Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bus lanes? BRT

Expand Messages
  • Gabriel Roth
    From: Gabriel Roth [mailto:roths@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:29 PM To: KyotoWorldCities@yahoogroups.com Anzir - With apologies, I am not
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Gabriel Roth [mailto:roths@...]
      Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:29 PM
      To: KyotoWorldCities@yahoogroups.com

      Anzir -

      With apologies, I am not sure if this is the proper forum to compare
      rail and bus transport, but this exchange was started by a writer in
      Brisbane asking why there is so much investment in rail, when buses
      on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of
      the cost. I, too, am a member of the Dave Wetzel fan club, but I
      doubt if even his influence is big enough to dent New Labour's
      obsession with the rail mode.

      You seem obviously right about the advantages of "Guided buses" as
      compared to rail, but why not use ordinary buses? One answer, given
      to me in connection with the wasteful guided bus system being built
      near Cambridge (at my expense and yours), is that ordinary cars could
      then use the spare capacity. But I see this as an advantage: It
      could, with electronic congestion pricing, provide additional useful
      track capacity while raising revenues to pay for itself.

      With regard to "under-utilized" rail capacity in London, why not ask
      the folks in TfL to give us the data on the passengers per hour (or
      trains per hour) in London at different times, so that readers can
      judge for themselves?

      I do not understand your point about the advantage of steel wheels on
      steel rails. Vehicles using that mode cannot stop quickly, so need
      big distances between them. This severely limits the track capacity.
      Remember that this mode was invented over two centuries ago to enable
      horses to pull coal carts more easily in collieries. Much as happened
      since, such as the development of steam cars in the 1820s (stopped by
      Act of Parliament around 1833) and the development of the internal
      combustion engine about a century ago.

      Nor am I clear about the advantages of "integrated networks and fare
      structures". Are these not code words to enable politicians to force
      road users to support outmoded technologies which travelers refuse to
      pay for?

      Gabriel




      >Gabriel,
      >On 16 Mar 2007, at 16:47, Gabriel Roth wrote:
      >
      >> Eric -
      >>
      >> You observations are acute, but it was BRT I was writing about, not
      >> bus lanes. London's bus lanes do little to speed up bus travel as
      >> the delays are at the intersections. London's bus lanes have
      >> considerable wasted space on them and might even do more harm than
      >> good to urban mobility.
      >
      >It is true that there is little, if any, bus priority in London.
      >However, there are long stretches of road on which bus lanes do make
      >it easier and quicker for buses to operate. I don't think it is easy
      >to generalise about the effectiveness of bus lanes in somewhere as
      >big as London.
      >
      >> What I am after are "busways" which would give buses the same sort
      >> of unimpeded travel as are enjoyed by rail trains. The dedicated
      >> busway bringing buses to the New York bus terminal near 42nd street
      >> is an example. In London, there was a proposal to convert
      >> Marylebone station to a bus station, and have it served by a
      >> dedicated busway, to be built from the M1 Motorway on the right-of
      >> way of an under-utilized rail line. British Rail refused to give up
      >> its track and nothing came of this proposal.
      >
      >...and the rail line is not as "under utilised" as it once was.
      >Marylebone station has recently had to be extended to cope with the
      >increase in rail traffic in recent years.
      >
      >> London has many miles of under-used rail right-of-way, and if room
      >> can be found for a new rail line, could it not be found for a new
      >> busway? I've not seen the alternatives analyzed.
      >
      >Well, if you can find any under utilised rail lines in London that
      >can reasonably be used for rail or busways, then I'm sure Dave Wetzel
      >at Transport for London would be more than happy to know where they are.
      >
      >The new rail lines proposed or being built in London are all
      >underground (this is why the Channel Tunnel Rail Link going into
      >London is all in tunnel as opposed to being above ground or sharing
      >track with other rail services). The only new rail line being built
      >above ground is the conversion of an "under utilised" line to one
      >with more intensive service.
      >
      >I still believe part of the solution for many other cities lies in
      >track guided buses, which are able to use rail rights of way and then
      >go off into other parts of the city. These could take advantage of
      >the favourable physical characteristics of rail (steel wheel on steel
      >rail has 90% less resistance than rubber tyre on tarmac) and the
      >ability of buses to go anywhere without extra infrastructure. It
      >would allow LRT infrastructure to be provided more cost-effectively,
      >only where it is needed. In many cities, there is a big distinction
      >between bus networks and rail/LRT networks, and if we're serious
      >about BRT to be part of the solution in major cities, it must be more
      >integrated with rail and light rail, and be seen as complementary,
      >not competitive. If the distinction between BRT and LRT is removed by
      >having integrated networks and fare structures, putting both to the
      >uses they are most suited to, and allowing them to share stops or
      >have well designed interchanges, then more cities would be willing to
      >adopt BRT. Well, that's my opinion anyhow.
      >
      >--
      >Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
      >transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
      >


      --

      *****************************
      Roths can also be reached at:
      4815 Falstone Avenue
      Chevy Chase, Maryland
      USA 20815
      Voice: 1 301 656 6094
      Fax : 1 202 318 2431

      *****************************
    • From: Michael Yeates
      From: Michael Yeates Date: Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:16 pm Thanks. I have appreciated the observations although most did not give examples of
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        From: Michael Yeates <michael@...>  
         Date: Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:16 pm
         

        Thanks. I have appreciated the observations although most did not give examples of cities where bus lanes on existing roads using existing lanes converted to bus lanes have been banned.

        A correction to the comment below however ... the question was definitely not about "why there is so much investment in rail, when buses on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of the cost" as can be seen from reference to the original posting ... part of which is below with some sections now in bold...

        Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:49:20 +1000

        Subject: [KyotoWorldCities] Bus lanes?

        Reply-To: KyotoWorldCities@yahoogroups.com

        Can anybody help?

         >> SNIP

        Early advice (about 10-12 years ago) to both the local city government

        (which operates a fleet of about 700 buses) and the state government which

        operates Citytrain was to implement a network of bus lanes on the main road

        routes which had the most demand by converting a lane from general traffic

        to buses, taxis, cyclists.

        This was completely ignored, indeed the advice was highly criticised,

        although it is classic road space re-allocation and as the consultants

        pointed out, necessary to encourage an understanding of how a good local

        bus service unimpeded by being stuck in the traffic could not only carry a

        lot of current drivers (reducing the numbers of cars on the road) but could

        offer an almost as good service by enhanced reliability, faster travel

        times, increased frequency.

        That never happened.

        Instead government after government of both major parties opposed bus lanes

        ... and still do. The current Lord Mayor of Brisbane changed bus lanes to

        T3 and T2 within days of taking office.

        I am wondering how many other examples there are of cities where in effect,

        there is a political 'ban' on bus lanes from both the government and the

        opposition?

        In an unfortunate update since that posting, the same Lord Mayor has now completed what Vukan Vuchic has described as "back sliding" from transit (bus) priority lane to HOV lane to ordinary lane, viz he has recently converted one of the former Bus Lanes that became a T3 Lanes into a general purpose lane thus having widened that particular road at great cost >A$30m and huge delays to traffic over about a year construction supposedly for bus priority, yet now the buses are stuck in the traffic.

        For those interested, the info would be on the web.

        The Brisbane Busways have achieved a lot of promotion but not much has been said about the congestion arising at the CBD where huge amounts are being spent to reduce congestion and to try to provide space for the buses ... noting that our 6-car rail sets can carry more than 600 people (but rarely do), work out how much congestion is caused by the buses (also rarely anywhere near full) needed to carry a similar number of people to get an idea of the congestion.

        Basically rail carries larger numbers of people per hour ....

        The point I do not see being discussed is why transport commentators want Busways but not an extensive network of Bus Lanes created from existing road space ...

        There is a hint in the email below in the reference to "ordinary cars could then use the spare capacity."

        The real issue of course is (or should be) about people carrying capacity.

        So one reasonably full bus equates to about 1 km of single occupancy cars travelling at say 50-60km/h at a safe spacing (headway).

        If there is another bus in the same 1km sector of Bus Lane, then the capacity is doubled and so on. If cars are added, that advantage disappears rapidly.

        I know the Bus Lane might look empty with a bus every km or so, but why add cars into those bus lanes?

        And why build a separate Busway other than to preserve if not enhance travel by car?

        Michael Yeates
        Brisbane
        Australia ...........

        At 06:28 AM 1/04/2007, Gabriel Roth wrote:


        Anzir -

        With apologies, I am not sure if this is the proper forum to compare
        rail and bus transport, but this exchange was started by a writer in
        Brisbane asking why there is so much investment in rail, when buses
        on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of
        the cost. I, too, am a member of the Dave Wetzel fan club, but I
        doubt if even his influence is big enough to dent New Labour's
        obsession with the rail mode.

        You seem obviously right about the advantages of "Guided buses" as
        compared to rail, but why not use ordinary buses? One answer, given
        to me in connection with the wasteful guided bus system being built
        near Cambridge (at my expense and yours), is that ordinary cars could
        then use the spare capacity. But I see this as an advantage: It
        could, with electronic congestion pricing, provide additional useful
        track capacity while raising revenues to pay for itself.

        With regard to "under-utilized" rail capacity in London, why not ask
        the folks in TfL to give us the data on the passengers per hour (or
        trains per hour) in London at different times, so that readers can
        judge for themselves?

        I do not understand your point about the advantage of steel wheels on
        steel rails. Vehicles using that mode cannot stop quickly, so need
        big distances between them. This severely limits the track capacity.
        Remember that this mode was invented over two centuries ago to enable
        horses to pull coal carts more easily in collieries. Much as happened
        since, such as the development of steam cars in the 1820s (stopped by
        Act of Parliament around 1833) and the development of the internal
        combustion engine about a century ago.

        Nor am I clear about the advantages of "integrated networks and fare
        structures". Are these not code words to enable politicians to force
        road users to support outmoded technologies which travelers refuse to
        pay for?

        Gabriel

        >Gabriel,
        >On 16 Mar 2007, at 16:47, Gabriel Roth wrote:
        >
        >> Eric -
        >>
        >> You observations are acute, but it was BRT I was writing about, not
        >> bus lanes. London's bus lanes do little to speed up bus travel as
        >> the delays are at the intersections. London's bus lanes have
        >> considerable wasted space on them and might even do more harm than
        >> good to urban mobility.
        >
        >It is true that there is little, if any, bus priority in London.
        >However, there are long stretches of road on which bus lanes do make
        >it easier and quicker for buses to operate. I don't think it is easy
        >to generalise about the effectiveness of bus lanes in somewhere as
        >big as London.
        >
        >> What I am after are "busways" which would give buses the
        same sort
        >> of unimpeded travel as are enjoyed by rail trains. The dedicated
        >> busway bringing buses to the New York bus terminal near 42nd street
        >> is an example. In London, there was a proposal to convert
        >> Marylebone station to a bus station, and have it served by a
        >> dedicated busway, to be built from the M1 Motorway on the right-of
        >> way of an under-utilized rail line. British Rail refused to give up
        >> its track and nothing came of this proposal.
        >
        >...and the rail line is not as "under utilised" as it once was.
        >Marylebone station has recently had to be extended to cope with the
        >increase in rail traffic in recent years.
        >
        >> London has many miles of under-used rail right-of-way, and if room
        >> can be found for a new rail line, could it not be found for a new
        >> busway? I've not seen the alternatives analyzed.
        >
        >Well, if you can find any under utilised rail lines in London that
        >can reasonably be used for rail or busways, then I'm sure Dave Wetzel
        >at Transport for London would be more than happy to know where they are.
        >
        >The new rail lines proposed or being built in London are all
        >underground (this is why the Channel Tunnel Rail Link going into
        >London is all in tunnel as opposed to being above ground or sharing
        >track with other rail services). The only new rail line being built
        >above ground is the conversion of an "under utilised" line to one
        >with more intensive service.
        >
        >I still believe part of the solution for many other cities lies in
        >track guided buses, which are able to use rail rights of way and then
        >go off into other parts of the city. These could take advantage of
        >the favourable physical characteristics of rail (steel wheel on steel
        >rail has 90% less resistance than rubber tyre on tarmac) and the
        >ability of buses to go anywhere without extra infrastructure. It
        >would allow LRT infrastructure to be provided more cost-effectively,
        >only where it is needed. In many cities, there is a big distinction
        >between bus networks and rail/LRT networks, and if we're serious
        >about BRT to be part of the solution in major cities, it must be more
        >integrated with rail and light rail, and be seen as complementary,
        >not competitive. If the distinction between BRT and LRT is removed by
        >having integrated networks and fare structures, putting both to the
        >uses they are most suited to, and allowing them to share stops or
        >have well designed interchanges, then more cities would be willing to
        >adopt BRT. Well, that's my opinion anyhow.
        >
        >--
        >Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
        >transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
        >

        --

        *****************************
        Roths can also be reached at:
        4815 Falstone Avenue
        Chevy Chase, Maryland
        USA 20815
        Voice: 1 301 656 6094
        Fax : 1 202 318 2431

        *****************************

      • Richard Layman
        When people refuse to accept basic mathematics, you re gonna have a disconnect of major proportions. I haven t done an equivalent example (see below) in DC,
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          When people refuse to accept basic mathematics, you're gonna have a disconnect of major proportions.  I haven't done an equivalent example (see below) in DC, but I want to
           
          Richard Layman
          Washington, DC
           
          Packing the pavement: different modes take up vastly different amounts of space
          This ad is from the 1940s.  American City magazine from that time period has many great such ads.
          GE Streetcar ad, 1940

          From: Michael Yeates <michael@...>; wrote:
          From: Michael Yeates <michael@yeatesit. biz>  
           Date: Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:16 pm
           
          Thanks. I have appreciated the observations although most did not give examples of cities where bus lanes on existing roads using existing lanes converted to bus lanes have been banned.

          A correction to the comment below however ... the question was definitely not about "why there is so much investment in rail, when buses on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of the cost" as can be seen from reference to the original posting ... part of which is below with some sections now in bold...
          Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:49:20 +1000
          Subject: [KyotoWorldCities] Bus lanes?
          Reply-To: KyotoWorldCities@ yahoogroups. com
          Can anybody help?
           >> SNIP
          Early advice (about 10-12 years ago) to both the local city government
          (which operates a fleet of about 700 buses) and the state government which
          operates Citytrain was to implement a network of bus lanes on the main road
          routes which had the most demand by converting a lane from general traffic
          to buses, taxis, cyclists.
          This was completely ignored, indeed the advice was highly criticised,
          although it is classic road space re-allocation and as the consultants
          pointed out, necessary to encourage an understanding of how a good local
          bus service unimpeded by being stuck in the traffic could not only carry a
          lot of current drivers (reducing the numbers of cars on the road) but could
          offer an almost as good service by enhanced reliability, faster travel
          times, increased frequency.
          That never happened.
          Instead government after government of both major parties opposed bus lanes
          ... and still do. The current Lord Mayor of Brisbane changed bus lanes to
          T3 and T2 within days of taking office.
          I am wondering how many other examples there are of cities where in effect,
          there is a political 'ban' on bus lanes from both the government and the
          opposition?
          In an unfortunate update since that posting, the same Lord Mayor has now completed what Vukan Vuchic has described as "back sliding" from transit (bus) priority lane to HOV lane to ordinary lane, viz he has recently converted one of the former Bus Lanes that became a T3 Lanes into a general purpose lane thus having widened that particular road at great cost >A$30m and huge delays to traffic over about a year construction supposedly for bus priority, yet now the buses are stuck in the traffic.

          For those interested, the info would be on the web.

          The Brisbane Busways have achieved a lot of promotion but not much has been said about the congestion arising at the CBD where huge amounts are being spent to reduce congestion and to try to provide space for the buses ... noting that our 6-car rail sets can carry more than 600 people (but rarely do), work out how much congestion is caused by the buses (also rarely anywhere near full) needed to carry a similar number of people to get an idea of the congestion.

          Basically rail carries larger numbers of people per hour ....

          The point I do not see being discussed is why transport commentators want Busways but not an extensive network of Bus Lanes created from existing road space ...

          There is a hint in the email below in the reference to "ordinary cars could then use the spare capacity."

          The real issue of course is (or should be) about people carrying capacity.

          So one reasonably full bus equates to about 1 km of single occupancy cars travelling at say 50-60km/h at a safe spacing (headway).

          If there is another bus in the same 1km sector of Bus Lane, then the capacity is doubled and so on. If cars are added, that advantage disappears rapidly.

          I know the Bus Lane might look empty with a bus every km or so, but why add cars into those bus lanes?

          And why build a separate Busway other than to preserve if not enhance travel by car?

          Michael Yeates
          Brisbane
          Australia ...........

          At 06:28 AM 1/04/2007, Gabriel Roth wrote:


          Anzir -

          With apologies, I am not sure if this is the proper forum to compare
          rail and bus transport, but this exchange was started by a writer in
          Brisbane asking why there is so much investment in rail, when buses
          on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of
          the cost. I, too, am a member of the Dave Wetzel fan club, but I
          doubt if even his influence is big enough to dent New Labour's
          obsession with the rail mode.

          You seem obviously right about the advantages of "Guided buses" as
          compared to rail, but why not use ordinary buses? One answer, given
          to me in connection with the wasteful guided bus system being built
          near Cambridge (at my expense and yours), is that ordinary cars could
          then use the spare capacity. But I see this as an advantage: It
          could, with electronic congestion pricing, provide additional useful
          track capacity while raising revenues to pay for itself.

          With regard to "under-utilized" rail capacity in London, why not ask
          the folks in TfL to give us the data on the passengers per hour (or
          trains per hour) in London at different times, so that readers can
          judge for themselves?

          I do not understand your point about the advantage of steel wheels on
          steel rails. Vehicles using that mode cannot stop quickly, so need
          big distances between them. This severely limits the track capacity.
          Remember that this mode was invented over two centuries ago to enable
          horses to pull coal carts more easily in collieries. Much as happened
          since, such as the development of steam cars in the 1820s (stopped by
          Act of Parliament around 1833) and the development of the internal
          combustion engine about a century ago.

          Nor am I clear about the advantages of "integrated networks and fare
          structures". Are these not code words to enable politicians to force
          road users to support outmoded technologies which travelers refuse to
          pay for?

          Gabriel

          >Gabriel,
          >On 16 Mar 2007, at 16:47, Gabriel Roth wrote:
          >
          >> Eric -
          >>
          >> You observations are acute, but it was BRT I was writing about, not
          >> bus lanes. London's bus lanes do little to speed up bus travel as
          >> the delays are at the intersections. London's bus lanes have
          >> considerable wasted space on them and might even do more harm than
          >> good to urban mobility.
          >
          >It is true that there is little, if any, bus priority in London.
          >However, there are long stretches of road on which bus lanes do make
          >it easier and quicker for buses to operate. I don't think it is easy
          >to generalise about the effectiveness of bus lanes in somewhere as
          >big as London.
          >
          >> What I am after are "busways" which would give buses the same sort
          >> of unimpeded travel as are enjoyed by rail trains. The dedicated
          >> busway bringing buses to the New York bus terminal near 42nd street
          >> is an example. In London, there was a proposal to convert
          >> Marylebone station to a bus station, and have it served by a
          >> dedicated busway, to be built from the M1 Motorway on the right-of
          >> way of an under-utilized rail line. British Rail refused to give up
          >> its track and nothing came of this proposal.
          >
          >...and the rail line is not as "under utilised" as it once was.
          >Marylebone station has recently had to be extended to cope with the
          >increase in rail traffic in recent years.
          >
          >> London has many miles of under-used rail right-of-way, and if room
          >> can be found for a new rail line, could it not be found for a new
          >> busway? I've not seen the alternatives analyzed.
          >
          >Well, if you can find any under utilised rail lines in London that
          >can reasonably be used for rail or busways, then I'm sure Dave Wetzel
          >at Transport for London would be more than happy to know where they are.
          >
          >The new rail lines proposed or being built in London are all
          >underground (this is why the Channel Tunnel Rail Link going into
          >London is all in tunnel as opposed to being above ground or sharing
          >track with other rail services). The only new rail line being built
          >above ground is the conversion of an "under utilised" line to one
          >with more intensive service.
          >
          >I still believe part of the solution for many other cities lies in
          >track guided buses, which are able to use rail rights of way and then
          >go off into other parts of the city. These could take advantage of
          >the favourable physical characteristics of rail (steel wheel on steel
          >rail has 90% less resistance than rubber tyre on tarmac) and the
          >ability of buses to go anywhere without extra infrastructure. It
          >would allow LRT infrastructure to be provided more cost-effectively,
          >only where it is needed. In many cities, there is a big distinction
          >between bus networks and rail/LRT networks, and if we're serious
          >about BRT to be part of the solution in major cities, it must be more
          >integrated with rail and light rail, and be seen as complementary,
          >not competitive. If the distinction between BRT and LRT is removed by
          >having integrated networks and fare structures, putting both to the
          >uses they are most suited to, and allowing them to share stops or
          >have well designed interchanges, then more cities would be willing to
          >adopt BRT. Well, that's my opinion anyhow.
          >
          >--
          >Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
          >transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
          >

          --

          ************ ********* ********
          Roths can also be reached at:
          4815 Falstone Avenue
          Chevy Chase, Maryland
          USA 20815
          Voice: 1 301 656 6094
          Fax : 1 202 318 2431

          ************ ********* ********

        • Richard Layman
          It takes 12-14 articulated buses to equal one 6 car heavy rail train. But you can run at least 30 such 6 car sets/hour moving at least 20,000+ people. I
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            It takes 12-14 articulated buses to equal one 6 car heavy rail train.  But you can run at least 30 such 6 car sets/hour moving at least 20,000+ people.  I think it wouldn't be possible to move 360-420 such buses in the same amount of space in one hour.  Sure light rail train sets aren't as big, and don't move as many people, but again similar kinds of figures pertain.
             
            one lane of road mile can move
            about 2,000 cars on a limited access highway
            and 800-1300 cars in other situations
            6,750 people by bus
            10,000 by bus rapid transit
            probably 15,000-18,000 by light rail
            and 20,000 to 65,000 people by heavy rail.
             
            Plus, the issue in some respects is to provide rideable options that appeal to those with transit choices.  Research demonstrates quite convincingly that people are much less likely to ride buses compared to streetcars, light rail, heavy rail, and trains.  Of course, if there is no such thing as free parking available, the equation changes, and people become more willing to ride buses (or if there aren't other options, such as currently in Seattle).
             
            So I challenge the original point.  Not to mention the impact on economic development.  OTOH, if the system is polycentric or under-dense, likely buses would be cheaper for roughly the same amount of use.

            There are many factors at work here.  Proviso: I do not know Brisbane.
             
            Richard Layman

            Gabriel@..., UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. wrote:
            From: Gabriel Roth [mailto:roths@earthlink. net]
            Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:29 PM
            To: KyotoWorldCities@ yahoogroups. com

            Anzir -

            With apologies, I am not sure if this is the proper forum to compare
            rail and bus transport, but this exchange was started by a writer in
            Brisbane asking why there is so much investment in rail, when buses
            on their own-right-of way can provide better service at a fraction of
            the cost. I, too, am a member of the Dave Wetzel fan club, but I
            doubt if even his influence is big enough to dent New Labour's
            obsession with the rail mode.

            You seem obviously right about the advantages of "Guided buses" as
            compared to rail, but why not use ordinary buses? One answer, given
            to me in connection with the wasteful guided bus system being built
            near Cambridge (at my expense and yours), is that ordinary cars could
            then use the spare capacity. But I see this as an advantage: It
            could, with electronic congestion pricing, provide additional useful
            track capacity while raising revenues to pay for itself.

            With regard to "under-utilized" rail capacity in London, why not ask
            the folks in TfL to give us the data on the passengers per hour (or
            trains per hour) in London at different times, so that readers can
            judge for themselves?

            I do not understand your point about the advantage of steel wheels on
            steel rails. Vehicles using that mode cannot stop quickly, so need
            big distances between them. This severely limits the track capacity.
            Remember that this mode was invented over two centuries ago to enable
            horses to pull coal carts more easily in collieries. Much as happened
            since, such as the development of steam cars in the 1820s (stopped by
            Act of Parliament around 1833) and the development of the internal
            combustion engine about a century ago.

            Nor am I clear about the advantages of "integrated networks and fare
            structures". Are these not code words to enable politicians to force
            road users to support outmoded technologies which travelers refuse to
            pay for?

            Gabriel

            >Gabriel,
            >On 16 Mar 2007, at 16:47, Gabriel Roth wrote:
            >
            >> Eric -
            >>
            >> You observations are acute, but it was BRT I was writing about, not
            >> bus lanes. London's bus lanes do little to speed up bus travel as
            >> the delays are at the intersections. London's bus lanes have
            >> considerable wasted space on them and might even do more harm than
            >> good to urban mobility.
            >
            >It is true that there is little, if any, bus priority in London.
            >However, there are long stretches of road on which bus lanes do make
            >it easier and quicker for buses to operate. I don't think it is easy
            >to generalise about the effectiveness of bus lanes in somewhere as
            >big as London.
            >
            >> What I am after are "busways" which would give buses the same sort
            >> of unimpeded travel as are enjoyed by rail trains. The dedicated
            >> busway bringing buses to the New York bus terminal near 42nd street
            >> is an example. In London, there was a proposal to convert
            >> Marylebone station to a bus station, and have it served by a
            >> dedicated busway, to be built from the M1 Motorway on the right-of
            >> way of an under-utilized rail line. British Rail refused to give up
            >> its track and nothing came of this proposal.
            >
            >...and the rail line is not as "under utilised" as it once was.
            >Marylebone station has recently had to be extended to cope with the
            >increase in rail traffic in recent years.
            >
            >> London has many miles of under-used rail right-of-way, and if room
            >> can be found for a new rail line, could it not be found for a new
            >> busway? I've not seen the alternatives analyzed.
            >
            >Well, if you can find any under utilised rail lines in London that
            >can reasonably be used for rail or busways, then I'm sure Dave Wetzel
            >at Transport for London would be more than happy to know where they are.
            >
            >The new rail lines proposed or being built in London are all
            >underground (this is why the Channel Tunnel Rail Link going into
            >London is all in tunnel as opposed to being above ground or sharing
            >track with other rail services). The only new rail line being built
            >above ground is the conversion of an "under utilised" line to one
            >with more intensive service.
            >
            >I still believe part of the solution for many other cities lies in
            >track guided buses, which are able to use rail rights of way and then
            >go off into other parts of the city. These could take advantage of
            >the favourable physical characteristics of rail (steel wheel on steel
            >rail has 90% less resistance than rubber tyre on tarmac) and the
            >ability of buses to go anywhere without extra infrastructure. It
            >would allow LRT infrastructure to be provided more cost-effectively,
            >only where it is needed. In many cities, there is a big distinction
            >between bus networks and rail/LRT networks, and if we're serious
            >about BRT to be part of the solution in major cities, it must be more
            >integrated with rail and light rail, and be seen as complementary,
            >not competitive. If the distinction between BRT and LRT is removed by
            >having integrated networks and fare structures, putting both to the
            >uses they are most suited to, and allowing them to share stops or
            >have well designed interchanges, then more cities would be willing to
            >adopt BRT. Well, that's my opinion anyhow.
            >
            >--
            >Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
            >transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
            >

            --

            ************ ********* ********
            Roths can also be reached at:
            4815 Falstone Avenue
            Chevy Chase, Maryland
            USA 20815
            Voice: 1 301 656 6094
            Fax : 1 202 318 2431

            ************ ********* ********




          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.