# Sexy Stations



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

_X posted on the subways and urban mobility sub forum - I meant to put it here - don't know how to delete the first one (apologies)._

Sliding glass doors to keep people on elevated platforms.. sheltered from the rain, turnstiles to enter...

http://www.youtube.com/v/UA4IR7PvO6I


Can you name:

1) the mode type and 
2) the city name


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

1) TransMilenio bus (articulated), operating in dedicated bus lanes.
2) Bogota.

PS. If I'm right do I win a prize?


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Very good!

I'd offer you a cup of Earl Grey tea if I could. Are you an explorer?




Since Bogota isn't really on the travel map, and is such a slick system (riding Bogota's TransMilenio totally changed how I see the potential of BRT), I was curious if someone would recognize it.

Imho, if a city wants to try BRT, this is the gold standard, the one that matches & can even rail-based exceed rail systems in capacity, for less the cost....


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Wow, I have to say that I am absolutely underwhelmed by the commentary. 

What are the forum's thoughts on high quality BRT systems such as the one shown above (and completely ignoring all of the half-ass cheap-out wannabe BRTs)

A few indicators:

- peak capacity per direction 45,000 people per hour
- average speed is 26 kmph
- cost $5 - $12 million per km


Station features

- level, step-on or roll-on boarding
- covered
- glass doors
- turnstiles
- fare card system


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

adrimm said:


> Very good!
> 
> I'd offer you a cup of Earl Grey tea if I could. Are you an explorer?


Lol. 

No, I'm not an explorer - I can't be bothered (see the quote under my name and my signature)...

As for bus rapid transit (BRT), I think it's an excellent idea! The fact that hundreds of kilometres of BRT bus lanes can be built (plus the stops) for the cost of say, maybe, 30km of metro line (underground) just blows me away. It's a wonder many cities haven't adopted it, especially in the third world. Maybe it's just the popular image of busses being less prestigious than trains or trams. It does help to have wide streets to fit the bus lanes and stops into, though, as Bogota and Curitiba (the first such system) do. And to have a high carrying capacity it needs to be a proper system like these ones too, as you said, otherwise it will fall short of its potential. Anyhow all power to Bogota, Curitiba and Jakarta (capital of Indonesia, which has recently started its' own BRT system)!


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

adrimm said:


> Wow, I have to say that I am absolutely underwhelmed by the commentary.
> 
> What are the forum's thoughts on high quality BRT systems such as the one shown above (and completely ignoring all of the half-ass cheap-out wannabe BRTs)
> 
> ...


Are you sure about peak capacity? 45000 is a huge firgure and fits more to the metro, not even for the tram.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

_Night City Dream_ said:


> Are you sure about peak capacity? 45000 is a huge firgure and fits more to the metro, not even for the tram.



Yep - check it out yourself:

*1) Go to the Institute for Transportation Development Policy*:
http://www.itdp.org/index.php/who_we_are/

Check out the BRT Manual:
http://www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/brt_planning_guide/

Look at Annex 1 (pdf) and look at page 15 (of 26):
http://www.itdp.org/documents/Annex1%202007%2009.pdf

Pereira, shown next to Bogota is a city of 500,000 - 10% the size of Bogota, and it still has high numbers.

*2) The UN has similar figures and shows some comparisons with other BRTs and rail systems in a document that is a couple of years old. *
http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/est/news-BRT-nov05.htm

See slides 64 & 63 of the Introduction to BRT.

Personally having just returned home from visiting Bogota (while maintaining a healthy disdain for Vancouver's BRT), I really think that it is about the features & services. If you give BRT the same features as metro (except for track), you can meet metro numbers. The stations are awesome, they have platforms, and buses arrive every few seconds to one of the platforms.. I don't think I had to wait more than 2-3 minutes for the routes I was waiting for.

I noticed that Bogota's BRT works best to cover long distance travel (ie suburbs to downtown), these are the successes -the routes that become jam packed at rush hour, earning the system a nickname of TransMi-lleno (full). 

A tram is better for local service within denser areas.

Oh and for the record I'm still not impressed by the local BRT we have here (B-Line buses in Vancouver), but Bogota.... its definitely different..somethng to think about.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

I've wondered why and as I said earlier I think it is because people don't travel much to the cities that have the full feature/service BRTs, so relatively few people have been exposed to them. I wouldn't have gone to Bogota except I have a cousin living there now.

If you haven't been, how did you first hear of Bogota?

I think that there is immense potential for many of cities in North America in need of soemthing better than buses, but not able to afford metro. We've got lots roadspace that could be re-allocated. Might be a bit tight in downtowns but, hey it's the long-haul where Bogota-type BRT works well and there are always transit malls  



Jean Luc said:


> Lol.
> 
> No, I'm not an explorer - I can't be bothered (see the quote under my name and my signature)...
> 
> As for bus rapid transit (BRT), I think it's an excellent idea! The fact that hundreds of kilometres of BRT bus lanes can be built (plus the stops) for the cost of say, maybe, 30km of metro line (underground) just blows me away. It's a wonder many cities haven't adopted it, especially in the third world. Maybe it's just the popular image of busses being less prestigious than trains or trams. It does help to have wide streets to fit the bus lanes and stops into, though, as Bogota and Curitiba (the first such system) do. And to have a high carrying capacity it needs to be a proper system like these ones too, as you said, otherwise it will fall short of its potential. Anyhow all power to Bogota, Curitiba and Jakarta (capital of Indonesia, which has recently started its' own BRT system)!


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

adrimm said:


> If you haven't been, how did you first hear of Bogota?


If you mean TransMilenio I don't remember - probably on the internet somewhere.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

I really wish people would stop writing buses off as 'poor people's transit' and somehow inferior to trams and rail transit. Buses are fast and efficient forms of transit, and should have this negative stigma attached to them.

Another great thing about a high capacity BRT compared to a LRT of similar capacity is that the buses will come more frequently than on a train line. I love walking down to a road serviced by a high frequency bus service, and having the buses come by instantly.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

BRTs are fine, if its a good solution for a particular city, then great, but I don't see it as particularly impressive or anything. Its like using light rails, except you use buses instead of trains.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

gladisimo said:


> BRTs are fine, if its a good solution for a particular city, then great, but I don't see it as particularly impressive or anything. Its like using light rails, except you use buses instead of trains.


What makes it special is the cost... it brings the entry-level ticket price to Mass Transit down significantly. This suddenly makes it a viable option for smaller, or less dense communities for whom a metro or rail link is out of reach. 

PLUS with full features, BRT *can* reach what has traditionally been regarded as LRT capacity for moving people!


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

A properly designed BRT will throughput more people than a tramway simply because the busses can pass each other at stations (something impossible on tramways). Poorly designed BRT will have a stopped bus holding everyone up, or won't have right of way etc.

You can also then have services that use the busway, and do not stop at any of the stations, but continue on to suburban areas where the density would not justify light rail. AND passengers have the advantage of not having to change modes like bus + rail systems that they would otherwise have, which means you can get some excellent express services that have average speeds of 60-80km/hr. (for systems that run long distances).

The only real downside is that they do need more land as busses are wider, but in comparison to building more roads they are excellent, and can even use some existing roads for some sections with little modification or expense required. 

It's interesting that globally busses have less prestige than trains, but locally here where the busses are new and well maintained, the busways are fast and effecient and the rail neglected and stations pitifully decaying, it is the reverse. Rail lines traverse the 'cheap' suburbs, while busways service the more expensive areas. They tried running services 24 hours on weekends for busses and trains, but after a trial only the bus services were kept. 

You really do need to put some money into it, obviously a bus system that has 1/50th the money spent on it compared to a light rail system isn't going to be great. They need good stations, full right of way, passing lanes at stations etc etc. As such they do take up more space, but then they typically suit areas where that space exists, or at least, for most of the system it exists.


----------

