Re: BRT courses in Yogyakarta BAQ 2006
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jym Dyer <jym@...> wrote:
> =v= Here in the United States, BRT serves to usurp LRT. Indeed,I agree, those arguments were made here in Cleveland, which is
> its very name is an attempt to convince people that they can
> have the benefits of LRT with a bus system. (This is only true
> if you pretend that the many benefits of rail don't exist.)
currently building a BRT line.
> All BRT "success stories" in the U.S. involve BRT running onCleveland once had an extensive trolley network. Some of the trolley
> former LRT routes.
rails were recently uncovered (and discarded) during reconstruction of
Euclid Avenue as part of the BRT project. Buses are expected to be
running in 2008 or 2009. Whether it will be a success or not remains
to be seen, but are trolleys "light rail"?
Cleveland has a few light rail lines that have been around for up to
seventy-five years, but the network has not been expanded and does not
even cover the core of the city. Meanwhile the "city" has expanded
exponentially over the years, simultaneously increasing and diluting
Despite pleas from advocates of light rail in Cleveland, BRT was
adopted as a less expensive alternative. It will be interesting to
see what the local sentiment is in 2010, after a year or two of operation.
- Some interesting words for the City Philosopher of Almere, the "new town"
I actually was Wiki-ing and Goggle-ing Almere about their underground
waste disposal system
<http://www.envac.net/docs/projects/383_Almere_ENG.webb.pdf> and ran into
Golly, in a few newly developing parts of Prague they could use that
system together with trains for collection and part or all of the
processing for trash and recycling...
Green Idea Factory
CZ-10100 Praha 10
++420 605 915 970
Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network
> ... are trolleys "light rail"?=v= Yes. Though they predate the phrase, they exemplify it.
> Despite pleas from advocates of light rail in Cleveland, BRT=v= Yes, that's always the argument. However, it's only "less
> was adopted as a less expensive alternative.
expensive" in the short term, because buses require more fuel,
more maintenance, and more space on the road. They also damage
roads, but that cost is generally in a different accounting
ledger and is thus often ignored as a cost of BRT. Even so,
in the long herm a city budget finds itself facing all these
higher costs of "less expensive" BRT.
=v= There are of course higher environmental and health costs,
but the ledgers those show up on are so often never connected
to their sources. LRT also has the effect of attracting
economic development along its corridors, something BRT has
yet to demonstrate (though it does enjoy those benefits to
some degree when it usurps an LRT corridor).
=v= Penny-wise and pound foolish.