Our mobility toolkit needs bus rapid transit
Credit to Author: ROBERT SIY| Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:15:08 +0000
METRO Manila should have much more mass transit systems. More rail systems are urgently needed, but the mass-transit mix should include bus rapid transit (BRT). Leaving BRT out of the toolkit to fix traffic is like going to battle half-armed.
Earlier, there was a short-sighted view among some officials that BRT systems should not be built on congested roads. This view was based on the mistaken assumption that BRT buses would only add to traffic by taking road space away from cars.
To solve our mobility problems, we need to take a different perspective. Traffic can only be eased by getting more people to walk, take bicycles or use public transport, instead of private cars or motorcycles. Because BRT buses operate on dedicated lanes that are separate from private cars and motorcycles, these can move at more than 25 kilometers an hour and deliver the same efficiency and convenience as trains. When car users in traffic see BRT buses moving fast, many would be tempted to leave their cars at home and use public transport.
BRT is one of the best tools for improving mobility. Bus systems all over the world are converting to BRT for good reason. BRT is not a new technology; it was first implemented in 1974 in Curitiba, Brazil. Today, there are 171 cities using the BRT system.
Jakarta boasts of the world’s longest BRT system, covering over 250 kilometers in length and serving a million passengers a day. The Guangzhou BRT moves 35,000 passengers an hour per direction, exceeding the capacity of many train systems. The Rio de Janeiro BRT moves over 3 million passengers a day, or over over 60,000 passengers an hour per direction, while the Bogota BRT moves over 2 million passengers a day, or about 45,000 passengers an hour per direction.
Without BRT, Metro Manila’s city buses are caught in traffic and have fewer round trips.
Drivers work longer hours to collect the same amount of revenue, while bus riders endure long queues and soul-crushing journeys to move around the city. In this context, BRT can be a “win-win” for both commuters and the bus industry.
BRT offers commuters faster travel times and greater comfort, safety and convenience. BRT buses would have low or zero emissions and be equipped with electronic devices that can provide passengers with accurate and reliable arrival and departure times. Bus stations and buses would be designed for fast boarding and alighting, accessible even for persons with wheelchairs and strollers.
Today, a commuter traveling from Fairview, Quezon City to Makati City on a city bus has an agonizing journey of more than three hours during rush hour. With a BRT system on EDSA, total travel time for the same trip would be cut to just over one hour.
For the bus industry, BRT provides the opportunity to modernize vehicles, increase ridership and attain more efficient, stable and profitable operations. Because the income of BRT bus operators would be linked to kilometers traveled. rather than the number of passengers, their drivers would no longer compete on the street for passengers. Buses would be operated in a coordinated manner; risky and inefficient driving behavior would be eliminated.
Moreover, BRT can be introduced in an inclusive way, enabling existing bus operators and drivers on the route to transition smoothly into the new technology and business model without much disruption to their jobs or livelihood. And BRT can be implemented in less time and at much lower cost than developing a rail system.
Even on corridors with an existing train line, BRT makes sense. Redundancy benefits the commuter. Buses can provide a good travel alternative when trains are congested or offline.
Passengers can transfer conveniently from trains to buses to get closer to their destinations. In Seoul, there are 10 subway lines that overlap fully with BRT routes.
It makes sense to invest in improving our bus systems in parallel with our rail systems.
Even in cities with abundant rail services, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Seoul, buses have more passengers than trains. This is because commuters (even those who use trains) rely on buses and other transport modes to bring them closer to their destinations.
Despite the great potential for BRT development, there is little progress to speak of. Three BRT projects of the Department of Transportation (DoTr) that the National Economic and Development Authority Board over three years ago have not yet broken ground. In the DoTr’s proposed 2020 budget, there is hardly any capital expenditure planned for road-based public transport; nearly all its capital expenditure is earmarked for rail.
While rail systems receive the lion’s share of government funding, the vast majority of Metro Manila commuters use buses, jeepneys and UV Express — and continue to suffer from heavy crowding, pollution and slow travel speeds. Because of these deficiencies, passengers consider public transport as “low quality,” and most aspire to shift to private vehicles as soon as they can afford to. This needs to change.
To solve our mobility crisis, both rail and bus services should be high quality and abundant.
If rail remains the only mode of transport that offers predictable travel times, the many commuters dissatisfied with bus services will start using rail and render the trains even more crowded than they are today. Once it becomes too crowded, even the best rail system wouldn’t be able to convince car users to leave their cars at home.
A balanced mix of both rail and BRT investments, together with the promotion of compact, dense, mixed-use neighborhoods linked to mass transit, is a proven strategy for improving commuter welfare and easing traffic. Let’s hope we are not too late.
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.