficiency in consumption of resources, as well as opening up opportunities under contract or otherwise for the scarce government dollar to go further, giving even more value for money. Yet bus and coach operators, with rare exception, do not do this, and as far as I can tell, my advice through the CTM is rarely acted on.

It has taken me some years to try and work out why this opportunity is not grabbed. Bus and coach operators in the main (there always are exceptions), regardless of size and ownership, are very conservative (certainly when compared to the airline sector), and are heavily focused on operating a business in a very day-to-day manner rather than thinking about strategic opportunities that can actually assist in operating a business more efficiently and effectively. Years of dependence on government and declining patronage (often for very easily explained reasons), have made the industry somewhat inward looking. It is true that bus and coach associations play an important role in facilitating a wide range of financial deals for members, but this is not the same as individual operators working with other operators to gain even better cost and service outcomes.

Maybe some more lateral thinking on this matter could be used to give an operator a strategic advantage as we move into benchmarking of operators. Those who form an alliance for specific cost input savings relative to what they pay out by going it alone must be advantaged. This is not a matter of ‘getting into bed with the direct or indirect competitor’ since contacted operators who will be increasingly subjected to benchmarking to earn the right to re-negotiate their contracts (in contrast to being subject to competitive tendering), should all be trying to assist government who pay most of their bills, to reduce the cost of providing bus transport. Future benchmarking programs would include recognition of this cooperative alliance process through higher rankings of such operators.

There are so many innovative way of creating input cost alliances, that the smarter strategically thinking operators(s) will always increase their chances of entering renegotiation and moving themselves further away from the risk of being subject to competitive tendering.

Food for thought

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

Our experience at the VREF CoE Workshop in Nairobi

During 14 – 16 December 2010 some of our members were part of the VREF CoE Workshop held in Nairobi, Kenia. We were represented by Juan Carlos Muñoz (PUC), Rosário Macário (IST-Lisbon), Daniela Facchini (EMBARQ), Onesimo Flores (PhD student MIT) and Sebastian Raveau (PhD student PUC). The first day of the meeting was completely devoted to understand more about Nairobi from some Kenya researchers, politicians and practitioners as well as from researchers from the University of Columbia that have been working there. In the second day two talks were arranged for each CoE. We presented the Observatory efforts and the research developed by Onesimo within the LS3 project: «From vision to promise to delivery». On the third day, PhD students from the eight Centres had a meeting were they shared the research they were doing. In parallel, senior researchers had a meeting where VREF gave them several interesting news.

Some of the participants shared with us their thoughts after this meeting:

Daniela Facchini: “The VREF 2010 Center of Excellence workshop in Nairobi helped to better understand Nairobi´s challenges on planning public transportation and allowed experience exchange and knowledge sharing among members of the 8 CoE. Events like this are very important to settle personal contacts and strengthen collaboration within the network.”

Onésimo Flores: “Attending the VREF Workshop in Nairobi was a good opportunity to present and get valuable feedback on some of our initial work with LS3. It was also a chance to learn more about what VREF actually is, and to hear how other phd students across the world have profited from their affiliation with a CoE. I returned home with good suggestions to improve our work, and with important contacts from people conducting somewhat similar research. One point to note is how relevant is BRT for all the VREF Centers, a sheer demonstration of how this topic is indeed one that cuts across latitudes and cultures.

It was also useful to meet other members of our CoE, such as Daniela Facchini from Embarq, Rosário Macário from IST and my student colleague Sebastian Raveau from U. Católica. My sense is that all phd students affiliated with our CoE would profit much from such an «immersion», even if it happened in a less formal (and expensive) setting. The experience of the Omega Center (London) in dealing with multi-university, multi-location student collaboration may provide a useful «template». The possibilities for synergies and future collaborations are evident. ”

Sebastian Raveau: “As a PhD student, attending the VREF CoE Workshop in Nairobi was a great opportunity to get to know the members of the different Centers of Excellence worldwide, to find out more about their researches and to make contacts with other PhD students. It’s always great to get valuable feedback for our work, especially from such a broad and diverse audience, and generate instances for mutual collaboration. Also, as we are a recently established Center of Excellence formed by five different institutions across the world, the VREF CoE Workshop was an opportunity to get together with our fellow researchers. These opportunities are few, especially for the PhD students, so we have to seize these occasions to work and share experiences.”

We brought a couple of pictures from our trip. The first one was taken at the main dinner at the National Museum of Nairobi where participants to the meeting attend. The second one was taken at breakfast, you can see (left to right) Onesimo, Rosario, Daniela, Juan Carlos and Sebastian:

Finally, you can check the two presentations made by Juan Carlos Muñoz and Onésimo Flores during the workshop.

BRT Observatory – For more info or comments on this presentation, contact Juan Carlos Muñoz (jcm@ing.puc.cl).

Implementing BRT-From Vision to Reality – For more info or comments on this presentation, contact Onésimo Flores (onesimo@mit.edu).

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

In the U.S., Poor Communication and Poor Choices Plague Bus Rapid Transit

Source: The City Fix

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is still a relatively novel mode of public transit, particularly in the United States. And because the definition of BRT is flexible, this form of public transit often suffers from miscommunication that continues the cycle of misinformation that spurs poor transit investment choices and disappointment among public transit riders and personal vehicle owners.

Earlier this week, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered the opening of the new BRT lines in Atlanta, Ga. While this new public transit service is certainly a step forward for Atlanta (one of the most congested and car-dependent cities in the U.S.), the system is not terribly remarkable in the world of BRT. Instead, the media coverage in the Journal is interesting for several reasons.

As the AJC explains, the routes Q Express and Q Limited run along a main corridor on the east side of the metropolitan area and connect at their west terminus with Atlanta’s MARTA rail system. The lines feature queue-jumping lanes at two major intersections and signal priority, allowing buses to get ahead of traffic at red lights and holding green lights until they pass through an intersection. The lines have significantly fewer stops, placed at least three-quarters of a mile apart, a feature which even some light rail systems have not managed.

The article continues:

[The Q Lines are] not like the gold standard of BRT, routes like those in Ottawa and Cleveland, which have their own dedicated lanes. That’s because the gold standard costs its weight in gold to build, considering the land that has to be bought and the construction required to create an extra lane.

In that short paragraph lie both confusion in BRT communication as well as progress in how American media portray this form of transit.

First, the good: the author acknowledges that the moniker BRT includes varying level of investment. All too often, “American BRT” has failed because cities have over-hyped and under-delivered the benefits that can come from the key features of BRT. Many cities tout BRT as being rail-like yet at lower costs, but then they don’t actually invest the money necessary for the rail-like elements of BRT. Then, when the service begins, riders are often left thinking: “It’s still just a bus!”

The Journal-Constitution article acknowledges up front that the Q lines in Atlanta are not the highest level of BRT. This tempering of expectations helps prevent the disappointment that has soured transit advocates to BRT in many cities where benefits were oversold. Small investments in BRT infrastructure certainly won’t deliver all of the benefits of full-fledged BRT likened to rail, but they cost significantly less.

An even more important point that the AJC did not directly emphasize, though, is that BRT investment is scalable: Initial investments can be built upon incrementally as funding, political will or ridership necessitates to produce better service.

The benefit of most BRT infrastructure is underscored by the fact that it can combine and streamline projects, reducing costs. Atlanta added queue-jumping lanes to the intersection because there was already a streetscape project underway at these junctions. Other cities would do well to learn from this.

Moving the BRT vs. Rail Debate to Focus on Scaling up Investment

The growing American focus on BRT has become mired in a heated “rail vs. bus” debate that often pits transit advocates against each other, allowing bus rapid transit to be hijacked by budget hawks who care very little about delivering good quality transit service.

This debate has come to focus almost solely on judgments around whether buses can be as comfortable as rail, whether they spur development equivalent to rail and whether buses carry some stigma that rail does not. These questions cannot be answered definitively given the variables involved.

Instead, we should be focusing on the objective differences between bus and rail infrastructure. Possibly the most important of these is the scalability of bus systems. With buses, cities can do as Atlanta has with a small initial investment on technological improvements and minimal road space reallocations. Once these improvements attract additional ridership, you can begin to build support for further investment, perhaps rush-hour restricted bus lanes that allow mixed traffic during other times. Some time thereafter, an agency may be able to budget money to add nicer stops, or even stations, with arrival time displays, ticket vending machines, and so on. Eventually, support and ridership is such that you can justify large investments in high-capacity buses and curb-separated lanes, creating truly high-level bus rapid transit. Going a step further, Brisbane, Australia has even designed its busways to be easily convertible to light rail in the future.

With a rail system, this incremental investment is much more difficult, if not impossible. You can’t put rails in the street without also installing the overhead catenary infrastructure. Unless a city already has surplus rail cars, those must be purchased simultaneously. Installing rails usually requires full-depth reconstruction of right-of-way. Long story short, there are a lot of major investments, most of which must be made simultaneously. Of course, in many cities where there is large pent-up demand for transit service, these large investments are likely worthwhile. In far more cases, though, cities have only marginal additional demand that don’t merit huge one-time investments.

Reclaiming Road Space Through BRT

Far too many American cities still miss the point about road space priorities. In that one paragraph she wrote in the Journal-Constitution article, Ms. Hart says that the high-level BRT systems are costly because “land has to be bought” and cities must “create another lane.” High-level BRT can be an inexpensive alternative to rail precisely because it doesn’t require a new lane. And there-in lies the problem: Because most U.S. cities lack the political will power to reallocate road space from cars, they are left finding new space for transit, and suddenly costs skyrocket. After all, “gold standard” BRT isn’t expensive because of new right-of-way. (Cleveland’s Health Line, which the article cites as high-level BRT, used existing road space.) It’s expensive because cities are willing to invest in a lot of infrastructure at once which results in truly high quality transit.

Taking a lane away from private vehicles and allocating it to transit vehicles is politically challenging and not just in the US. In Britain, the government recently removed the dedicated bus lane on London’s M4 highway, opening it back up to all traffic. The government capitulated to motorists who complained that they sat in traffic while buses zoomed by in a mostly empty lane. Human Transit’s Jarret Walker laments:

Yes, from behind the wheel of your stopped single-occupant car, a well-functioning bus lane looks empty most of the time. But at high-demand times, bus lanes easily move far more people than traffic lanes. The question is: do all the users of the road matter equally? If so, it should be a no-brainer to provide faster travel times to people who use limited capacity more efficiently.

One traffic lane can accommodate approximately 60 buses or 1,800 automobiles per hour. Assuming a capacity of 60 passengers per bus, and an average occupancy of automobiles of 1.59 passengers, bus lanes can carry 3,600 passengers per hour, while a mixed traffic lane will only achieve about 2,900. If you add articulated buses, which have a capacity of 110 passengers, the capacity of a bus lane is even higher.

If these efficiencies aren’t fully communicated, it will be next to impossible to justify to policy makers taking a lane of road away from private vehicles, and even harder to justify such changes to the drivers. New right-of-way is indeed expensive, leaving many cities to implement their BRT systems in mixed traffic, to the ultimate disappointment of customers who are often promised “rail-like” priority.

Rapid bus service still suffers from communication problems. It’s been around since the 1970s and its time we start accurrately depicting the costs and benefits of these systems. These problems range from the misunderstanding that BRT requires new right-of-way, to the little trumpeted benefit of accommodating smaller, incremental investments, and the misconception that anything labeled BRT will automatically run like a “train on tires.” More in-depth reporting will help alleviate this problem. Even the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, despite slightly misrepresenting the issue, will result in better communication by cities and transit agencies.

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

David Hensher radio interview on Road Pricing, BRT and Public Private Partnerships

Professor David Hensher was interviewed by radio New Zealand National’ journalist Kathryn Ryan, regarding the urban traffic issues of New Zealand.

Listen to the full interview here.

This is a summary of the interview, by Mathew Dearnaley:

Auckland should add more busways as far cheaper mass-transit options than rail extensions, says a visiting Australian transport expert.

Professor David Hensher, director of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at Sydney University, says busways can be built for a fraction of the cost of new railways such as links to Auckland Airport.

«For every kilometre of heavy rail you build in Auckland you could do at least 27km to 50km of bus rapid transit on dedicated roads,» he said at the airport, before being driven to Hamilton for the launch of Waikato University’s new Institute for Business Research.

«When you look at Auckland, which is fairly low density, I’m absolutely amazed that you’d even consider heavy rail.»

His comments will prove controversial after the release last week of a business case for a $2 billion-plus rail tunnel through central Auckland, which predicts hefty «transformational» economic gains from bringing trains within 500 metres of most parts of the inner city.

They also come as the Transport Agency is calling tenders for the first stage of an investigation into preferred routes for rapid transit and state highway links to the airport, and as Auckland Mayor Len Brown prepares this morning to celebrate a record nine million passenger rail trips taken in the region over the past 12 months.

The study – to be undertaken in conjunction with the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, KiwiRail and the airport company – will consider both bus and rail rapid transit possibilities to cope with big predicted increases in air passengers and airport-based workers.

A 2008 consultants’ report estimated an airport rail loop comprising links from both the north and east would cost $1.45 billion, although Auckland Council transport chairman Mike Lee believes an extension of the Onehunga line would be far cheaper.

Professor Hensher acknowledged there might be some merit in building the proposed 3.5km rail tunnel as «a little piece» of infrastructure to create a central city loop.

But he said the cost of travelling on Sydney’s airport rail line made it cheaper for two or more people travelling together to catch taxis.

Auckland Transport planners argue that the entire regional rail network will benefit from the tunnel, because it will turn Britomart from a dead-end into a through station able to cope with 30 trains an hour – or 60 with enhanced signalling – compared with a maximum of 21 now.

They also envisage extending the reach of the rail network by adding more bus feeder services to suburban train stations.

But Professor Hensher said these would still have to compete with cars for road space.

He said busways should be far more prolific, even if it meant removing general traffic lanes to make room for them.

«We’ve got to get serious now about a lot more dedicated roads for buses into the suburbs.»

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

Opinion Pieces: It is all about dollars – there is a will but a difficult way

January 2008

Many years ago I said that ‘One will never make public transport more attractive without making the car less attractive, if buses and trains want to make a serious dent in the mainstream travel market, in contrast to the number of niches which keep public transport, buses in particular, afloat’. The situation appears to have hardly changed with one exception – the real curse of the road system, namely traffic congestion, may the savior of public transport, but only if governments are able and willing to invest literally billions of dollars into public transport infrastructure in metropolitan areas. Sadly in Australia, the lack of political will at all levels of government, in supporting congestion charging and some amount of hypothecation, means that revenue sources will be hard to come by.
Despite the long list of offered ‘solutions’ by ‘experts’ and the democratic community of the partially informed ‘lay experts’, the simple facts are that until we can offer a substantially improved public transport system, there is very little chance that any major policy effort to attract significant car users into public transport will be anything than a short term nightmare, with a consequential return back to the car. With a modal share in Sydney of 10 percent of passenger trips by public transport, and with rail struggling to cope now that any spare capacity has been taken up, imagine getting even two percent of 48 car trips into the rail system or the buses. This would increase public transport trips by 20 percent and the current system simply would not be able to cope. A similar situation would exist in Melbourne. What this suggests, time and time again, is that a focus of substantially higher frequency of bus services combined with efforts to establish
dedicated rights-of-way for buses, is not only a sensible value for money strategy, it is also the way of delivering accessibility and connectivity to the entire metropolitan area. A mix of good coverage and good frequency is essential. Focussing on specific corridors with high cost investments such a heavy rail, while appealing to some and also sensible to some degree, comes at a very high opportunity cost of being unable to invest in the rest of the public transport network, which is essential to ensure a mainstream move back to
public transport.
The good news is that politicians and government advisers agree with all of this; the bad news is that they have limited resources to do a great deal about it. It is just a matter of time before we have to involve the private sector and introduce more efficient variable user charging for car use. If it is done properly, most car users will be better off. As an example of taking the hard decisions, the Dutch government, in 2011, plans to scrap road tax as well as purchase tax on new cars. This will provide a fairer system which taxes vehicle use, rather than ownership. Indeed, the minister says that more than half of Dutch road users will actually pay less under the road user charging scheme. According to calculations by motoring organisations, only motorists who drive more than 18,000kms a year are likely to be worse off under the new scheme. In Australia, the average kms per annum of urban residents using their privet car is 12,500kms.

Food for thought.

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

Cities in Focus | Curitiba

Source: EMBARQ

Photo: EMBARQ

Curitiba, Brazil, is the birthplace of bus rapid transit, the high-capacity urban public transportation system developed under the leadership of former city mayor Jaime Lerner. The ensuing transit-oriented development (TOD) underscored the importance of organizing urban areas around transport corridors and led Curitiba to be hallmarked as the most successful example of TOD.

Check this interesting video developed by EMBARQ about Curitiba’s transport system:

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

TransMilenio Celebrates 10 Years of Operation

Source: ITDP

Photo: Transmilenio

TransMilenio, Bogota’s world-class BRT system, celebrated ten years of successful operations on October 28th. ITDP President and former Mayor of Bogota, Enrique Penalosa, described TransMilenio as “the best bus system in the word’ in his key-note address at the anniversary celebrations. Penalosa commissioned its creation during his tenure as Mayor. He reminded people that TransMilenio was a crucial part of his more comprehensive mobility policy that included car restrictions, the implementation of hundreds of kilometers of pedestrian promenades and separated bicycle paths, and the construction of public libraries, schools and nurseries.

TransMilenio started operations in late 2000 and functions as an above-ground system with high-capacity, quality buses. It was inspired by the BRT of Curitiba in Brazil, which was constructed in the 1970’s during Jaime Lerner’s time as Mayor. Penalosa was keen to pay homage: “I want to offer my gratitude to the Former Mayor of Curitiba, Jaime Lerner. But, I have to say that one of the main differences between the BRT systems of Bogota and Curitiba is that we gave a name to our BRT system; a meaningful name that implies major changes in the people’s behavior and a huge transformation in the City’s landscape. Today nobody says they are going to take a bus when they talk about TransMilenio,” Peñalosa argued.

Over the past 10 years, TransMilenio has transported more than 3,000,000,000 passengers and currently serves 1.7 million users per day. It has helped reduce carbon emissions, being characterized by the United Nations as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Water and oil savings are up 40%, while the rate of accidents on the road has decreased by 80%. The system is also integrated with the bicycle network, offering bicycle parking for more than 1,600 bicycles at various stations.

Furthermore, TransMilenio has emerged as an international symbol for urban transportation success, with over 200 delegations from every part of the globe traveling to Bogota to learn first-hand about technical, operational and maintenance issues. Bogota’s BRT system has also spurred further exchange of knowledge between countries as those involved in the development of TransMilenio have gone on to help with other BRT systems in China, Indonesia, Africa, and around Latin America. Edgar Enrique Sandoval, who was the First General Manager of the system and has worked with ITDP, was awarded and recognized at the 10-year celebration as one of the crucial founders of TransMilenio.

The main challenge facing TransMilenio as it enters its second decade is popularity. According to Peñalosa, the system should expand service and capacity as its ridership continues to grow daily. Such additions would include more stations, increased accessibility to the City’s suburbs, more services, more operational returns, and underground tunnels along the system’s backbone Avenida Caracas.

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

Opinion Pieces: Buses are boring and trains are sexy – time to do something about it?

December 2007

The image of the simple bus is not good. It has essentially remained as a rectangular box (with the occasional mild curve) since we moved away from showing off the bonnet in the 1950’s. I have formed a very strong view that public transport in general and bus services in particular should be enshrined in the motto of delivering ‘frequency, connectivity and visibility’. Connectivity refers to the provision of services that offer door-to-door services with minimum delay and almost seamless interchanges. While the idea of visibility is predominantly ‘knowing where the bus is going from and going to, and when’, good looks would not go amiss. It has the same implications as a car driver who prefers to travel in a smart looking sports car or modern Mercedes or BMW. When I discussed this with one of our very reputable bus body builders, the response was that we do need to make our buses look more interesting, but that government regulation requires specific angles for lights etc.

What I find very odd about this is that in many counties, notably in Europe, we have some really attractive buses that appear to preserve this feature without having to stay rectangular. A set of pictures that I often show people are given below. The first reaction is ‘what a nice looking light rail’? Wrong – they are actually buses. Indeed such better looking buses when manufactured in large volumes are very cost competitive with the rectangular box, and with some thought, can carry the same number of people. Combined with low floors, Euro 4 or better engines and style, they must surely be given more serious consideration than we see today in the Australian way of designing buses.

We eagerly await the first Australian-based bus body builder’s new offerings.

Food for thought.

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

Delhi government clears 15 new BRT corridors

Source: Industantimes

Even as the fate of Delhi’s first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor—a 14.5km stretch from Ambedkar Nagar to Delhi Gate— hangs fire, the Delhi government on Monday gave the go-ahead for an ambitious plan to construct 15 new BRT corridors spanning 359.9 kilometres. To prevent people driving their private vehicles to the Capital’s central vistas, the government has also asked the High Court-appointed special task force to prepare a concrete plan to levy congestion tax and install automatic parking meters in the Capital.

The government also cleared nine new metro lines covering 148.2 km and a 40.3 km stretch of light rail transit (LRT) system for the Capital. The new BRT corridors, metro lines and the LRT line will be constructed by 2021.

Senior Delhi government officials said keeping pace with growing traffic and transport demands, RITES, a central government consultancy firm on transport and infrastructure projects, had suggested these corridors in a recent report ‘Transport Demand Forecast and Development of Public Transport System for Delhi’.

“A 12-member special task force constituted by the Delhi High Court to look for solutions to the increasing traffic problem in the city had approved the report in May this year. By putting its stamp on the report, the Delhi Cabinet has paved the way to take these projects to the drawing board,” said a senior Delhi government officer.

Though new metro lines and BRT corridors have been approved to strengthen the public transport system in the Capital, senior officials said they are yet to explore how these projects will be funded.

A strong BRT and metro network is vital for Delhi considering the rate at which private vehicles are increasing in the Capital. Delhi’s vehicle count has already crossed 65 lakh and 900-1,000 new vehicles are registered everyday.

Senior Delhi government officials said the Cabinet has asked the special task force to come up with a concrete plan on how and in which areas it plans to introduce congestion charges on the lines of cities like Singapore and London. To strengthen the parking system, the Cabinet has also agreed to install automatic parking meters most commercial hubs in the city. According to a task force member, Central Market of Lajpat Nagar has been identified as a commercial centre to launch the parking meters pilot project.

“The parking meters will help do away with problems like parking more vehicles than authorised limit, unreliable and rude parking staff and overcharging,” the member said.

“On congestion tax, we have been asked to carry out a study on roads that require congestion taxing and alternate routes for motorists that do not want to pay the tax,” he added.

The Cabinet has also agreed to start a pilot project in Anand Vihar to map the entire residential area on Delhi’s geo-spatial map to estimate how much parking space the area has and then interact with resident welfare associations to find ways to tackle the city’s fast growing vehicle numbers, given the space constraints.

The Cabinet also agreed to send a reminder to the Centre to approve a bill to create Delhi Urban Mass Transit Authority — a central body to look into roads and transportation needs for the Capital.

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

Latin American Green City Index: Curitiba is Latin America's greenest metropolis

Source: Siemens

Photo: Siemens press picture

The Latin American Green City Index measures sustainability of 17 major cities in eight countries. In terms of environmental sustainability, Curitiba is Latin America’s greenest metropolis, with other Brazilian cities, too, scoring above average. This is one of the results of a unique comparative study of 17 major Latin American cities carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of Siemens. Siemens presented the study findings at the World Mayors Summit on Climate in Mexico City.

The Latin American Green City Index analyzes the ambitions and the actual performance of Latin American cities in respect of environmental and climate protection across eight different categories: energy and CO2, land use and buildings, transport, waste, water, sanitation, air quality, and environmental governance. «The study shows that cities that take a holistic approach score particularly well,» explains Leo Abruzzese, Global Forecasting Director at the Economist Intelligence Unit. Curitiba, for instance, a city of 1.7 million inhabitants, has been pursuing a long-term strategy since the 1960s to control urban sprawl, and to plan and manage its transportation systems. By contrast, cities that respond in an ad hoc manner to the urgent problems facing them generally score lower. In such cities, the infrastructure growth tends to be less coordinated, which has a negative impact on overall efficiency.

According to the United Nations Population Division, around 81 percent of the population of Latin America lives in cities, making these countries some of the most heavily urbanized emerging economies. Worldwide, more than 50 percent of people live in cities, and urbanization is the trigger of many problems being experienced in traffic management, and in power and water supply. Cities are also at the forefront in the battle to combat climate change. «The battle against climate change will be won in cities, as they are responsible for around 80 percent of all man-made CO2 emissions,» as Peter Löscher points out.

The Latin American Green City Index is the second such comparative study of sustainable urban infrastructure that Siemens has commissioned. It is based on a similar one of European cities carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which was published at the occasion of the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP 15 held in December 2009. In that study, Copenhagen was Europe’s «greenest city.» The methodology used in the study was developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in consultation with urban experts from, for example, the OECD and the World Bank. Similar surveys are planned for other world regions. In many Latin American countries, the topic of sustainability has not yet taken hold as it has in Europe. This is why the Latin American Green City Index may be regarded as a pioneering effort in helping to disseminate knowledge of sustainable urban infrastructure in Latin America.

For more information, check the Executive Summary and the Report.

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

New BRT projects in Mexico (in Spanish)

Source: Reforma newspaper

Ciudad de México (15 noviembre 2010).- Mientras que en el DF se tiene previsto que la tercera línea del Metrobús entre en operación este diciembre y ya se cuenta con un proyecto y recursos para la cuarta, en 2011 los sistemas BRT, tipo Metrobús, se abren camino en nueve ciudades más de México.

Por medio del Fondo Nacional de Infraestructura (Fonadin), recursos del Programa Nacional de Infraestructura, el Gobierno Federal analiza apoyar una decena de esquemas de transporte BRT en Monterrey, Chihuahua, Mexicali, Estado de México, Guadalajara, Tijuana, Cancún, Culiacán y Acapulco.

Al Macrobús de Guadalajara, por ejemplo, transporte que ya recibió un apoyo previo por 3 mil 400 millones de pesos, el Fonadin le otorgaría 1 mil 505 millones de pesos más para su tercera fase.

En Cancún, Quintana Roo, también se prevé introducir el transporte «metronizado», llamado Corredor Bicentenario, con camiones de cama baja, tecnología superior al Euro III como mínimo, paradas fijas y sistema de prepago, para lo cual se analiza otorgarle un apoyo de 1 mil 290 millones de pesos.

En total, el monto del apoyo para los nueve proyectos es de 12 mil 683 millones de pesos, y es poco probable que alguno de ellos, al final, se quede fuera de la repartición.

«Ya hay un análisis muy a fondo de los proyectos, con Fonadin, con la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, lo que puede pasar es que les hagan algunas observaciones, creo que todos son buenos proyectos», consideró Adriana Lobo, directora del Centro de Transporte Sustentable en México, organismo asesor del Fonadin.

«Qué bueno que hay financiamiento federal, eso hace una diferencia extraordinaria, antes no se producían los proyectos porque no había expectativa de inversión en el tema, Fonadin ya está creando una dinámica diferente, importante», agregó Lobo.

El Gobierno del Distrito Federal no pidió recursos al Fonadin para ninguna de las dos líneas ya existentes de Metrobús. Y la Línea 3, ya en construcción, tuvo un costo de obra de 1 mil 400 millones de pesos, aunque se pagarán 2 mil 800 millones en total por medio de un Pago por Prestación de Servicios que incluye el mantenimiento durante 10 años.

La Línea 4, cuya construcción comenzará en enero de 2011, la financiarán las empresas concesionarias de los segundos pisos de Periférico, y costará 700 millones de pesos.

El Fonadin se constituyó con los recursos provenientes del Fideicomiso de Apoyo al Rescate de Autopistas Concesionadas (FARAC) y del Fondo de Inversión en Infraestructura (FINFRA).

En total, los recursos del Fonadin sumaron en un principio 40 mil millones de pesos, y se espera que con la realización de los activos con que cuenta, en los próximos 5 años puedan canalizar recursos hasta por 270 mil millones de pesos.

Mientras tanto, en Latinoamérica, la cuna del sistema BTR, la red suma 550 a 600 kilómetros; pero sólo en Brasil, donde en 2014 se realizará la Copa del Mundo de Futbol, se construirá la misma cantidad de kilómetros.

«Rumbo a la Copa del Mundo, el Gobierno ha dado la pauta para que se implementen 500 kilómetros, solamente en Brasil, en 12 ciudades donde se va a llevar a cabo la Copa del Mundo, y se van a gastar 6 mil 600 millones de dólares», detalló Luis Gutiérrez, director para América Latina de la Red EMBARQ, Centro de Transporte Sustentable del Instituto de Recursos Mundiales, con sede en Estados Unidos.

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

Opinion Pieces: Things could be better but relative to other countries it is…

November 2007

I have just returned from Singapore where I am a member of the International Expert Panel to advise the Minister of Transport and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) on its transport policies and strategies, and help keep LTA abreast of the latest global trends and developments in land transport. You may well ask – what can we offer Singapore?; whom I am sure many ABC readers would hold up as a ‘jewel in the crown’ in the provision of public transport and how it deals with the car by electronic road pricing. True that the return on investment is something Australian operators only dream of (lets leave it at 20 percent plus and no operating subsidy), but it may come as a surprise to know that the bus system is not any more cost efficient and service effective than many urban operators in Australia (after exchange rate conversion). This means that if one wants to dip one’s toes offshore, that there are serious entrepreneurial openings when and if competitive reforms take place (keep a vigilant watch on this). Never deny the fact that many Australian based operators have been through tough times and the survivors are healthier for it. Take this experience and use it to stand up and be counted amongst the set of globally mobile operators who are in the business of dividing up the world into 25 main players (yes – you did hear it right – that is the view of many in the know).

Some of the challenges in Singapore are not dissimilar to those in Australia. For example, the debate on fare structures under fully integrated and seamless multimodal public transport ticketting is alive and well in many countries. We are not alone and unoriginal. The big issue is the flag fall component on each mode and the impost of having to pay it each time one changes mode. The solution is amazingly easy apart from the modal politics – namely do away with flag fall, have a distance or time-based fare structure (just like the direction that tolling of roads in heading) and set up a clearinghouse (again like fuller interoperable toll roads) to receive revenue and disperse it appropriately. In some countries they are using the move to smartcard fully integrated ticketing to review and revise many outdated fare structures and introducing simpler fare structures that reflect both efficient and equitable fares and most important are sensible ways of attracting people back to public transport. Food for thought!

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

Transantiago – The best bus system in Latin American in 4 or 5 years (in Spanish)

Source: Plataforma Urbana

Photo: José Genao

Hace un tiempo atrás, sostuve una distendida conversación con Enrique Peñalosa, ex-Alcalde de Bogotá y uno de los principales gestores del sistema de buses rápidos TransMilenio. Peñalosa es un tipo carismático, de una gran labia y una vasta trayectoria en el ámbito de las políticas urbanas. Enrique Peñalosa ha trabajado en distintas ciudades del mundo, es un conocedor de las experiencias en transporte en América Latina, y cuando se le pregunta por Chile no deja de dar su opinión informada. Para todos los que piensan que Transantiago representa lo peor del Chile reciente, esta entrevista más que hundir el dedo en la llaga, busca abrir el debate sobre temas de fondo, ésto es, inversiones en transporte público v/s transporte privado, subsidios al sistema de buses, nacionalización del transporte y otros más. Con Peñalosa hablamos también de visión de ciudad y de cómo hacer urbes a gusto de las personas.

Enrique Peñalosa fue Alcalde de la ciudad de Bogotá en el periodo 1998-2000. Bajo su administración se impulsaron importantes reformas urbanas, entre ellas, el sistema de buses rápidos TransMilenio basado en el sistema de Curitiba, Brasil. Desde su gestión, el sistema de Bogotá ha sido tomado como ejemplo en muchas ciudades del mundo. Actualmente Enrique Peñalosa es miembro del partido verde de Colombia y es invitado frecuentemente a exponer a lo largo del mundo sobre políticas progresistas en temas de transporte público entre otros.

Para Peñalosa, un asiduo expositor en ponencias internacionales, mientras más ciudades y lugares recorres, más te vas dando cuenta que los problemas y las personas en los distintos países son más parecidas de lo que usualmente se piensa. La siguiente es una entrevista realizada en el contexto de las conferencias Urban Age. Dicho eso, parte de la entrevista hace referencia al impacto que tienen éstas en las políticas públicas de las ciudades que las acogen. El resto de la entrevista se enfoca en temas de transporte y políticas urbanas en Chile. En palabras de Peñalosa, “obviamente, mientras más ricos –son los países – los problemas se van diferenciando, por ejemplo Chile. En Chile ocurrió algo muy curioso, y es que el Estado de Chile promovió la expansión de Santiago, la expansión y la sub urbanización, cuando eso ya era claro que era un gran error.”

Javier Vergara Petrescu (JVP): Considerando que has tenido la oportunidad de asistir a todas y cada una de las conferencias Urban Age realizadas a lo largo del mundo. ¿Cuál es, desde tu punto de vista, el alcance que tienen éstas en la manera de hacer políticas públicas en la ciudad sede?

Enrique Peñalosa (EP): Aunque hay ciertos acuerdos fundamentales, el tema del urbanismo no es una ciencia. No hay forma de probar matemáticamente, que es mejor tener ciclo rutas a que no tener, que la densidad de una ciudad de 120 hab/há es mejor que otra, etc. En general hay ciertos argumentos con los que uno puede probar ciertas cosas, pero entonces es interesante que se reúnan expertos en el mundo, y se discutan ciertos estándares, que algunos expertos desde afuera feliciten o critiquen ciertas cosas. Esto da pie a una discusión. Me parece que eso tiene de alguna manera cierta influencia, y termina generando un apoyo intelectual significativo a ciertos proyectos, y una crítica a otros.

JVP: ¿Han habido impactos inmediatos en las políticas urbanas?

EP: No. Ojalá que las decisiones políticas tuvieran respaldo popular, lo que tienen que tener necesariamente es respaldo de los grupos dominantes, esto es es el 30%. No estamos hablando de los multimillonarios a los cuales se refería Marx, es decir, los dueños capitalistas de la sociedad, pero sí estamos hablando de las clases medias altas. Ellos son los que deciden.

Curiosamente, las ciudades se hacen para los grupos de clase media alta, y casi que para los adultos, “hombres” de clase media alta. Y como es un tema complejo, los mismos ciudadanos pobres no son conscientes de qué es lo que les conviene.

Ellos mismos no son conscientes que tiene derecho a tener aceras, a tener ciclovías protegidas. Los que tienen todos los derechos son los señores poderosos, los que tiene carros.

JVP: Al parecer, en muchas ciudades el problema descansa en la idiosincrasia local donde aún existe una visión muy paternalista de las autoridades.

EP: Si los problemas en las ciudades no se están solucionando es porque éstos están mal diagnosticados. Si tienes una enfermedad y te dan el remedio para otra, así no te vas a mejorar. Muchas de las cosas que pasan en las ciudades son contra intuitivas. A uno “le parece” que hacer vías más grandes resuelve el temas del embotellamiento. Por ejemplo, en Santiago quedaron muy felices con sus autopistas con peaje inteligente, y creen que esa es la gran solución, y yo pienso que esa no es la solución, que se van a embotellar, y los problemas de la ciudad en baja densidad son muy graves, y obviamente en ninguna parte del mundo se han solucionado los temas de embotellamientos construyendo mas vías. En ninguna parte.

Obviamente, durante los primeros años de construidas las vías se alivia el tráfico, pero 10 años después, es otra la historia. Entonces son muchas cosas contra intuitivas. El problema de los sistemas urbanos es que parecen ser muy obvios y no lo son. A uno “le parece” que es el sol es el que da vuelta alrededor de la tierra, y claramente no es así. Este tipo de seminarios ayudan a crear una consciencia y a mirar ciudades más exitosas. Por ejemplo Londres, Copenhague, o Zúrich, que son ciudades mejores que las de América latina en términos de espacios peatonales, mejores espacios públicos, parques, etc.

Lo que hace falta también es hacer cosas completamente distintas, redes de vías peatonales, o redes de vías sólo para bus, especialmente en ciudades como, no digamos Santiago que ya está casi terminada, pero qué tal en África, donde las ciudades serán mucho más grandes de lo que son hoy. Gran parte de la ciudad de Nairobi del año 2070 se está por hacer, y podría hacerse completamente distinta, con parques que vayan de lado a lado, de vías solo para buses, una manera distinta de vivir.

JVP: Para que eso ocurriera, habría que tomar las riendas políticas.

EP: Finalmente son los políticos los que toman las decisiones de las ciudades. A uno pueden o no gustarle los políticos, pero la realidad es que los políticos toman las decisiones. Sin embargo, lo que nos falta es cuestionar la visión de ciudad.

La gente tiene muy clara cuál es la vivienda ideal que quisiera, pero no tiene claro la ciudad que quiere. De eso no se habla, no se tiene claro ni el barrio, ni siquiera la cuadra. Si tú le preguntas a la gente en Santiago…cómo es su cuadra ideal, de qué altura quiere sus edificios, ¿tenemos mezclado lo residencial con el comercio, o no? ¿de qué ancho deben ser las aceras? ¿tenemos ciclorutas, o no?, en fin…

Posiblemente uno lo podría llegar a tener claro, pero eso toma tiempo. Creo que no dedicamos suficiente tiempo a construir nuestra visión de ciudad. Creo que hace falta poner más en práctica ese ejercicio.

JVP: ¿Crees que las visiones prestadas de otros lados, ayudan a crear o a generar una visión propia?

EP: Claro, lo que yo creo es que la gente en el mundo se parece más de lo que uno cree. Por ejemplo en América Latina, el sistema de buses colombiano, TransMilenio, lo aprendimos de Curitiba. Son pocas las cosas que se replican en un lado y no funcionan en otra…

JVP:…en Santiago, por ejemplo, donde replicamos el TransMilenio en el Transantiago…

EP: No, yo creo que Transantiago va a ser el mejor sistema de buses en America Latina muy pronto. Lo que pasa es que hubo una serie de errores políticos, una serie de errores en la implementación, pero tiene cosas muy buenas, como por ejemplo, tienen el sistema de tarjeta electrónica más sofisticado de América Latina, y sustituyeron todos los buses tradicionales de manera simultánea yo creo que Transantiago tuvo muchos problemas de implementación, además de problemas políticos entre la derecha y la izquierda, pero obviamente yo estoy convencido que el Transantiago va a ser el mejor sistema de buses en América Latina en unos 4 o 5 años.

JVP: En cuanto a sistema de transporte de Bogotá, ¿qué porcentaje de Transmilenio es subsidiado por el Estado?

EP: Cero. TransMilenio no tiene ningún tipo de subsidio del Estado. El Estado construye la Infraestructura, pero los buses pagan todos los impuestos. A diferencia de los metros, que generalmente no pagan los impuestos de importación o tienen tarifas subsidiadas, el TransMilenio paga aranceles a la importación de los buses, paga impuesto a la venta de los buses, paga impuesto de renta, paga impuesto de rodamiento – como los carros que pagan por usar las vías. El costo de construcción de vía lo paga -finalmente TransMilenio- a través de impuestos, como cualquier vehículo. No solamente se autofinancia, sino que paga muchos impuestos. Yo no me siento orgulloso que no sea subsidiado. Me parece bueno que el transporte público sea subsidiado.

Por otro lado, hay una cosa equivocada, TransMilenio tiene un problema grandísimo. En Bogotá están todos los buses tradicionales que hacían la guerra del centavo y competían como locos. Cada bus de TransMilenio que entra al sistema, tiene que comprar nueve (9) de los tradicionales y además pagar por la chatarrización de los buses viejos. Es una cosa completamente loca. Toda la ciudad quiere que entren los buses nuevos, pero le estamos cobrando todo el costo de sacar los buses viejos de circulación a los usuarios del TransMilenio. A quienes se le debería de cobrar esos impuestos, es a los usuarios de los carros. Esto duplica el costo de los buses. Como sube el costo, los buses van muy llenos. Lo que te quiero enfatizar es que TransMilenio, además de autofinanciarse, paga una cantidad de impuestos inusitados. En Bogotá el Transmilenio representa aún solamente el 25 o 30% de la totalidad de los buses de la ciudad. Todavía falta sacar el 70%.

JVP: En Chile se ha puesto el tema en la mesa sobre Nacionalizar el sistema de Transporte Público. ¿Qué opinión tienes al respecto?

EP: ¡NO! Eso sería una locura. Yo creo que los buses nunca deben ser del Gobierno. Por lo menos en Colombia, un bus del Gobierno que sale del norte llega al sur con otro motor, bueno, eso es en el peor de los casos, pero en el mejor de los casos es una operación ineficiente. Yo creo que el Estado debe tener una pequeña operación, y subcontratar, pero los buses que sean de privados y que se les pague por kilómetros, no por pasajeros, para que sea un sistema moderno.En Chile me parecería muy extraño, ya que nos han enseñado en América Latina a ocupar el sistema privado para todo. Un bus del gobierno es un desastre. Me parece que sería un error inmenso. pURB

Puedes conocer más de Enrique Peñalosa en:

www.enriquepenalosa.com / @EnriquePenalosa

Entrevista por @vergarapetrescu

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

Peninsula Car-Poolers Secure Transit Lane Win!

Source: Mike Baird

The RTA’s proposal to scrap the transit lane on the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation has been shelved after Northern Beaches car-poolers argued it would worsen traffic congestion, Manly MP Mike Baird and Pittwater MP Rob Stokes said today.

“The prospect of punishing car-poolers to address congestion was nonsense at every level,” Mr Baird said.

“Scrapping the T3 southbound on the Burnt Bridge Creek would have removed the incentive to car-pool and punish those who were trying to do something to reduce the gridlock.

“It is a relief that the uproar from the community has been heard and I thank the Minister for Roads for pulling the RTA into line.

“The important point, which I discussed with the Minister, is the need to stop tinkering around the edges and implement a long-term public transport solution for the Spit corridor.

“We have been advocating for some time a Bus Rapid Transit for the Northern Beaches and we will seek expressions of interest as a priority if elected next March.”

Mr Baird said a huge number of residents expressed their objection to the RTA’s proposal, some who feared they would have to change their children’s school if they no longer had access to the transit lane.

“The Minister acknowledged the community response was persuasive and I thank those that took the time to make submissions, as there’s no doubt it worked.

“While I still question whether the northbound bus lane needs to be 24 hours, I’m delighted the southbound proposal has been scrapped,” Mr Baird said.

Pittwater MP Rob Stokes said he hoped the Government’s back flip on the transit lane would spur more people into car-pooling.

“This decision sends the message that people using cars during peak hour need to do so efficiently by car-pooling.

“The Labor Government needs to take this as a positive lesson in community consultation,” Mr Stokes said.

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

Opinion: Transmilenio is an Insufficient Solution (in Spanish)

Source: El Espectador Editorial

Transmilenio ha sido una experiencia con éxitos indiscutibles. El sistema de buses articulados le dio efectivamente un respiro a la capital y mostró las bondades de un transporte organizado. Sus próceres, sin embargo, se han dedicado a la más ridícula lucha de desprestigio de las restantes alternativas de movilidad. A pesar de dicha oposición, debería ser para todos claro que Bogotá, sexta ciudad más densa del mundo, necesita valerse de todas las opciones disponibles para evitar el colapso de sus vías. La más urgente: concretar el Sistema Integrado de Transporte (SITP). No obstante, por más que los buses y colectivos se organicen y Transmilenio siga adelante con sus fases, muchas rutas de la ciudad están ya excedidas en su capacidad. El promedio de la velocidad de los articulados rojos de la Caracas, por ejemplo, que comenzó con 30 km por hora, va ya en 19, y seguirá disminuyendo a medida que sean más los buses que se incorporen para satisfacer la demanda.

Además de la congestión del actual Transmilenio, por la forma como se configuró la ciudad, los espacios simplemente no dan para expandir por todos los callejones un sistema de corredores de 30 metros de ancho. Este es, en especial, el caso del costado oriental de la ciudad, centro de la actividad económica de la capital, y al que viajan o donde se movilizan 3 millones 300 mil personas cada día. Esta cantidad de ciudadanos se desplaza por la carrera Séptima, a 18 km/h; por la carrera 11, a 10,5 km/h; por la carrera 19, a 14 km/h, y por la 17, a 15 km/h. Esto hoy, cuando la ciudad tiene cerca de siete millones de habitantes. ¿Cómo será cuando en 2018 lleguemos a unos 11? No sobra recordar el ancho promedio de estas vías. La 17 tiene 8,5 metros de ancho, la 19 tiene 14, la 11 tiene 9,7 y la Séptima, aunque su promedio es de 30 metros, en realidad sólo se cumple el límite desde la 100 hacia el norte.

Así las cosas, la realidad urbana del centro económico de la capital sencillamente hace imposible los 30 metros de vías que exige Transmilenio. De aquí que lo que se discute no sea una mera alternativa para la ciudad, la cual empezará con el tiempo a pedir también el metro hacia el costado occidental. Pero los opositores abundan. Por un lado, están aquellos que, si bien lo ven necesario, piensan que todavía hay buen margen de espera, como si la construcción de este proyecto no tardara cuando menos cinco años y no fuera mejor intervenir una ciudad de siete millones de habitantes que una de 11. Por el otro lado están los defensores a ultranza de Transmilenio, que bien por intereses económicos o de ideología, prefieren que la ciudad pague por los predios que requieren las ampliaciones de Transmilenio en el sector más valorizado, a que se haga un metro más urbano y más ecológico que buses articulados por callejuelas.

Con todo, de manera paradójica, el principal enemigo del metro es el mismo Alcalde, que ganó las elecciones llevándolo como promesa de campaña. Los escándalos de corrupción que han envuelto la administración Moreno y el mal manejo de las obras que ya están en ejecución, han hecho que tanto la ciudadanía como el Gobierno Nacional desconfíen de su firma y prefieran, mejor, retrasar la licitación. Desconfianza que, si bien es razonable, no por ello puede dejar empantanar un proyecto que sólo traería beneficios a la ciudad. No se deben detener la segunda y tercera etapas de la ingeniería básica —estudios de amueblamiento, dotación de la infraestructura y material rodante—, para que la siguiente administración pueda llegar y adjudicar de inmediato la obra. Contrario a lo que muchos han sugerido, incluida la Universidad de los Andes, fiel consultora de Transmilenio, y Planeación Nacional, el trazado de los estudios es bueno y el gasto es financiable. No tiene sentido darle más espera.

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

Opinion Pieces: The Data Trail – Keep it Simple but make it Meaningful

October 2007

My recent participation in a number of inquiries into ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport has highlighted the inadequate focus on really knowing what does make a difference to actual and potential users of public transport. There appear to be a large number of customer satisfaction surveys which seem on balance to focus mainly on looking at how satisfied (happy?) existing users are with a range of existing service attributes. There is something missing – someone may be eternally satisfied with a specific feature of a service (e.g., the attitude of the bus driver or the inspector on the train or the attendant at the Ferry wharf), but is that really so important as to influence whether someone would choose to use or not use a bus or train or ferry? An obvious and simple improvement would be to identify how important specific service features are in one’s choice of means of transport and how well is the operator performing in providing the service in terms of that feature. As an example, we might think about asking how does the stakeholders’ perception of how successful the operator has been in addressing each of the issues compare with their perception of how important each of the issues are? To determine this, a simple “difference score” might be used, defined as the difference between the importance and success ratings given by each respondent to each issue as shown in the Table below.

Levels of Difference Scores
How Important Scale	How Successful Scale
How Important Scale	1	2	3	4
1	0	-1	-2	-3
2	1	0	-1	-2
3	2	1	0	-1
4	3	2	1	0

A positive score indicates that the success in addressing an issue is lagging behind its importance in choosing a means of transport. Its magnitude is indicative of how much success is lagging behind importance. For example, the score “3” is obtained when the stakeholder considers an issue to be very important but the same issue has been unsuccessfully addressed by the Operator. A negative score indicates that the Operator has over addressed an issue given its importance to actual and potential passengers. For example, the score “-3” indicates that a stakeholder considers an issue to be unimportant even though it has been very successfully addressed by the Operator. A zero score indicates that the Operator has addressed the issue in line with its importance.

Given the growing importance of measuring the passenger’s (existing and potential) assessment of the effectiveness of public transport services, it is timely that we at least ask the question: Do we Really Know our Passengers? Are we measuring incorrectly if we want to grow patronage? Information is only relevant if it is useful.

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

BRT in Ahmedabad: Lessons From a State-of-the-Art Bus System

EMBARQ’s The City Fix had the chance to spoke with Professor Shivanand Swamy, the Associate Director of CEPT, about Ahmedabad’s Janmarg bus rapid transit (BRT) system one year after its creation. The new BRT system, considered a best practice for BRT in South Asia, provides services of about 90,000 bus trips per day on 45 buses.

Read full article at The City Fix.

Photo: CEPT University

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

Check our Transantiago videos in YouTube

These videos are a description of the motivation, design, implementation and first year evolution of Transantiago System, in Santiago, Chile. They were developed during the International Workshop on BRT held in Santiago on 26-29 August, 2008. Don’t forget to activate the English captions by clicking «CC» at the bottom of the video.

Transantiago video – part 1

Transantiago video – part 2

Transantiago video – part 3

Photo: Transantiago

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

Interview to Professor Juan de Dios Ortuzar during his stay in The University of Western Australia

During July 2010, Professor Ortuzar lived in Perth, where he was the Westnet Infrastructure Group Visiting Professor at The University of Western Australia Business School. He was interviewed about his research and his work in Perth.

Read full interview in The University of Western Australia’s website.

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

Guadalajara decides to cancel their BRT project: controversy in Mexico

Mayors just rejected federal funding for line 2 of Guadalajara’s BRT. Their decision is allegedly based on technical studies showing that LRT is a better option – full press conference article (in Spanish).

In response, the Governor of Jalisco slams them for «sending the jobs and federal money to Monterrey» – full press release (in Spanish).

Bunch of links on the polemic (in Spanish): informador.com.mx

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