They decided that their "world model" BRT system was too low-capacity, and that running a gazillion buses on a giant right-of-way was not as efficient as running light rail trains on a narrower right of way.

BRT is just dumb. If you have the demand for exclusive busways, you have the demand for rail, and you'll get faster, more comfortable rides using fewer drivers (labor is the main operating cost for transit).

If you don't have the demand for exclusive busways, then it's not BRT, it's just buses. Nothing wrong with having well-run buses, of course -- London's buses put most bus systems to shame.

Oh, also, the facts on energy efficiency:
(1) Carrying around many pounds of fuel wastes energy. Transmitting it over power lines wastes a lot less energy.
(2) Electrical generators are very efficient and so are electric motors. Both are *so* efficient that a motor-generator set is more efficient than a straight-up gasoline or diesel engine converting fuel to mechanical energy! (Shocking, I know!) This is why all train locomotives, and a bunch of new buses, are "serial diesel-electric hybrids"!
(3) Bigger electrical generators are more efficient than smaller ones. So producing the electricity at a power plant and sending it over the wires to a train (or trolleybus!) ends up being MUCH MUCH more efficient than running a diesel bus (or train!).
(4) Trains can be longer than buses, packing more people in per pound of steel and per driver. This avoids wasting money moving steel around.
(5) All of this only applies if you have high volumes, of course. If you aren't running very many vehicles per day, the capital costs of the electric wires overwhelm the operating costs of the diesel engines; and of course there's no point running quarter-full trains when you could be running fully-full buses.

Conclusion: electric trains are the way to go for high-volume routes. Good buses (NYC transit is settling on diesel-electric serial hybrids) are the way to go for *lower volume* routes. But of course low volume routes don't need "BRT".

As a matter of sense,

Why do we need fewer drivers here? More drivers in developing world means more jobs for people. And all of us in the world need jobs or people will become jobless. 1 vote for BRT in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.

My 2 cents.

For example, several bus services decreased the number of employees, and today in several routes the utilised bus is smaller than 2 or 3 years ago. In this type of bus, we have to pay the tickets directly with the driver! (Think that the video speak´s about the "dinamization" of transport, including paying the tickets). This is not BRT system, but if you imagine an integrated system, this is abnormal...

Another abnormal thing is the price of the tickets, mysteriously more expansive, while the number of passengers also increased in the past years.

Important things to change in Curitiba again...

Curitiba is a model for BRT and a lesson that bicycles should be integrated into transport from the get-go of the planning process - it is much more difficult to include cycling facilities after transport infrastructure has been implemented.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT - TransMilenio has proved that BRT can carry up to 45,000 passengers PER HOUR in each direction (not per day) - comfortably and efficiently, and at a fraction of the cost of LRT (4 to 20 times less).

For those who want to get the details, I recommend the Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, available at:

http://www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/brt_planning_guide/

Best, Jonas

To say the Orange Line is a "failure" is a complete farce. You could argue it could be better in the future as a LRT - yes, without a doubt and that could well be true and its future - but I found nothing about the ride bumpy or uncomfortable. Loading was not slow at all, in fact it is very fast compared to any bus system in the country, especially the weak attempts at partial-BRT or rapid systems. I rode the LRT lines in L.A. and they were great too, but loading time in my opinion was only slightly faster vs. BRT.

The 15,000 a day number is not a good hard and fast rule. Sure in some cities that may be a good barometer, but BRT systems in cities like NYC where there is not going to ever be any dramatic expansion of the subway or LRT lines (except maybe across 42nd street as a streetcar) BRT is a great way to expand service and transit. The problem is you are looking at all your arguments as a LRT vs BRT. In some cases there is nothing on the other side of the "vs". For example, in NYC on, let's say 2nd Avenue - the only feasible choice because of $$$, density, etc. is BRT vs. continuing, slow bad bus service. In that case BRT is a good solution.

In other places where you may have more open space and fewer roads to actually cross it may be LRT vs. nothing else.

I am hardly arguing for BRT across all of America. They both need to prove themselves on their merits. BRT would be a good choice for places like the Bay Area and NYC. To paint with a broad 15,000 stroke is reckless.

We can see in Los Angeles what a failure the Orange bus line is compared to the Gold or Blue LRT lines. It is at capacity and the capacity can not be increased, the ride is bumpy and uncomfortable, dwell time is longer, wheel char loading and movement on board is very slow and incontinent and the line cost three times as much per passenger and operates at half the speed of a LRT line.

Cuririba is an example how a transit system was developed with minimum funding to improve speed and ridership and this they did accomplish. But it is not and example of how new faster higher capacity lines should be built in the US. If ridership in below 15,000 riders a day and not expected to increase a BRT may be the best solution, but if ridership is above 15,000 a day or expected to grow a LRT line is by far the most efficient and cost effective way to go.

Alan

Grate work girls...!

I´ve been waiting to see the results of your visit to Brazil!

Hope you come even more... to see our improvement!

Kisses
Ian

It is great to see urban areas that are actually accomplishing real urban planning. I am thinking water resource planning, sustainable agriculture, carbon neutrality planning, etc. We need models. I know it can be accomplished and is being accomplished, but where. Your film brings the ideas home, better than any amount of words. Thanks!

P.S. Are you on Facebook?