Origen: Advantages and Disadvantages of BRT | Light Rail | Public Transport
Advantages and Disadvantages of BRT
Traditionally, the main advantage of BRT, as opposed to rail, has been the lower initial cost of implementation. Buses are cheaper to buy than railcars, and can be stored at the existing garage instead of a new facility that rail lines require. In addition, BRT does not require the laying or rail or acquisition and construction of private rights of way. Furthermore, certain elements of BRT “like fancy bus stops” can be implemented at a later date rather than be required at the start. in additional advantage not always employed is the ability for other bus routes to use the BRT infrastructure for at least part of the journey, thus greatly increasing the flexibility and reach of the BRT network. Two frequently cited disadvantages of BRT are that it cannot attract discretionary riders and its construction will not lead to redevelopment of its service area. It is argued that discretionary riders, who own cars but may choose to take transit if it suits them, will not ride buses because of the negative connotation of the bus with the poor. Another argument is that since BRT is not permanent, unlike rail “it is easy to change the street the bus travels down but not easy to pick up and relocate rail tracks”, it is unli!ely to cause developers to develop around it –after all, why spend the money on building near something that enhances the value of the development when the enhancement possibly can move away?
Implementation of BRT
Many advocates of BRT cite the case of (Curitiba, Brazil), who built one of the first BRT systems in the late 1970’s. amongst other things, Curitiba’s BRT system features off street fare purchase and segregated lanes. Since it’s construction the system has been extended numerous times. arguably the best example of BRT in North America is the system of transitways in Ottawa, 10. Frequent service is provided along segregated rights of way and freeways both by routes that only traverse the transitway and express routes operating from outlying suburbs to downtown. Wildly successful since its introduction in the early 1980’s, the system is constrained from a short street running section in downtown Ottawa. The extremely large number of buses that operate on the transitway causes congestion along this short stretch, especially during peak periods. Due to this congestion, the city is considering converting the transitway to a light rail line. In addition to Ottawa, Los Angeles has wholeheartedly embraced the concept of BRT. Los Angeles exhibits two kinds of BRT –traditional and BRT “light”. Los Angeles’s traditional BRT line is the Orange Line. Opened in the mid 1980’s, the Orange Line operates through the San Fernando Valley from North Hollywood to Warner Center. The corridor, which was initially slated to be a rail line before intense opposition to the concept by residents along the proposed line forced its conversion to bus, features a combination of private right of way, segregated lanes on an arterial, and a short section of street running. Although the Orange Line has been a large success, further expansion is hampered by its lack of right of way segregation. For example, the signal priority it has at grade crossings will not work if the line operates more frequently than every four minutes. Los Angeles’s extensive network of “rapid” bus routes represents a BRT “light” network. The rapid routes operate in mixed traffic with stops every 1/2 to 1 mile and have for the most part standard bus stops. As the vast majority of rapid routes (and all the most successful ones) are former limited stop routes operating along the same route, one could fairly say that the differences between the rapid routes and the old routes is mere
Esta entrada fue publicada en Buses
y etiquetada BRT
. Guarda el enlace permanente