Skip to main content

Median BRT does not force users to cross more traffic lanes!

This is a follow-up to my earlier post about Delhi's BRT project.

Now I do realise that this project may not be a perfect example of the well-proven BRT genre. But some of the arguments being thrown up against it are pure nonsense.

One foolish claim is that median-BRT will force bus users to cross more streets, or more lanes of traffic. This is suggested for example, by an anti-BRT article in India's Pioneer newspaper on November 7, 2007:
The most disconcerting aspect of the lunatic HCBS idea is the placement of bus stops in the centre of the road in those sections where the bus lanes run down the middle. ...

When the scheme becomes operational, passengers will be required to cross the road on either side to access the bus stop. In the best of times, this stretch is marked by unruly motorists/scooterists and even more unruly pedestrians. Once they are legitimately given the right to scamper across the road, the ensuing chaos can be easily visualised.

Gosh. I don't know where to start on the false assumptions there... So I will stick to my main point.

A few years back I heard Walter Hook from ITDP demolish this argument very simply and easily in a presentation to a conference in Agra. The same clarification is made in a report (by RITES) on a 2005 Stakeholders’ Consultation on Delhi's BRT (pdf). It is not hard to understand.
THE TOTAL NO. OF LANES OF MOTORISED TRAFFIC THAT A BUS COMMUTER WOULD HAVE TO CROSS IN A RETURN JOURNEY REMAINS THE SAME.
It is obvious if you think about it.

Without BRT in the median you will cross the whole road once in a journey (your destination must be on one side or the other, right). If your destination is on the same side of the road as your bus stop then you will not need to cross immediately after getting off the bus. But you will still need to cross later to get to the bus stop in order to make your return journey. With median BRT you cross HALF the street at both arrival and departure. But the total lanes crossed is exactly the same as before.

Median bus lanes have worked very successfully in many of Taipei's busiest streets since the mid-1990s.

Actually, in general it should be SAFER for pedestrians after most median BRT projects are put in place. This is because median refuges (the bus stops) will likely become more common than they were before. So pedestrians will not have to cross the whole street in one dangerous attempt. This enhanced refuge effect should help all pedestrians, not just the bus passengers.

Comments

  1. Unfortunately the success of BRT has very little to do with median or peripheral lanes. Paris BRT and a few other cities have lanes on the periphery.

    To call these problems as 'teething' is an understatement. 18 months since start of Pune BRT, beyond a segregated bus lane, no other feature associated with the concept of BRT is in place.

    To find out more about numerous problems with the way India's BRT prpjects have been badly planned check read this document - http://better.pune.googlepages.com/WhyBRTinIndiadoesnotexciteme.htm

    Dr Joglekar

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Podcasts on urban mobility and urban issues: a LONG list

Here is my list of podcasts on urban mobility and urban issues. 

Please use the comments to send tips or corrections.

If you are not yet a regular podcast listener, you need to download a podcast-listening app to your phone, tablet or desktop and subscribe to the podcasts that interest you (it's free).

UPDATE 1: This list has many podcasts but obviously I hope you will try mine! They are Reinventing Transport and Reinventing Parking.

UPDATE 2: I have added FOURTY THREE more since this was first published.

Transport-based City Types and their Trajectories

I want to help you get perspective on your city and its transport system with the help of simple city types based on their dominant transport modes, such as Walking Cities, Transit Cities, Bus Cities, Motorcycle Cities and Car Cities.

This way of thinking about cities is a heuristic (an imperfect mental model or technique that is nevertheless good enough to be helpful). And it obviously is imperfect. For example, real cities often have various modes of transport, and modern cities are really all some kind of hybrid city type.

But it is still useful, especially if we add the idea of a Traffic Saturated City, which is a very different beast from a Car City. It is important for change-makers in Traffic Saturated Cities to be aware they are not in automobile dependent cities yet.

Options for digesting this: 
Read the brief article below and study the diagrams. They complement the podcast. For more depth, LISTEN to the 37 minute audio with the player above. A full transcript of the podcast is…

Ending parking minimums - why, where, who, how

Parking minimums are under siege and it's a very good thing. 

Most buildings in most cities and towns across the globe are required by law to provide plentiful parking.

But parking minimums are a huge mistake.


Click here to learn how to subscribe to the podcast.

These parking minimums are put in place for understandable but muddle-headed reasons.

Parking minimums (also called minimum parking requirements or norms or standards) do not in fact solve the on-street parking problems they are supposed to solve.

Instead, they cause immense harm by worsening car dependence, hindering infill development, undermining walkable neighborhoods, blocking transit-oriented development, and by making real-estate, including housing, less financially viable and less affordable.

Abolishing parking minimums is not a panacea. By itself, it doesn't necessarily reduce the parking that developers provide in car-dependent locations.

But, among its many benefits, eliminating minimums does enable low-parkin…