Congested roads need quality public transport
ROBERT SIY
It’s been suggested that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) should be confined to roads without congestion. This view isn’t only wrong from a technical standpoint, it’s also socially unjust and in conflict with the National Transport Policy. If our policy makers adopt this position, they would be prioritizing the welfare of car users over the welfare of those who rely on public transport. It would be a big setback in the battle to improve people’s mobility.
BRT is new to the Philippines but it’s an established form of mass transit in many cities throughout the world.
BRT moves over 32 million riders daily in 166 cities. The highest capacity BRT system, TransMilenio in Bogota, Colombia, moves 2.4 million passengers daily, more than LRT1, LRT2 and MRT3 combined.
Buses travel on a dedicated lane, often at the median, without any friction with private cars. Fast boarding and alighting of passengers is achieved by having station platforms at the same level as bus floors—no steps to climb when entering the bus. BRT systems are flexible and responsive to changes in demand. If there is overcapacity on a BRT line, buses can be shifted to routes where more capacity is needed. If demand grows, more buses can be put into service.
Is BRT effective on congested roads? Definitely. In Seoul, Guangzhou, Curitiba, Mexico City, Bogota, Lima, New York, and Boston (to name some examples), BRT systems were established on busy corridors precisely to alleviate congestion. BRT has enabled these cities to reduce travel times, lower pollution and transform millions of lives for the better.
Seoul’s busy Gangnam Avenue was paralyzed by traffic for years. It would take two hours to travel its length of five kilometers. After Gangnam BRT was built, buses now move at over 20 kph. In Mexico City, BRT buses travel on routes that pass through the dense and crowded city core. One BRT line goes through its historic district, an area with narrow streets similar to Intramuros.
In Guangzhou, the pre-BRT corridor looked just like EDSA, with cars and buses fighting for road space. Today, Guangzhou BRT moves about one million passengers a day at an average speed of 25 kilometers per hour. Car users in Guangzhou also benefit from BRT. The lanes for cars carry a larger volume of vehicles at faster speeds.
This is the advantage that BRT brings to a congested road—some car users will shift to using BRT, and the remaining cars travel faster because they are freed from friction with buses.
Should cars have priority use of road space? The National Transport Policy, approved on June 27, 2017, provides clear guidance: “The focus is on moving more people than vehicles. Public mass transportation in urban areas shall be given priority over private transport. High capacity public transport systems shall be the preferred mode in high passenger density corridors.”
If public transport remains low quality, commuters will turn to cars for their daily travel. High quality public transport, walking and cycling need to become the preferred means of mobility for all, even if one owns a car or motorcycle. Buses and trains need to be safe, comfortable, convenient and fast, plus accessible for persons with disabilities. More importantly, public transport should enable commuters to get to work faster than if they used their own motor vehicle.
Expansion of the rail system should be pursued, but urban rail can’t be the only tool in the kit. In our fast-growing metropolitan areas, a mix of high quality rail and high quality BRT will be required in order to meet people’s mobility needs. In some congested roads, rail will be the right option. In other congested roads, BRT will be the best choice. In some high volume corridors, both rail and BRT will be needed.
In Seoul, there are 10 subway lines that overlap with BRT lines, including on Gangnam Avenue. This arrangement enables rail passengers to transfer seamlessly to buses that bring them closer to their destinations and vice-versa. It also provides useful redundancy in case one of the services is not operating.
If BRT is not permitted on congested roads, the government would be accepting the least efficient use of road space—slow moving private vehicles. It would also be preserving the low productivity of buses stuck in traffic.
Buses liberated from traffic are what our congested cities need. A Metro Manila bus under current conditions records only three or four round trips daily. With BRT, a bus would be able to make eigth to 10 round trips per day, moving many more passengers.
In the case of the Cebu BRT Project, which is on one of the busiest corridors of Cebu City, the economic internal rate of return was recently recalculated by NEDA at 53.3%. The project’s high economic return is precisely achieved because its on a congested corridor where there’s potential for significant travel time savings.
If the concern with BRT is about its impact on car users, we need to remind ourselves that roads are paid for with public funds, and, as public assets, need to be used in the most productive and socially responsible way—certainly not to protect the interest of car owners who constitute the wealthiest 10% of the population. With the popularity of the President, there’s no better time to make difficult but sound decisions.
If we’re to ask the real stakeholders, public transport users, whether BRT should be confined to roads with light traffic or applied to roads that are congested with cars, there’s no doubt in my mind which option they would choose. To deliver a better life for all within this administration as President Duterte has promised, the mobility of urban Filipinos has to improve significantly. BRT is part of the solution.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy
The post Congested roads need quality public transport appeared first on The Manila Times Online.