BRT champ Curitiba, Brazil to build rail system

[Cirrus]

Dropping like flies

For years Bus Rapid Transit proponents have said that BRT can be just as effective as rail, but at a lower cost. As supposed evidence that rail is unnecessary, for years BRT proponents cited two cities that have relied exclusively on BRT - Ottawa and Curitiba, Brazil.

Alas, in 2001 Ottawa decided it needed trains, so the BRT crowd stopped talking about Ottawa. Curitiba, they said, Curitiba has got the answer.

I wonder what BRT proponents will say now that Curitiba is building a rail system. Apparently, and who could have ever guessed, even the poster children of BRT need rail on some corridors.

TPI eyes Curitiba subway project
Brazil's Paraná state capital Curitiba is planning to build a subway line and highway concessionaire Triunfo Participações e Investimentos (TPI) (Bovespa: TPIS3) is seriously studying the project, TPI president Carlo Bottarelli told BNamericas.

The subway initiative would be a first for the city and a first for the highway concessionaire.

The city is planning to build a US$1bn, 22km system that will cross the city from south to north, Curitiba business relations secretary Luiz de Carvalho told BNamericas.

"The upcoming World Cup will help drive this project. Curitiba is the only large capital city in Brazil that does not have a subway system. There is a whole network of people calling for the construction of this subway," Bottarelli said.

TPI has operated highway concessions in the south and southeast of Brazil since 1995. The firm also has investments in companies that provide public services in the highway, port and electricity generation sectors. TPI shares control of Portonave, a company authorized to operate Navegantes port in Santa Catarina state, as well as holding 100% of Rio Verde Energia.


RPC.com.br

[rapid_business]

Funny to see this in light of all the BRT/Curtiba brainwashing videos...

[Crawford]

Why does this proposal challenge the idea of BRT?

Gee, Tokyo has buses in addition to trains; therefore, the Tokyo train network is a failure and must be dismantled?

And Curitiba is hardly the largest bus-only city with a successful transit system. Bogota only has buses, and has excellent transit.

[rapid_business]

It's just that their whole approach, conferences, mandate, etc. was all about how BRT was the functioning solution that was cheaper and just as efficient as any rail-based rapid transit system. They toured and spoke about it, convinced other cities of it, etc. It's funny, that's all...

[Cirrus]

Why does this proposal challenge the idea of BRT?

It doesn't. It challenges the idea of BRT as a replacement for rail in all circumstances, which is how BRT is often presented.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It doesn't. It challenges the idea of BRT as a replacement for rail in all circumstances, which is how BRT is often presented.

And especially how it has been presented by consultants from Curitiba sent out to other cities/countries. Curitiba's system is great, but I've been plenty annoyed over the years by the army of ex-transit officials from Curitiba traveling around the world hawking their wares.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

"The upcoming World Cup will help drive this project. Curitiba is the only large capital city in Brazil that does not have a subway system. There is a whole network of people calling for the construction of this subway," Bottarelli said.

thats a lie. Porto Alegre also doesnt have a subway system. Well, we have a surface rail system, but that is not exactly a subway.

but Porto Alegre is going to build a new line (Linha 2) that will be only inside Porto Alegre (Linha 1 is mostly outside of Porto Alegre, connecting the city to the other metro area cities to the north).

And Linha 2 will have 14 km underground. A real subway. Also, the 2014 World Cup will help drive the project. Yeah, right. I want to see where we will get the funding for all these infrastructure projects.

One month of World Cup, one decade of external debts and stagnation!

[BrighamYen]

Mike Antonovich, eat your heart out you sorry sick son of a...

[Trantor]

since we are talking about Curitiba

Curitiba - Brazil's 7th City! 100 DSLR Pics + Info (photos by Gutooo)
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166860

sneak peek

[Doady]

If buses were really so bad, then why do Curitiba and Ottawa BRTs so heavily used? Why do these BRT-based systems have higher ridership per capita than many rail-based systems, such as Chicago, Washington, Portland, Vancouver, Calgary, Boston, etc?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It doesn't. It challenges the idea of BRT as a replacement for rail in all circumstances, which is how BRT is often presented.

LRT is often presented as the one and only solution as well. And like BRT, LRT is always touted as cheaper option than another form of transit (in this case, subway/metro).

I consider BRT activists to by mere anti-LRT activists, and LRT activists to be anti-bus and anti-subway activists. Really, I find it shocking how narrow-minded many so-called LRT activists can be, like their reasoning for wanting more LRT is because they hate buses and subways are too expensive. More thought should be given to the context and to the entire transit system as a whole.

[rapid_business]

I don't know about some of your figures... but the point isn't to start an argument about that... it's to talk about why they are making the switch.

Considering the entire transit system as a whole is important, but even more so is the functioning of the city as a whole. For one, rail-based lines signify structurally permanence, and as a result land uses around stations begin to reflect that. One of the main reasons Portland went with a rail-based street car line as opposed to a rubber-tire based model.

Anyways... I do think all these different forms have merit. BRT works great where you can built ROWs, have access to freeways with HOV lanes, etc, but for the communities and the specific lines making the switch to rail, there are obvious reasons why.

[lrt's friend]

As a resident of Ottawa, the original statement about this city's BRT is simply untrue as well as what it is trying to imply, that it has been a failure. Actually, it is its overwhelming success that has been driving the idea of LRT to increase transit capacity in this city. Unfortunately, LRT proposals to date have floundered badly because of political incompetence and the present proposal offers little benefit to transit riders over BRT except to build a short subway across the downtown area at an enormous cost. Meanwhile, the city continues to extend its BRT Transitways with plans to build them faster than plans for LRT, if LRT ever gets off the ground. I am not an advocate for BRT or LRT, just better transit. In my opinion, the current LRT proposal fails miserably in providing better transit for the most part. So, when it comes to BRT versus LRT, it all depends on how it is implemented, which will determine how beneficial either will be.

[Cirrus]

the original statement about this city's BRT is simply untrue as well as what it is trying to imply, that it has been a failure

Nobody made such a statement.

The only statement made was that BRT alone has proven inadequate. Not a failure, inadequate on its own.

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by onishenko

It's just that their whole approach, conferences, mandate, etc. was all about how BRT was the functioning solution that was cheaper and just as efficient as any rail-based rapid transit system. They toured and spoke about it, convinced other cities of it, etc. It's funny, that's all...

Is it cheaper?
Yes.

Is it as efficient as light rail?
Yes.

And its worked for 20+ years.

However, now ONE (there are many lines) of the lines has reached the point where HEAVY rail is needed.

Systems can and do coexist. The subway will be part of a system included 6+ BRT lines.

In fact, theyre opening a BRAND NEW BRT line this year.



Do you argue that the NYV subway is useless because commuter rail holds more people? Of course not, each system has its pros and cons and they can exist together.

[Cirrus]

Once again, I don't think anyone is saying that BRT has no place in the world. We're saying that the people who think *rail* has no place in the world and can be totally replaced by BRT are wrong.

The pro rail crowd is NOT the group that thinks BRT and rail can't exist together.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Once again, I don't think anyone is saying that BRT has no place in the world. We're saying that the people who think *rail* has no place in the world and can be totally replaced by BRT are wrong.

The pro rail crowd is NOT the group that thinks BRT and rail can't exist together.

Ha! This is so untrue. I have seen whole pro-rail websites dedicated to promoting rail with every effort put forth to discredit BRT including specific mention about our BRT being a direct cause for lower ridership based on very outdated statistics, and even then it was really caused by other factors including a recession at the time. I have also seen pro-rail lobby groups operating in this city to the detriment of moving transit forward. I would like to know the source of the original quote.

I have read study after study comparing ridership capacities between BRT and LRT indicating that they are very similar. It is only when you get beyond that capacity, that rail is needed and then you have to consider some sort of heavy rail. There is absolutely no dispute that BRT cannot compete with heavy rail for passenger load, but in mid-sized cities, a good implementation of BRT may be all that is needed.

I really see this as a pointless discussion and using a quotation titled Dropping Like Flies and some of the language that follows implies the opposite to reality. What has happened in both cities mentioned is that BRT has succeeded to the extent that capacity has been reached, and there is a natural progression to a higher capacity rail solution.

What is happening in both cities should not deter other cities from implementing BRT. On contrary, it should deliver great hope that BRT alone can make public transit more attractive in many cities.

[Doady]

The articles in the original post have an obvious anti-BRT bent, I don't know how anyone can deny that... Dropping like flies? Give me a break... it is just typical attitude...

As I said, Ottawa has one of highest ridership in North America, and isn't the point of building new rapid transit lines is to increase ridership? The Ottawa CMA had the largest increase in Canada in terms of transit mode share among workers between 1996 and 2006, going from 17.2% to 19.4%, a 2.2% increase. In comparison, almost all US metropolitan areas with rail-based systems saw large declines in transit mode share between 1990 and 2000.

Currently, there are only 3 metropolitan areas in the US and Canada that are better than Ottawa in terms of transit mode share: New York (23.9%), Toronto (22.2%), and Montreal (21.4%). Portland (5.6%) doesn't even come close. No American or Canadian metro has a higher share than Curitiba (70%).

So are the Ottawa and Curitiba BRTs a failure? If you consider getting people out of their cars and high transit ridership to be bad things, then yes I guess they have been failures.

[Justin10000]

Gotta love these BRT vs. LRT debates. The mistake was looking at Curitba as the showpiece for BRT. What was done in Curitba would be quite difficult to emulate in North American Cities, and with all the hype around Curitba's Integrated Transit Network, the only system to even come remotely close is the Orange Line. The BRT in Curitba is a success, because the corridors along the routes were zoned for High Density, and car traffic severely limited.

With the exception of Ottawa, the Orange Line, and possibly EmX in Eugene, I do not consider BRT in North America to be success, simply because cities that have attempted to build BRT ended up building half-assed systems with fancy buses, a few km's of dedicated lanes, signal priority, and lots of marketing.

[Mister F]

Doady, your argument is a straw man. Nobody on this thread is saying the Ottawa and Curitiba's BRTs are a failure or "so bad" as you put it. Rather, they've been so successful that they're now at capacity and need to be upgraded to rail. That's the whole point of the thread - that rail is necessary to do jobs that buses can't. A rail line has more capacity than bus line, and all things being equal, a rail line will tend to attract more riders.

[rapid_business]

...Or influence development around stations (TOD if you must) the way a rail-based line does.