If you’re looking for a great example of how a vastly improved public transport system has transformed a city – Bogota, the capital of Colombia in South America – is a great example. And here’s a neat video from Streetfilms on the Transmilenio BRT system that Bogota has constructed over the past decade:
While I get annoyed at people who think that Bogota is proof that BRT is always better than rail (Bogota is a pretty different place to Auckland) there are some aspects of Bogota’s system that clearly have filtered through to projects like the Northern Busway, and could be further implemented in future bus priority projects. It’s interesting to see where things are going for TransMilenio too.
Processing...
Buses with a capacity of 270!!!
The prepaid zone controlled with automatic doors really makes this a rapid transit system. The Northern Busway in my opinion stops short of being a rapid transit system because they do not have a prepaid zone. I would classify the busway as an enhanced QTN. When hop is introduced to the wider bus fleet they need to introduce these zones to the busway and at Britomart.
James, the other problem it has is that it has no privilege on the bridge or much afterwards city-side. Back to mucking in with the general traffic.
Is the mayor that started all this PT progress in Bogota still in power?
Enrique Peñalosa was the Mayor of Bogotá from 1998 until 2001 and he started the construction of the TransMilenio. He has run for re-election without success. To find out why you can listen to him speaking at the LSE about his time in office in this podcast. He is a very entertaining speaker with some radical views on public transport that are not likely to endear him to the power elites. Highly recommended.
the operational models for the Northern Busway were the Ottawa and Brisbane systems, partly because the Curitiba system (which Transmillenio adopted and further developed) was less well known when the busway was being planned in the 70’s and 80’s
another issue is that the Bogota and Curitiba systems use high floor buses with elevated platforms for level boarding, so the buses can’t really be used away from the busways without some very expensive work raising footpaths at bus stops on suburban streets
what is undeniable is that the Transmillenio corridors carry more people per hour that a heavy rail system, with much more closely spaced stops, which is due to the ability of some limited stop buses to leapfrog all-stops buses
frankly, it would be absurd to pull up existing rail tracks to replace them with busway, but I think that a serious, open minded study should be made comparing the potential in terms of carrying capacity and costs of an enhanced busway system for the North Shore (including dedicated lanes across the harbour) to a heavy rail system before any firm commitments are made
Steve, sure, but still got the problem of bus numbers in the city… horrible, this answer looks like the best to me: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/tag/north-shore-line/
Keeping the really good part of the busway, ie Akoranga north, adapt Akoraranga as a purpose built interchange station. Cheapest harbour crossing, and brilliant integration with the rest of the RTN network, fantastic improvement to quality of life on the CBD streets [fewer buses], and Takapuna and the rest of the shore is hooked in to the rest of the city East, South, West, and of course centre. After the CRL of course, links the Shore to those parts that are close to it especially well like the growing Wynyard quarter.
I was in Bogota recently and rode on the Transmilenio a few times. It’s a good system and carries a huge number of people (and gets seriously crowded too) – but it’s not truly “rapid transit” like a rail-based system. Even though the buses have their own lanes, they have to stop at traffic lights like everyone else, which can make the going pretty slow on some stretches.
The main message I take from this is not about bus vs rail, but simply that an efficient mass transit system, of any technology, requires serious investment in congestion free corridors. If anyone wants to spend the huge sums needed to an create a conmprehensive BRT network in ANZ cities, good luck to them. But it is not honest to say ‘Transmilenio proves BRT is best’ knowing full well that what is called BRT in your city will end up being nothing like Transmilenio. There is a huge difference between Transmilenio and putting brown paint on city streets.
You’re absolutely right there John. It is all about the level of priority and station design much more than the vehicular technology used. It’s also worth considering labour costs in developing vs developed world countries. I imagine the Bogota system needs a huge number of drivers.
I agree completely with this comment – what gets built for BRT is rarely what the early picture looks like. It is alot harder to mess up a rail system than it is to mess up implementation of a BRT system.
“While I get annoyed at people who think that Bogota is proof that BRT is always better than rail” I thought you were one of them – that Stu character definitely is
It isn’t a problem for Bogota to have high-floor buses becuase there, they are essentially using a bus vehicle as a replacement to a rail vehicle – the articulated buses *never* leave the dedicated buseway. Passengers who travel beyond the dedicated ROWs transfer to conventional buses that behave like buses.
This separation is probably the most responsible element in ensuring that people can differentiate a BRT-service, from a conventional bus. In North America where BRT alternates between busways and fixed traffic, stations and stops, you can’t tell where BRT ends and conventional bus service begins. The BRT then fails to become a system of it’s own in the eye of the public. This also creates a concerning inconsistency of service for riders that deoends on where riders access the route they yse and what sections of the line they use.
In contrast, in a system like Bogota or Cali, or Guayaquil, the BRT has identical station modules with full weather protection, universal design for wheelchairs and strollers, pre-boarding fare control, multi-door level boarding across the entire system. The station investment is significant, creates a strong sense of permanence and provides a high quality experience that is high distinct from “the bus”.
Patrick R, the issue of kerbside space as a constraint in a city is well known, but can I make a couple of points:
1) the current bus service to the CBD has not adapted to the advent of improved rail, when (and it has to happen) the CBD tunnel lifts the cap off the capacity of rail services, then fewer buses need to come into the CBD from places like Howick or Green Bay (although you’d have to be a real bus enthusiast to ride that far, the majority of people entering the CBD on those buses must be from intermediate points), which releases kerb space in the CBD for buses from the Shore, which doesn’t have a p.t. alternative except for ferries
2) ramping up capacity of the busway can take place much faster than implementation of rail could, months and years rather than decades, the key is to build a p.t. culture that is not obsessed on mode, as buses can run down your suburban street, they are more accessible to the majority of people and will remain a vital part of Auckland’s p.t. network even when there is considerable residential development around stations
3) higher capacity buses would make more effective use of kerb space, double deckers could carry nearly twice the number of people per metre of bus & kerb length, the only real drawback being slower exits from the upper floor, they also carry more people per driver, as employing drivers is another constraint on bus sytsems
perhaps the biggest value of enhancing the busway system is its ability to defer the massive investment rail would need and to take the pressure off more urgent capital works like the CBD tunnel and (if it stacks up) rail to the airport
That corridor is vast! Two times 5 lanes! Plus the BRT. That’s our fundamental problem. There’s not enough bandwidth.