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

Re: 回复: WorldTransport Forum Comment on WTPP Vol 12, No. 3

Expand Messages
  • Sujit Patwardhan
    7 July 2006 Ken makes an important point, but I think it s somewhat more complex than that. Although it is true that rail is perhaps cleaner environmentally at
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 7, 2006
      7 July 2006


      Ken makes an important point, but I think it's somewhat more complex than that.

      Although it is true that rail is perhaps cleaner environmentally at the end-user stage, we are all aware of the environmental issue relating to generating electricity (hydro-electric??, coal-fired?? nuclear??). I think we are also conscious of the Rail versus BRT debate at least for the urban traffic scenario which is mainly centred around the great attraction for  Metro systems which are at least ten times more expensive than a top class BRT and it also links the argument to the issues of city size, urban sprawl as well as for its possible negative impact on pubic funds that are meagre to start with.

      However the criteria would perhaps alter if one is talking about regional or national transport where a greater focus on rail instead of road transport would I suppose have greater justification.

      With regards,

      --
      Sujit
      Sujit Patwardhan
      Parisar/PTTF
      Pune,
      India







      On 7/7/06, kunpeng chen < prcbus@...> wrote:
      Dear All,
      Please visit www.combusto.net
      for cleaner air.
      Regards,
      Ron Tan
      0065-9145-9147
      www.combusto.net

      Ken@..., UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 写道:
      We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves a smaller footprint on the environment also.
       
      Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
      Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
      Napier. NZ.
       
       


      抢注雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量,20M附件!




      --
      ------------------------------------------------------
      Sujit Patwardhan
      sujit@...
      sujitjp@...

      "Yamuna",
      ICS Colony,
      Ganeshkhind Road,
      Pune 411 007
      India
      Tel: 25537955
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Hon. Secretary:
      Parisar
      www.parisar.org
      ------------------------------------------------------
      Founder Member:
      PTTF
      (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum)
      www.pttf.net
      ------------------------------------------------------
    • Anzir Boodoo
      Sujit, ... I still think it depends on other factors. I agree that city authorities love the idea of Metro systems, but these can sometimes be of limited use.
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 10, 2006
        Sujit,
        On 7 Jul 2006, at 20:50, Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
        > Ken makes an important point, but I think it's somewhat more
        > complex than that.
        >
        > Although it is true that rail is perhaps cleaner environmentally at
        > the end-user stage, we are all aware of the environmental issue
        > relating to generating electricity (hydro-electric??, coal-fired??
        > nuclear??). I think we are also conscious of the Rail versus BRT
        > debate at least for the urban traffic scenario which is mainly
        > centred around the great attraction for Metro systems which are at
        > least ten times more expensive than a top class BRT and it also
        > links the argument to the issues of city size, urban sprawl as well
        > as for its possible negative impact on pubic funds that are meagre
        > to start with.
        >
        > However the criteria would perhaps alter if one is talking about
        > regional or national transport where a greater focus on rail
        > instead of road transport would I suppose have greater justification.
        I still think it depends on other factors.

        I agree that city authorities love the idea of Metro systems, but
        these can sometimes be of limited use.

        For suburb to city transport, urban heavy rail (commuter rail) is a
        good choice:

        1. The infrastructure is already there in many cases, and just needs
        upgrading (sometimes) and new stations
        2. It does not use the street, and therefore frees road capacity
        3. It is faster than BRT
        4. Many cities already have networks, even if they are badly
        developed in many cases.

        Many cities in Northern England depend on their rail networks, and in
        some cases outdated or disused infrastructure has spurred the
        creation of Metro type systems at much lower cost than if they were
        built from new (as in Manchester and Newcastle). These can then be
        supplemented with top class BRT or low cost LRT. I have previously
        been working with people who aim to connect the two technologies,
        making them more compatible with each other, but this work is now
        impossible without funding and technical backup - and guess what, the
        large transport engineering firms want to sell BRT and LRT rather
        than talk to us...

        --
        Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
        transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
      • Jay Corrales
        Hi Ken, What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU? While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the way of
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 23, 2006
          Hi Ken,

          What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?  While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the way of flexibility.  Also, when running on the alternative fuels or even electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.

          Although I am not versed in the impact of roads.  If anyone has any insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail construction (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much appreciative.

          Sincerely,
          Jay Corrales
          Move San Diego Board of Directors
          San Diego, CA, USA


          Ken.Crispin wrote:

          We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves a smaller footprint on the environment also.

           

          Ken Crispin. Project Manager.

          Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.

          Napier. NZ.

          clean.air@...

           

           


        • Lee Schipper
          I had a great ride on the Brisbane line in 2003 * I dont think there is a simple way of measuring footprints * in Australia, China, India, the majority of
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 23, 2006
            I had a great ride on the Brisbane line in 2003 * I dont think there is a simple way of measuring footprints * in Australia,
            China, India, the majority of electric power comes from coal. Is that clean?

            Lee Schipper
            Director of Research
            EMBARQ, the WRI Center
            for Sustainable Transport
            Washington DC
            +1202 729 7735
            www.embarq.wri.org

            >>> jay@... 7/23/2006 1:27 PM >>>
            Hi Ken,

            What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?
            While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the
            way of flexibility. Also, when running on the alternative fuels or even
            electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.

            Although I am not versed in the impact of roads. If anyone has any
            insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail construction
            (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much appreciative.

            Sincerely,
            Jay Corrales
            Move San Diego Board of Directors
            San Diego, CA, USA


            Ken.Crispin wrote:
            >
            > We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the
            > much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves
            > a smaller footprint on the environment also.
            >
            >
            >
            > Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
            >
            > Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
            >
            > Napier. NZ.
            >
            > clean.air@... <mailto:clean.air@...>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Roland Sapsford
            Recently Auckland, New Zealand has just completed a busway complete with stations on the North Shore of Auckland Harbour. This is a distinct dedicated route
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 23, 2006
              Recently Auckland, New Zealand has just completed a busway complete with
              stations on the North Shore of Auckland Harbour. This is a distinct
              dedicated route with one lane each way and is not a guided busway.

              Auckland is a sprawly city of 1m people somewhat similar to Perth in
              density. The busway is performing well in terms of patronage, and park
              and ride stations are full especially at the northern end. The bulk of
              patronage growth has been through car and bus journeys to the stations
              along the way. The route runs parallel to an existing 6 lane motorway
              and has been built by Transit New Zealand - the national highway
              building authority - which is very experienced at contract management.

              I mention all of this in preamble to the fact that the most
              disappointing aspect of this is that the per km cost has been around
              three times that associated with equivalent light rail and the land use
              footprint of the corridor is considerably larger.

              The Brisbane situations is complex and has involved the expansion of
              both rail and bus services. The busway in part functions to get buses
              past highway congestion and performs this role quite well. I understand
              operating costs have been higher than projected, but I am unsure as to
              the extent of this.

              As someone with considerable experience in transport debates (and
              someone who helped ensure the above project proceeded) I am concerned to
              see busway proponents in this country and elsewhere adopting the kind of
              misleading and hyperbolic claims I normally associate with the highway
              lobby. Curitiba for example is often cited as a bus-based system; they
              have the same issue of capacity on routes versus flexibility and to
              achieve high capacity their trunk buses operate very much like trains.
              A large study team from New Zealand went to Curitiba a couple of years
              ago and produced quite a detailed report on a wide range of urban
              sustainability issues.

              The best place for information on impacts of road versus rail
              construction is Europe, where there has been significant construction of
              both major roads and major rail projects in the last two decades. In
              general impact of construction relates to the land footprint, rather
              than mode. This is particularly important in cities, because a major
              economic rationale for cities is to maximise the opportunities for
              interaction while minimising distance travelled. Highways have very
              limited peak volumes in relation to the land they occupy, when compared
              with rail especially, and so have much higher adverse economic impacts
              in urban settings where peak corridor volumes are high.

              As to tunnelling - its really hard to generalise. For highways it is
              generally a matter of relative cost. The impacts are considerably less
              than cut and fill for example! Tunnelling costs tend to be higher than
              daylighting (though this depends on the cost of fill disposal) but the
              local impacts are far far less. Whether tunnelling is viable depends on
              huge range of factors that are highly localised (eg geological
              conditions).

              Best wishes
              Roland Sapsford
              Wellington, New Zealand





              Jay Corrales wrote:
              > Hi Ken,
              >
              > What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?
              > While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the
              > way of flexibility. Also, when running on the alternative fuels or
              > even electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.
              >
              > Although I am not versed in the impact of roads. If anyone has any
              > insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail
              > construction (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much
              > appreciative.
              >
              > Sincerely,
              > Jay Corrales
              > Move San Diego Board of Directors
              > San Diego, CA, USA
              >
              >
              > Ken.Crispin wrote:
              >>
              >> We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is
              >> the much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that
              >> leaves a smaller footprint on the environment also.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
              >>
              >> Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
              >>
              >> Napier. NZ.
              >>
              >> clean.air@... <mailto:clean.air@...>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
            • Jay Corrales
              Hi Lee, Yes, I agree that currently there is a lot of dirty electricity production which would have to be considered as you look for a true alternative, but
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 23, 2006
                Hi Lee,

                Yes, I agree that currently there is a lot of dirty electricity production which would have to be considered as you look for a true alternative, but what I see in the near future is that electricity could be mostly derived from clean energy sources such as solar and wind power.  I think an opportunity could exist for a bus depot with a solar panel array to charge vehicles and supply extra energy to the electricity grid.

                Sorry to be so off tangent now... but I also have read that electric-powered vehicles are much cheaper to maintain than internal combustion vehicles (I haven't done much research on this yet, but I believe they mention it in "Who Killed The Electric Car").   I also see the possible opportunity for the using integrated solar panels on the roof as well.

                Jay Corrales
                Board of Directors
                Move San Diego
                San Diego, CA, USA


                Lee Schipper wrote:
                I had a great ride on the Brisbane line in 2003 * I dont think there is a simple way of measuring footprints * in Australia,
                China, India, the majority of electric power comes from coal. Is that clean?  
                
                Lee Schipper
                Director of Research
                EMBARQ, the WRI Center
                for Sustainable Transport
                Washington DC
                +1202 729 7735
                www.embarq.wri.org
                
                  
                jay@... 7/23/2006 1:27 PM >>>
                        
                Hi Ken,
                
                What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?  
                While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the 
                way of flexibility.  Also, when running on the alternative fuels or even 
                electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.
                
                Although I am not versed in the impact of roads.  If anyone has any 
                insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail construction 
                (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much appreciative.
                
                Sincerely,
                Jay Corrales
                Move San Diego Board of Directors
                San Diego, CA, USA
                
                
                Ken.Crispin wrote:
                  
                We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the 
                much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves 
                a smaller footprint on the environment also.
                
                 
                
                Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
                
                Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
                
                Napier. NZ.
                
                clean.air@... <mailto:clean.air@...>
                
                 
                
                 
                
                 
                    
                
                
                .
                
                  

              • John Whitelegg
                Hi, A small contribution. We have to move (I suggest) from an energy/emissions perspective on this to a wider total impact perspective. It is remarkable
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006
                  Hi,

                  A small contribution. We have to move (I suggest) from an energy/emissions
                  perspective on this to a wider "total impact" perspective. It is remarkable
                  that after 30 years or more of general debate about transport and
                  environmental impacts we still miss/downplay things like:

                  land take (and the impact of loss of land for transport infrastructure on
                  food production and biodiversity)

                  fragmentation (a tiny land take is a 100% change in character if it
                  physically divides and separates a formerly unified area)

                  landscape (see Ian McHarg)

                  noise (see excellent analyses from World Health Organisation)

                  fiscal matters (who says that spending billions on roads or high speed
                  trains is a good way to allocate resources against competing demands in
                  health care, education, poverty, pensions etc)

                  social justice (what proportion of our transport spending benefits the top
                  10% income band? We have some evidence in the UK that 30% of spending
                  benefits the top 10%)

                  children..are our transport systems and cities child friendly. Definitely
                  not

                  transport and health. is there a connection between the Uk with the highest
                  rate of child obesity in Europe and the highest rate of kids being taken to
                  school by car in Europe?



                  there is lots more!

                  energy and emissions are important but we have to be careful to factor in
                  other things


                  very best wishes

                  John Whitelegg



                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Lee Schipper" <SCHIPPER@...>
                  To: <jay@...>; <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 7:01 PM
                  Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum Comment on WTPP Vol 12, No. 3


                  > I had a great ride on the Brisbane line in 2003 * I dont think there is a
                  simple way of measuring footprints * in Australia,
                  > China, India, the majority of electric power comes from coal. Is that
                  clean?
                  >
                  > Lee Schipper
                  > Director of Research
                  > EMBARQ, the WRI Center
                  > for Sustainable Transport
                  > Washington DC
                  > +1202 729 7735
                  > www.embarq.wri.org
                  >
                  > >>> jay@... 7/23/2006 1:27 PM >>>
                  > Hi Ken,
                  >
                  > What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?
                  > While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the
                  > way of flexibility. Also, when running on the alternative fuels or even
                  > electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.
                  >
                  > Although I am not versed in the impact of roads. If anyone has any
                  > insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail construction
                  > (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much appreciative.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Jay Corrales
                  > Move San Diego Board of Directors
                  > San Diego, CA, USA
                  >
                  >
                  > Ken.Crispin wrote:
                  > >
                  > > We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the
                  > > much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves
                  > > a smaller footprint on the environment also.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
                  > >
                  > > Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
                  > >
                  > > Napier. NZ.
                  > >
                  > > clean.air@... <mailto:clean.air@...>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda
                  > Consult at: http://NewMobiity.org
                  > To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
                  > To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Anzir Boodoo
                  Jay, ... While it would help, the electricity requirements for electric traction of vehicles are massive. I was surprised to read that the huge solar array on
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006
                    Jay,
                    On 23 Jul 2006, at 23:35, Jay Corrales wrote:
                    > Hi Lee,
                    >
                    > Yes, I agree that currently there is a lot of dirty electricity
                    > production which would have to be considered as you look for a true
                    > alternative, but what I see in the near future is that electricity
                    > could be mostly derived from clean energy sources such as solar and
                    > wind power. I think an opportunity could exist for a bus depot
                    > with a solar panel array to charge vehicles and supply extra energy
                    > to the electricity grid.
                    >
                    > Sorry to be so off tangent now... but I also have read that
                    > electric-powered vehicles are much cheaper to maintain than
                    > internal combustion vehicles (I haven't done much research on this
                    > yet, but I believe they mention it in "Who Killed The Electric
                    > Car"). I also see the possible opportunity for the using
                    > integrated solar panels on the roof as well.
                    While it would help, the electricity requirements for electric
                    traction of vehicles are massive.

                    I was surprised to read that the huge solar array on the roof of the
                    new Berlin Hauptbahnhof station will generate at most 5% (five
                    percent) of the station's electricity needs - though with hundreds of
                    electric trains calling every day, perhaps it's not surprising at all...

                    I have been involved in an informal railway think piece for years,
                    and we've not managed to work out how to generate a railway's
                    electricity requirement "internally" without large amounts of extra
                    land for wind turbines and biomass burning. I believe even to supply
                    diesel trains with biodiesel will require a huge investment in
                    processing facilities as those that exist already are stretched to
                    capacity.

                    --
                    Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                    transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                  • Tramsol@aol.com
                    John & all I recall a conversation recently with someone who did a cost-benefit analysis on alternative uses of the land used for transport infrastructure -
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006
                      John & all

                      I recall a conversation recently with someone who did a cost-benefit analysis on alternative uses of the land used for transport infrastructure - neatly summed up by a member of Manchester Airport's Ground Transport Planning team who said their policy on reducing the amount of car parking available for a growing number of passengers & staff using the site "We get a better return on the land when it is used for retail and hotels instead of car parking" - can we put figures to this?

                      Maybe we can as the last days of the GLC saw some studies carried out on major corridors like the A41 Finchley Road where residential roads had been buldozed to create a 6-8 lane dual carriageway out to the M1.  I cannot recall exactly which review showed a positive and which one showed a neutral figure for which corridor, but in essence it would actually be a profitable exercise to rip up the second carriageway and rebuild the houses, which would be 'worth' more than the road...  Some of the more venerable contributors might recall this in greater detail?

                      In this part of Glasgow a complete residential building (town house/tenement) of 4-5 floors prior to refurbishment seems to be getting in excess of £1m, and eyeing up the great swathe of land taken out by the City Centre motorway I just wonder how the sums might work out today, when compared to the 1960's when property in the area was cheap.

                      Dave Holladay
                      Glasgow

                    • Tramsol@aol.com
                      In a message dated 7/24/2006 2:29:29 PM British Summer Time, ... Maybe a return to the external combustion engine where heat is generated and used at the
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006
                        In a message dated 7/24/2006 2:29:29 PM British Summer Time, ab@... writes:

                        I believe even to supply 
                        diesel trains with biodiesel will require a huge investment in 
                        processing facilities as those that exist already are stretched to 
                        capacity.


                        Maybe a return to the external combustion engine where heat is generated and used at the driving mechanism - having recently listened to a piece on BBC Radio 4 about the modern steam engine (purer water, higher pressure, no boiler scale, and full secondary combustion with injected steam in the firebox to better manage the burning process).  Do I see the ghost of Bulleid and the Leader Class.....

                        Dave Holladay
                        Glasgow

                      • Michael Yeates
                        Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:19:15 +1000 To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com From: Michael Yeates Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum Comment on
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 28, 2006

                          Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:19:15 +1000

                          As a resident of Brisbane, I hope nobody takes offence at the following and hope it will result in ongoing detailed critical review rather than international conferences and other promotional material that promotes our Busways without reference to impacts and context.

                          I totally agree with the points John raises below which were to all intents completely ignored in the initial decisions by government in regard to transport planning and provision in SEQ (including the Busways) and thus continue to be ignored ..

                          So Brisbane has Busways, but it is also about to spend over $2 billion on a tunnel for more convenient travel by car ... and there are several more tunnels planned .. also for cars ...!  This of course was predictable ... see http://www.yeatesit.biz/transfiles/busways.pdf

                          Did anybody consider how this would impact on children walking or cycling to school, to illustrate just one of John's points below?

                          Put simply, it is far too easy to focus on the easier or more politically acceptable parts of integrated planning rather than "integrate" the complexity of issues ... and in many ways, the energy<>pollution issues are relatively easy for as is well known, if not often accepted by politicians and other interested decision makers, traffic prediction is not exactly accurate or even reasonably reliable.

                          Put another way, as Bent Flyvbjerg et al and others have shown, these big projects rarely if ever have legitimate well researched and well supported justification that is then monitored and evaluated critically and independently over time so not surprisingly the benefits are exaggerated and the costs underestimated or ignored ... exactly what is happening in Brisbane with its billion dollar Busways and billion dollar tunnels ... paradoxically, all designed (not necessarily intentionally or explicitly) for more cars on the roads ....
                           
                          For example soon after the first Busway was opened, an informal platform survey found that most of the passengers either (i) worked at or near the outer end major regional retail centre (ie Garden City at Upper Mt Gravatt) and were primarily using the busway for additional non-essential trips that they would never have done before the Busway or (ii) drove to the Busway often a longer distance than previously (another form of induced travel) and quite a few of these had transferred from using rail (30 minute frequency) to using the much higher frequency buses on the Busway but relying on the very large and very expensive Park'n'Ride parking because there was so little improvement in service levels of local buses as a result of the Busway. Why? Because virtually all the buses went into the CBD on the Busway.
                           
                          Aside from recent transport conferences held in Brisbane with a focus on the Busways, there has been an enormous effort put into publicising the Busways in Brisbane and beyond.

                          But at the same time, there has been almost no critical review so it is not surprising that people see the aspects that have been promoted.

                          There is however some information about the busways provided via investigations by the Queensland Parliament Public Works Committee (see http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/committees.asp?area=PWC&LIndex=7&SubArea=PWC )

                          see PWC Report 39 and a further report (which reduced criticism) at PWC Report 42 at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/committees.asp?area=PWC&LIndex=7&SubArea=reports&Bindex=3

                          Transcripts of public hearings can be found at
                          http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/PWC/transcripts/w970212a.pdf
                          http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/PWC/transcripts/w970911.pdf
                          http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/documents/PWC/transcripts/w970324.pdf

                          Also, while there has been rhetorical support for "integrated" public transport, in fact nearly 10 years later, very few buses go close to the some 70 train stations in Brisbane because the bus system still remains extremely radial ... a point further exaggerated by the Busways ... thus the buses and Busways operate in opposition to, rather than in "integrated" support of, the already high capacity rail system.

                          So not surprisingly, there is a major congestion problem with buses in the CBD approaches and an increasingly greater layby and float problem .. the solution to which is building more Busways (extensions underway in the CBD right now).

                          But like cars, more buses simply congest the roads once their useful role and performance is exceeded ... so SEQ is rapidly becoming a case study well worth considering as to whether BRT and an emphasis on buses is simply the result of conceptual thinking that sees buses as more efficient cars ... and Busways as freeways for buses ...!

                          But in addition, Brisbane now has a series of related problems ... not enough buses ... but then it is argued, there is nowhere for more buses as the CBD and approaches are already congested ...!

                          Busways are no different to freeways and motorways ... they provide a dream of unlimited capacity, flexibility and utility when opened but end up congested and in need of increased capacity ... .

                          Until the points that John makes below are also included, rail will be seen as too expensive and inflexible by those who regard buses as large cars ...

                          You might also find it useful to see what has been said eg 
                          Paul Mees at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisinst_publictrans.html
                          Peter Newman at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/newman_peter_busway.html
                          and some of my own articles at
                          http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/yeates_michael_busway.html
                          http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/yeates_michael_unsmartcity.html
                          http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/yeates_michael_ride.html

                          These are sourced from a collection of articles at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisbane_institute_transportseries.html

                          The local newspaper is "The Courier-Mail" which has current news at http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/queensland and recent news at http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/archives

                          So if anyone wants a research topic of local<>global interest and importance, come to Brisbane and have a long critical look ... but please, if you really want to get behind the rhetoric and marketing/promotional hype, be prepared to try to travel without relying on using a car.

                          Michael Yeates
                          Brisbane
                          Australia

                           

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