The Nacional Association of Urban Transports Companies (NTU) and the ONG Embarq Brasil presents the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a system with buses of high levels of service that is part of the solutions for urban mobility on the surface.
We had a BRT system in Swansea South Wales UK. We now have had to do away with it due to the huge cost of refurbishing the buses. Swansea is now looking into having an eco tram system. BRT"s don't work for every city
I've been to Granada Spain and they have an excellent BRT and a light metro. The city is not congested at all. Probably one of the best examples of good implementation in mid size cities
Granada is half the population of Curitiba. If the city does not grow, it will work fine. But from a certain point, BRTs are useless. Trust me, I have lived in Curitiba (the "model" city they mention on the video) my whole life (now I´m living in Lisbon) and I assure you that nothing else compares to a light rail or metro system.
BRT works in certain situations, but the capacity numbers you see in videos like this are not realistic at all. To calculate capacity, we need the number of passengers per vehicle and the number of vehicles per hour. A 60 foot (18 m) bus can hold up to 120 people depending on what seating is used. This is the maximum length allowed in most American cities. A 90 foot (28 m) bus will hold about 200. BRT advocates say you can get 300 in a vehicle but this would be an extremely crowded condition. A bus line running in mixed traffic will be limited by congestion and will max out at 6-8 buses per hour. Dedicated lanes are better but the level crossings will limit the line to about 15 buses per hour. If the line were fully segregated, it would be possible to run 30 buses per hour, maybe more if the stations can handle more than one bus at a time (But also a lot of the cost-savings for BRT disappear if you have to construct completely new infrastructure for the line) So we have these capacities using 60 foot vehicles: Mixed traffic -- 120 x 8 = 960 pass/hour Dedicated lanes -- 120 x 15 = 1800 pass/hour Segregated Busway -- 120 x 30 = 3600 pass/hour And for 90 foot vehicles: Mixed traffic -- 200 x 8 = 1600 pass/hour Dedicated lanes -- 200 x 15 = 3000 pass/hour Segregated Busway -- 200 x 30 = 6000 pass/hour With numbers like these, BRT can work in a smaller sized city, or it could be used as a supplement to a higher capacity system. But if you really need high capacity BRT is not going to be a good choice. You will never get close to 40 000 pass/hour. The Bogota system in particular gets its capacity through line stacking. For a given "line" of stations, some buses will stop at every station, some will stop only at odd stations, some only at even stations, and some only at express stations. Technically this increases capacity but it makes the system really hard to use. And they also suffer from severe over-crowding so passengers can't always get on the bus they need.
This will never replace a high capacity metro or well designed subway. It will make a nice medium capacity feeder working between buses and subway. A lot of cities struggle with long articulated buses now because they are forced to share the road with other road users who often cut them off or simply hold them up. The secret is a dedicated and partitioned off road for the BRT.
Agreed. And that dedicated right-of-way almost always gets horse-traded away in western countries. This phenomenon actually has a name: BRT Creep. Googling the term comes up with some great reasons why rail is almost always a smarter way to go for anything other than the tiniest systems.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r2ZZUV-nKzI.html terrible experience in Bogota, Colombia. BRT its shit. Metro and underground are IRREPLEACEABLE
Vancouver only has B-lines which don't have a bus only lane :/ Also,for some reason the mayors in the area would rather have LRT, instead of actual BRT...
The problem with BRT is that the service becomes just a bus service as budgets keep getting cut. It takes dedication to continue doing BRT as they should be.
Of course Metro rail systems are better. They cost ten times as much and take five times as long to build. If you have all that time and money, buy all means build rail.
In small and medium sized towns. Once a town grows to city size they should better go for Light Rail and trams like we do in EUrope not investing in a system that just can't handle the traffic and just mimics to be a light rail / tram ;-)
What you talking about. Many Chinese cities have BRT. Most news about Chinese 🚆 are about high speed train or metro. High speed 🚆 are designed to serve long range route like intercity or interprovincial destination. High speed 🚆 are not designed for metro except the one in Shanghai connect CBD to airport. That train was built by German company and the route was designed as experimental project to evaluate to see if high speed 🚆 is economically possible
Also for rich, sprawling countries. BRT in Europe? Maybe not. But what about mid sized cities in America, Australia and New Zealand? BRT can efficiently serve large areas, without requiring expensive tracks. Busways only need to be built on key corridors. Take Auckland, New Zealand. Buses come from all parts of the Northern peninsular, then join a short (6km) busway to speed past motorway congestion. They even share lanes across the bridge into the city. It's a very popular (moreso than the rail lines) system. In comparison, a light or heavy rail would require a harbour tunnel (probably over $2 billion), and run not only along the busway but also continue along the uncongested parts of the motorway (where buses simply join regular traffic).
I live in Bogota, a city with about 10 million people and we only have this ´´Shit Rapid Transit´´. I have never seen such a terrible form of public transportation. Stations are overcrowded, so are buses, sometimes I have to wait for 40 minutes (during rush hour) for a bus. Sitting? Forget about that, even if you're pregnant you won't ever find a seat on the bus. Horrible system.
Stanislav Konstantinov the problem is that the system is overused, we need different ways of public tranportation in bogota, brt metro highways bikepaths buses trains carcable ..
Maybe the problem isn't the BRT... maybe the problem is the incompetent people managing it in your city and lack of funds to expand it so as to meet the demand of the city. Would you still think it was shit if there were 3x more stations, 3x more lanes for BRT and 6x more BRT buses (so as to meet demand).... IF your city had the funds to get that done?
@@jzk2020 I've seen a video of Bogota's bus rapid transit here on RU-vid. Video shows that at rush hour, buses can get caught in slow traffic - in the BRT lane! It seems to me that there is more demand than the BRT can handle and there is no room to expand the corridors shown. Bogota needs a metro.
El PEOR sistema de transporte del mundo. No dignifica al usuario, es incómodo, lento, demorado, además los buses contaminan porque los negocios de ITDP es que los buses sean movilizados con diesel. Acá en Bogotá este sistema es una pesadilla, pero la población de Bogotá olvida y es masoquista y volvieron a legrar de Alcalde al vendedor principal de BRT en el mundo: Enrique Peñalosa, y ahora que volvió a la ciudad hizo botar a la basura los estudios del metro subterráneo a cambio de sus troncales de buses.
Hermano esto transporte es para ciudades que tienen menos que 5 millones de habitantes o que tienen líneas de buses complementares y metrô (Todo Brasil tiene) por esto no dio cierto en Bogotá tiene 10 millones de habitantes y No tiene metro
