Bus Rapid Transit systems, like those being implemented in Delhi and other cities, can carry significantly far more people than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many as some rail systems. By using road space efficiently and with minimal conflicts between modes, these systems can help meet mass mobility needs cost-effectively, safely, and equitably.

The HCBS (High Capacity Bus System) project being constructed in Delhi has recently been criticised in the press. Among other things, concerns have been raised about its implications for the flow of motor vehicles along the same corridor, but most importantly, the concept of HCBS, and its appropriateness in cities like Delhi, has been questioned.

Actually, more than 30 cities across Asia and Latin America, including those with large populations such as Beijing, Jakarta, Shanghai, and Mexico City, have implemented, or are implementing, such systems (Beijing intends to have a 100-kilometre network soon). But my purpose is to address the appropriateness of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — the term used internationally for HCBS — in Indian cities. Per-capita income, and with it, personal motor vehicle ownership and activity, are growing rapidly in these cities but the majority is poor, and cannot afford even the least expensive motorised modes. The share of trips conducted by public transit, despite its sorry state, continues to be high. Public transit that is reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread is vitally important in Indian cities, because low-income commuters will likely continue to depend on it for their economic survival, and also to curb personal motor vehicle use and mitigate its impacts.

While some Indian cities are implementing or considering Metro and other rail-based mass transit projects, it will be several years before they become fully operational, and most cities — particularly the medium sized ones — will have to rely predominantly on buses for their public transport needs for a long time. Besides, even when systems such as Metro (which cost over $40 million per km to build) are implemented in their entirety, they are unlikely to significantly reduce motor vehicle activity. Because of the high cost per km, the overall network is necessarily quite circumscribed. Further, because the bulk of urban trips are conducted over short and medium distances, and the time to access mass transit is relative to the journey time for these trips, the number of motor vehicle owning commuters who would use such a circumscribed network is likely to be quite limited, relative to the total number of motor vehicle users in rapidly growing and motorising metropolitan regions.

The potential to attract such commuters is further constrained in the case of Metro systems in Indian cities because, while fares have to be high in order to recoup their costs, motorised two-wheeled vehicles, the bulk of the motor vehicle fleet, offer their highly price-sensitive users door-to-door capability, unmatched navigability in congested road conditions and ease of parking, and the ability to carry passengers and luggage, at low cost. It is therefore far more likely that these vehicle users can be attracted to buses, provided they offer quality service at a reasonable price, than to expensive options such as the Metro. Besides, feeder buses will in any case be needed for Metro and other rail-based systems to be effective.

But buses, important as they are for affordably meeting mass mobility needs, perform inefficiently in congested, mixed traffic. This is precisely where BRT comes in. BRT systems like those being implemented in Delhi and other Asian and Latin American cities, by having buses run in dedicated lanes in the central median, and passengers board and alight rapidly, can potentially carry significantly far more people per hour than conventional bus systems, and indeed, as many per hour as some rail systems. This enhanced effectiveness is important for existing users and also for attracting personal motor vehicle owning commuters. Not only that, because BRT systems involve buses, personal motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians using road space with minimal conflicts with one another, in their own lanes, all modes are able to operate more efficiently, therefore potentially allowing the movement of a significantly higher number of people per hour overall, while also causing vehicular energy consumption, air pollution, and accident rates, to be significantly reduced.

As importantly, BRT systems are significantly less expensive than equivalent rail-based mass transit — Bogota’s BRT cost about one-seventh per km relative to Mexico City’s Line B Metro, while providing the same passenger capacity. This comparison of the actual performance and cost-effectiveness of equivalent BRT and Metro in similar contexts shows that a far more widespread network, potentially serving more passengers, may be provided with BRT than with Metro, with the same investment. Also, BRT can be constructed and expanded more readily and flexibly, using existing road infrastructure. BRT systems are therefore ideally suited, when properly designed and implemented, to be low cost mass transit solutions that are appropriate for Indian and other rapidly motorising, low-income country cities. Of course, rail-based mass transit can play an important role in certain circumstances, as in Mumbai. And where rail-based mass transit is being built, as in Delhi, such systems and BRT can, and should, be designed to complement each other.

Important as mass transit options are, measures to curb personal motor vehicle activity and ensuring access for pedestrians and cyclists are also essential, for mitigating rapidly worsening urban transport impacts, but also to ensure that mass transit is effective. Mass transit will do little to curb vehicular congestion and other impacts unless it attracts personal motor vehicle users in sizeable numbers. It cannot do so as long as transit is less time advantageous than personal motor vehicle use, and the monetary and time cost of personal motor vehicle use is low. This is why the provision of mass transit has to go hand in hand with policies to price personal motor vehicle use to cover its market if not its social costs, and to discourage their use. While such policies would be unacceptable without providing adequate quality mass transit, mass transit will not be truly effective without measures to curb motor vehicle activity.

In this regard, one aspect of motor vehicle use that needs serious attention in Indian cities is parking. Studies worldwide have shown that parking availability and pricing are a major determinant of automobile use. As long as parking is abundant, and priced low or is free, the perceived cost of driving will be low, and personal motor vehicle users will have little incentive to even consider mass transit, high quality though it may be. Parking control and pricing will be difficult to implement, especially for two-wheeled motor vehicles, which can be parked easily anywhere, but it would help curb motor vehicle use, render mass transit more attractive and serve as a means of funding it, and make traffic flow more efficient for all modes. Implementation difficulties may be eased by carefully phasing in the supply of parking, and its control and pricing, simultaneously with expanding reliable, convenient and affordable mass transit.

Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists is so compromised, due to rapid motorisation and provision of infrastructure to accommodate it, that walking and cycling have become extremely difficult and hazardous; pedestrians and cyclists account for the majority of road accident deaths, although they contribute the least to them. Providing adequate facilities for these modes is not only just in Indian cities, in which the majority does not own personal motor vehicles, it will also benefit mass transit. Because of compromised access, even short trips, which account for a large proportion of all trips, and are the most capable of being conducted on foot or bicycle, are made in personal motor vehicles, needlessly increasing congestion and other impacts, and making it less likely that mass transit will be considered, given that the ease of getting to it is crucially important in this regard.

It is imperative that, in addition to providing reliable, convenient, affordable, and widespread mass transit, we appropriately price and curb personal motor vehicle use, and provide for pedestrians and cyclists. These measures, which would enhance the effectiveness of mass transit, mitigate urban transport impacts, and serve the interests of all, including personal motor vehicle users, will admittedly be difficult — politically, if not technically — but must be implemented if we want our cities to be liveable. Not to do so is to take the fast road to collective misery, as much for personal motor vehicle users as for everyone else.




http://www.thehindu.com/2007/12/05/stories/2007120553611000.htm

---