HOT TOPICS

SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES

Why India’s Bus Rapid Transit Projects don’t excite me

589

Written By asj - 29 June, 2008

Bangalore BMTC Bangalore Chennai Mumbai BRTS Pune BEST Analysis public transport

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as it is currently planned in India is suggested as the one-size-fit-all solution to our transport woes. Having travelled on Mumbai’s bus service (BEST) for thirty years & London’s public transport since 2001, I can’t share the optimism of those who believe BRT (as it is currently planned) is the way forward. When senior citizens, children & disabled struggle to cross the roads safely, one would hope for a solution that improves all aspects of mobility. I wonder why a city like Pune would spend crores of rupees on BRT when 40% of its roads don’t have pavements (see state of Pune pavements here). That almost a third of Pune citizens commute by walking makes the question more poignant.


I have for some time now tried to find an answer to the question. My quest has led me to assess available information on the BRT projects implemented in India’s two cities. My understanding has grown but as have the questions. Our BRT planners unfortunately have overlooked many issues.


1. One of the many issues I have had with prioritising BRT first in Pune has been due to the lack of respect for the difference between the demographics of Pune and Bogotá. 80% people did not have personal vehicles and 80% travel to their Central Business District. Unlike this, in Pune almost every house hold has a vehicle (when every household is considered to be a 4 member family as per available stats). BRT was successful in Bogotá because of decades of planning (unlike 2-3 years in India). Land use policies ensured growth along BRT routes. In Pune it’s above average for India per capita income generating population travels in all parts of the city.


This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71UhKAtGSik&feature=related shows the Bogotá before BRT - note the number of buses vs. the private vehicles during pre-Bogotá times - all run by mafia - but the fact is that people were on buses already, the challenge of switching them / winning them over was never a part of the dynamic. The iconic images of Bogotá are also very popular, this video shows just how wide these BRT roads were (are) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_7N2ajOYYw&feature=related and hence begs a question how many of our roads can accommodate this design. Equally the elevated crossways and median bus stations (at least = 1.5 lanes) are no where near junctions. Amazingly he talks of missing side walks acting up as parking lots - very similar to Pune as we all know. Bogotá’s success is more due to social reconstruction and not so much the buses (which were in use anyway albeit in a disorganized way). The fact that they neglected roads but invested in creating Latin America’s longest pedestrian walkway and bicycle track says a lot about the difference in the vision Bogotá administration has compared with that of Pune or Delhi.


2. For a BRT to succeed there are pre-requisites, both Pune & Delhi fail in this regard. I make an example of Pune to elucidate this -
  • Historically, Pune’s bus service has been badly managed. Run down buses, lack of rationalised routes, poor frequencies, absence of a long term vision and business model has led to Pune citizens resort to use of private vehicles.
  • Pune does not have facilities to park / maintain new buses and pre-paid ticketing system is a distant dream.
  • For more details on how poor the Pune Municipal Transport’s basic facilities are, please read my detailed review ‘Pune Caught in a Whirlpool – can a modern public transport system rescue it’
3. To make matters worse, the BRT plans and implementation has been sloppy, failing to take in to account numerous factors. In Delhi and Pune median segregated bus lanes were considered. A number of arguments are made in favour of this system, but there is little if any mention of counter-arguments or alternative models. I present their arguments of Delhi IIT (in italics and red) in favour of median dedicated lanes and my counter arguments below each –
* The high volume of turning traffic interferes with the through movement of bus traffic if the bus uses the same curb-side lane as the turning vehicles.

Unfortunately they don't acknowledge that a kerb side bus lane can be implemented on many more roads (and hence offer better overall mobility) and is much cheaper. The London model shows that bus lanes can be used on any 2 lane road. Peripheral bus lanes can be non-segregated allowing use by other vehicles during non-peak times, making optimal use of road space. Interruptions & conflicts with off-lanes can be minimised in many ways – introducing red routes (no stopping) and altering entry/exit points on parallel off-lanes. Please see documents listed in appendix below in connection with use of peripheral non-segregated lane. There are clear advantages as well in using the positives of London's bus lane model –
  • Cheaper and quicker to implement
  • Can be used more widely (on any 2 lane road) - across the city, we can end up with much better overall mobility. We all know many roads with 3 lanes (I know at least a dozen in Mumbai and Pune) which would never be considered for BRT due to lack of width to expand (but are ideal for London style bus priority).
  • Non-segregation offers fair and optimal use of road space. London bus lanes operate largely during peak time, are available for others during non-peak times and indeed for parking beyond parking restriction times. In many ways the strengths of current infrastructure is used as against damaging ecology by making efforts to widen roads by culling trees.
  • In the event of a failure of the scheme, nothing is lost – in contrast, if median segregated bus lanes fail; it will not be easy to reverse the damage (there will be huge costs). Thus I would argue, if you have to pilot, why not pilot the more cost-effective option.
People argue that non-segregated bus lanes are likely to be abused by two wheelers / 3 wheelers etc. The truth is that as we have seen, even the segregated lanes in middle of the road are being abused. This design has not made them immune from abuse as can be evidently seen from the massive number of police deployed to man these lanes. The problem thus is to do with the way we drive. In fact a quick look at Google earth images will show that our junctions are perpetually clogged and chaotic, the road between junctions is almost empty!! To solve problems of congestion where the root of the problem lies deeply connected with driver behaviour, one would think the solution is better driver training, good road signage, synchronised signals, etc. Trying to solve the above problem with BRT is like treating malaria with anti-cancer drugs. It simply will not work.

As an author of a series of driver education videos, I can demonstrate amply how a respecting a zebra crossing automatically stems and regulates flow of vehicles by spacing them out evenly. It does not take hard to imagine the cost differential between painting the zebra’s correctly vs. implementing BRT, having said, it’s the former that will work far better than the latter in improving overall flow of traffic in the city.

* Buses using the kerb-side lane are forced to stop at every red signal with other vehicles reducing throughput, therefore central bus lanes are preferred.

If they had seen the Bus Priority Resource pack developed by DOT, UK they would have found an answer to this. UK has implemented the concept of pre-signals / smart signals which offer priority to buses and this could very easily be considered in India. I have created a summary document of the 250 page resource pack, click here for same.

* Unless we have central lanes, at least 50% pedestrians will need to cross a total of 12 lanes to get to the bus stop on the other side of the road.

A simple solution for this is using a Pedestrian Refuge. In fact by using central bus stops 100% of people will need to cross the roads and at least 6 lanes on each side. Does the current design ensure safety of these pedestrians any better? All reports suggest otherwise.

* Further they support the idea of central lane as it allows bus stops close to traffic light junctions

This is a money saving argument to get away from building crossways or an equally desperate attempt to build BRT on roads without adequate width for incorporating crossways / subways as their design needs wider footpaths (a mouth of a subway itself is typically 5-6 feet wide). In fact by virtue of making pedestrians mingle at the junction, all traffic lights have to incorporate this within the traffic lights cycle and hence reduce speed of travel - effectively taking away the R (Rapid) within the acronym BRT.

In medical research and practice there is a concept of fidelity. If a treatment has to implemented one has to ensure that it is done to with truthfulness to the original treatment concepts core principles. Where fidelity standards are poor, treatment success rates are poor. Hence the western medical practice does not allow cutting corners, its protocol driven. If I as much as raise a dose from 10 to 20 instead of 15, the pharmacist calls me and asks for justification and if unsatisfied will not dispense the medication. Attached is an image of a typical BRT design, it’s a single carriage way design and it is 105meters wide. Bogotá designs if I remember correctly were 104m wide. Basically the reason why we cannot see the wide footpaths and safe crossways is that we do not have the additional 12 feet needed and we seem to be satisfied with the idea of 100 feet being sufficient. Some of you may have seen a best seller called copycat marketing. Its book giving examples of brands that spread world over copying their success script - the core principles are never messed with, the soft touches can be modified. When there has been evidence through out of a compromise in basic principles why not question it. If the planners had been questioned sufficiently and strongly we could have done much better.
4. But there are other planning failures. A BRT can carry masses, in Bogotá up to 40,000 people are carried per hour. In Pune the total passenger trips across all routes proposed for BRT is 8170 / hour (although on some identified BRT routes in Pune the passenger trips per hour is as low as 2000 to 4000 only). By any standard this is a small number. Why then should we bother with a BRT? That 50% of these 8170 passengers are carried by Pune’s dilapidated buses suggests that improving the quality of buses, rationalising routes and frequencies will offer substantial gains. Equally, unlike most successful BRT projects the world over, Pune’s BRT roads are scattered all over, the average length of BRTS routes = 2.8 miles or 4.5 km. Without a good feeder service, how would one get to these BRT routes? BRTS will only add speed on these short stretches, but by how many minutes? If one travels 8km at 30 km per hour it takes 16 minutes or 8 minutes at 60km / hour. Simple maths suggests that for short distances speed never matters. Travelling for 4.5 km by buses at 60 and not 30 will save only 4 minutes.

5. Sadly, our planners do not specify how BRT in it self will get people to switch from use of personal vehicles to buses? In Pune, it costs the same to travel in a two wheeler as it will to buy a bus ticket. Further an interested reader may compare the ticket/pass prices of Pune buses versus BEST. It becomes obvious that a hugely superior BEST is offering value for money while the more expensive PMT is offering dusty, rusted, broken buses with poorly trained staff and irrational routes at frequencies of a bus every 30-60 minutes of huge number of routes. Unless this equation changes, as it has in London, where there is no petrol subsidy (it costs more than twice compared to India), no free parking and a stiff congestion charge, we may end up with a BRT system plying empty buses. By implementing tough measures London’s bus riders-ship increased over 30% and less than a fourth of commuters use personal vehicles inside city centre. For more details please read pages 8 to 13 of my article Pune Caught in Whirlpool. Curitba too had to force people in to buses. Downtown parking in Curitba has been either totally banned or made so expensive via municipal fees that it is effectively prohibited for most motorists – thus making the local bus and "BRT" system the only realistic alternative. Curitba has been able to take advantage of land-use controls forcing development to cluster around the transit arterials. Is there any assurance from our planners that we could emulate these tough measures? It is now evident from a number of articles (available here) that many Western countries where BRT was implemented passengers per hour figures are not as high as expected. Like the West, Indians have due to lack of choice been forced in to the habit of travelling in their personal vehicles. Thus any measures not affecting this dynamic directly or indirectly will most likely fail.

When I make points in favour of London’s model, people have pointed out the difference between population densities of Delhi and London. Delhi’s density is twice that of London. But these very people have nothing to say when I point out that Mumbai’s density is 2.5 times that of Delhi!! The virtual neglect of trying to understand the success behind Mumbai’s BEST is appalling. Our cities have more in common with Mumbai & London where already built up areas need a bus service and road width makes BRT an illusory concept. One only needs to look at London's figures - 700 routes, 6500 buses and 5,400,000 passengers. And then compare them with Mumbai's figures which are almost half with regards all 3 parameters to see how the models fit well and also work well. I do feel that JNNURM funds are being wasted due to wrongful prioritisation of BRT over a basic bus service that would serve most of our cities very well. That such factors need looking in to first is obvious when one looks at the fact that the PMT runs too many routes, several dozens less than 10km!! This is where revamping and rationalisation of routes is vital (like the BEST routes which run length and breadth of Mumbai and overlap thus making huge choice and good frequencies a reality). Mumbai has 3391 buses, 350 routes covering 3 times the area and 4 million passengers per day (= to Pune's population), it is hard to understand why PMT has over 200 routes with just about 1000 buses? I have in recent times been pointed by some to also highlight how well the Chennai bus service runs. I have now checked up their website http://www.mtcbus.org/ and share some information. They like BEST carry 4 million passengers each day - up by half a million since 02/03, have a fleet of 3084 - up from 2773 in 02/03 with an average life of a bus ~ 4 years + (down from 6+). In contrast Bangalore has 5K buses but badly managed. Here is food for thought - wonder why people in Mumbai and Chennai are not shouting for BRT?

We need a comprehensive plan with clearly identified priorities, I suggest one below.
  • Reform the basic bus service provision (rationalise bus routes, frequencies, adequate number travel worthy buses, garages and depots with possible workforce optimisation to reduce overheads) and ensure the city has footpaths.
  • Mobility on roads can be improved through better traffic discipline (needs education, change in licensing procedures) and synchronising signals. We can do a lot by considering use of bus only ways and one-way options along parallel roads (we use these strategies sub-optimally). The zebra as described already is immensely effective too in evenly spacing the traffic.
  • Use simpler alternatives – bus only routes (South Mumbai’s Girgaum road for over 3 decades has one section open to buses in one direction. This clever ploy allows private vehicles to get in to any of the off-lanes but only after a detour (as mixed flow is allowed from other direction).
  • Use non-segregated bus lanes where possible, but not before point 1
  • Use segregated bus lanes where possible but not before point 1. For reasons mentioned, peripheral segregated lanes need considering.
  • Bus transport needs enhancing by having smart cards, single fare strategy, wide double doors for quick entry/exits. London uses all principles of BRT except segregated lanes.
  • Implement ways of getting people to switch to buses. Educate people; we need campaigns the size of Pulse polio. Public Consultation during the planning phase it self offers this opportunity. Talk to the real experts, the ones who live on the streets of the given project or who travel on it (in contrast 3 public workshops were done in Pune, each attended by same group of people / citizens / NGOs – majority with their own biased views on the matter).
  • Manage demand and capacity – this is a vital piece of jigsaw neglected by PMC planners. To consider offering increased FSI and expand geographical limits of a city is not the solution conducive with sustained long term growth. If anything lack of simultaneous increase in public transport facilities, affordable healthcare, affordable quality education, sanitation, water and electricity makes such increase in demand unexplainable and unjustified. When we have a city where footpaths remain occupied by garbage skips, pigsties and public lavatories, there can be no reason to raise FSI. The city needs a whole systems approach as demonstrated in this document.
Bad planning and implementation often means waste of money on useless projects. Pune has spent 50 crores on a pilot BRT route when the money should have been spent on getting the basics correct. This is a well known principle of ‘opportunity costs’. This basic principle has also been neglected by our BRT planners.

Instead of looking elsewhere (Western models) Pune and Delhi should look at BEST for inspiration. In addition, not exploring non-BRT bus priority measures as used in UK has also been a cause of systemic failure. It is time to hit the pause button and take stock. We need to go back to the drawing board and ensure we get the simple basics correct, only then can we hope to achieve success in improving mobility in our cities.

Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
www.driving-india.blogspot.com

An appendix with links to all referenced documents is given below
I clearly favour non-segregated peripheral bus lanes used only during non-peak time. The documents listed below connect with correct implementation of this strategy. People argue that because law enforcement is poor in India non-segregated lanes will not work. But we have seen the reality – to ensure the segregated lanes in Delhi and Pune, huge numbers of police have had to deployed, thus such arguments don’t hold any sway logically.

1. My document principles of bus lanes show two things – page 3 shows how a badly planned peripheral bus lane can go wrong (an actual real life case example is explained). Importantly page 4 shows how conflict with off lanes can be reduced.

2. Another real life case example of peripheral bus lanes, smart signals, land use policies from London. Please download this document by clicking here.

3. Land use policies are vital for prioritising buses. In UK nobody can open a supermarket / shopping mall without allowing space for buses to stop / terminate outside the shopping malls. Here is an example of land use policies prioritising buses.

4. I am also offering a link comparing different bus transport models in London/Mumbai and Pune. Click here to read this comparison.

5. Change the public image regarding buses – public campaigns are a must, click here to excerpts from London buses free magazine

6. London could have implemented BRT; instead, they chose to retain the natural assets of its city roads & culture. Further the authorities by way of congestion charging earned money to enhance public transport (very different from our model of spending money on BRT projects that are not feasible for out cities). Here is a link to a collage celebrating the assets of The Mall, a road between Buckingham Palace and Strand.

7. Case example of land use policy – a road converted in to a thriving space for pedestrians.

8. I have made reference to improving traffic flow and mobility. The Pune Municipal Corporation is in receipt from me several documents that may help them achieve this, these are listed below –
  1. My document principles of bus lanes show two things – page 3 shows how a badly planned peripheral bus lane can go wrong (an actual real life case example is explained). Importantly page 4 shows how conflict with off lanes can be reduced.
  2. Another real life case example of peripheral bus lanes, smart signals, land use policies from London. Please download this document by clicking here.
  3. Land use policies are vital for prioritising buses. In UK nobody can open a supermarket / shopping mall without allowing space for buses to stop / terminate outside the shopping malls. Here is an example of land use policies prioritising buses.
  4. I am also offering a link comparing different bus transport models in London/Mumbai and Pune. Click here to read this comparison.
  5. Change the public image regarding buses – public campaigns are a must, click here to excerpts from London buses free magazine
  6. London could have implemented BRT; instead, they chose to retain the natural assets of its city roads & culture. Further the authorities by way of congestion charging earned money to enhance public transport (very different from our model of spending money on BRT projects that are not feasible for out cities). Here is a link to a collage celebrating the assets of The Mall, a road between Buckingham Palace and Strand.
  7. Case example of land use policy – a road converted in to a thriving space for pedestrians.
  8. I have made reference to improving traffic flow and mobility. The Pune Municipal Corporation is in receipt from me several documents that may help them achieve this, these are listed below –
  1. Link 1 is Road Marking Guide used in UK. Because all rules and similar, we can use the principles on our roads as well.
  2. Link 2 is Traffic Signs Manual used in UK - gives exact details of where and how to place the signs.
  3. Link 3 is related to above but focuses on warning signs.
  4. I have also compiled a document showing how correct placement of signals can help stop people stopping beyond the stop line. Please note that in UK they have a crossing area of a different shade / colour at signals (not zebra). I think this is a good policy because it takes away confusion. The Delhi and Chandigarh Traffic Police websites clearly state all vehicles should stop at zebra (not controlled by lights) and give way to pedestrians. Now where there are traffic lights, vehicles and pedestrians should follow the lights, but where there is no traffic light but only zebra pedestrians have right of the way. Thus in UK by removing the zebra at traffic lights they have made it easier to follow rules. The only reason why we may not follow this policy in India is because many times signals are not working (power supply problems). In short when traffic lights are not working, automatically pedestrians should have right of way on the zebra.
  5. A link to proposed pavement, parking and licensed hawkers scheme – click here
  6. Pavements are important for ensuring mobility; this compilation shows how a footpath should never lose its identity.
  7. Promoting cycling – an image comparing parking lot outside Cambridge Train Station in 2007 against Pune Train Station in the same year. While Pune lost its cycling culture, Cambridge has preserved it – Here is a video show casing Cambridge cycling culture.
As people in Mumbai have queried about what may help Mumbai, a separate note is offered below
I have written to the AGM Amdekar (BEST) about this in past, there is much to gain from following London’s footsteps, more so because historically the models are very similar. In fact even today the statistics show resemblance –

One only needs to look at London's figures - 700 routes, 6500 buses and 5,400,000 passengers. And then compare them with Mumbai's figures which are almost half with regards all 3 parameters to see how the models fit well and also work well.

It is hence obvious that Mumbai can make huge progress in offering a better BEST in the 21st century by following simple and relatively non-expensive bus priority measures listed below –
  1. BEST needs to expand on its smart ticketing quickly
  2. Introduce more and eventually replace old buses with low floor buses with automated double doors for fast entry / exit (this speeds up travel significantly). The low floor buses used currently are again used sub-optimally as the rear double doors are not always in use.
  3. The ACT governing BEST requires conductors on board, this adds to huge overheads for any organisation, affecting improvements to the service. By going the smart tickets route, the conductors would not be needed. Using London buses i-bus system can also pave way for on board automated announcements. Someone had pointed out the need for a friendly conductor to tell you where to get off – in a crowded bus how many can speak to a conductor at the other end of the bus? And don’t we see passengers ask each other for guidance? Such archaic reasons are not good enough to retain conductors on board. Money spent on their salaries will be better spent on making other improvements.
  4. Mr Mehta has in past suggested that conductors offer security - but do they really? It did not stop a bus getting blown outside Century Bazar in 1992, there are no conductors in Mumbai Locals (12 coaches packed with people) and if anything arguments (including fist fights) between passengers - conductor over small change is the commonest form of aggression on Mumbai buses.
  5. By above I do not suggest redundancies or job losses. In fact to use humans as ticket vendors in 21st century is the worst insult possible. Its time these conductors are re-trained for driving more buses, doing customer satisfaction surveys, manning help lines, etc (this offers better value for money spent on their salaries than the way they are currently deployed).
  6. Mumbai will have to take tough measures –
  • Implement peripheral peak time non-segregated bus lanes
  • The best routes to start such lanes are on roads such as Marine Drive, Haji-Ali, Marine Lines, Caddle road, Western/Eastern highways – these are good initial considerations because very few if any left turns in to off lanes conflict with bus lanes on these routes.
  • Implement congestion charging
  • Implement strict paid parking policies
  • Single ticketing across the city
  • Change the public image regarding buses – public campaigns are a must, click here to excerpts from London buses free magazine
Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
www.driving-india.blogspot.com

Last Updated 22 June 2008

COMMENTS

No thank you, for your BRT, Mr Penalosa

murali772 - 19 November, 2014 - 17:47

Years after the Delhi government set up a flawed bus rapid transit (BRT) system only to dump it, transport experts are again making a pitch for the benefits of BRT. Enrique Penalosa, architect of the few successful BRT systems in the world, says it's not only possible but also required in Delhi. - - - he recommends banning cars on narrow roads as "buses carry more people".
 
For the full text of the report in the ToI, click here.
 
I am in overall agreement with the author of this blog, as also the many who have endorsed his opinion over the course of the wide-ranging debate here, that BRT is not as great a solution as Mr Enrique Penalosa makes it out to be. Everything else that he says is fine, including "banning of cars on narrow stretches of roads during peak hours", all of which has already been stated long ago, and even submitted to the Karnataka Government requesting implementation, way back in March '96, in my capacity then as the Chairman of Nagarik (check here), and further debated upon in PRAJA from Dec '07 onwards (check here). Quite like the first commentator had responded with "if only this would be implemented", perhaps we would have been far better off than we are today, or even Bogota, Curitiba, London (which has the far better 'bus priority system'), or wherever.
 
Even now, I would like to believe that's the only way to go, more so in smaller cities like Mysore, Mangalore, etc. Unfortunately, Hubli-Dharwar fell victim to the BRT lobby (making the citizens' lives miserable there), largely due the machinations of the "bus transport mafia confederation" led by the neta's, in order to kill the "Bendre Nagara Saarige" and perpetuate their monopoly (check this). 
 
Apart from all the discussions over this blog, are the ones posted here, and here, as also at many more places on PRAJA, bringing out the non-suitability of BRT, at least in the Indian context. Even the ToI readers' responses are more or less uniform that they don't think much of the BRT. Recent reports from Indore (check this) also seem to point in the same direction.
 
All in all, it's perhaps time we say thank you to Mr Penalosa, for all his ideas, other than the BRT.
 

where traffic volumes are high, need BRTS

Sanjeev - 19 November, 2014 - 19:12

Main issue for the buses is in core city area or busy CBD area where buses can travell 10Kms / Hr speed like from Majestic - Anandrao Circle - KR Circle - Hudson Circle / Richmond Circle during morning and evening time.    Here if we have BRTS for 6 / 8 Kms,  travell time will come down and will encoruage people to shift to buses.   Similarly once buses can get BRTS upto Mekri Circle,  then the buses will be able to cover dist in short time.

priority for buses very much needed

murali772 - 20 November, 2014 - 07:34

@Sanjeev - You can't have BRT for some 6 Km, and regular services for the rest of the length, on the same stretch of road. Marking out "bus prority lanes", or even total ban of private vehicles on certain stretches, during peak hours, would be most welcome, in my view; but, not BRT.
 
@MaheshK - No less than IIM students (who have necessarily to do a study on utilities as part of their MBA course) have told me that this blog is as comprehensive a critique of BRT as any available. At the end of it all, my vote is a "no", whatever any expert may want to say.
 
The "auto only" lane is another silly concept, which can work at best for the 1 km odd stretch along the Cubbon park, where they don't need to stop. Besides, in my opinion, it's time the city said good-bye to it (check here). 
 

It's the most logical thing

zenx - 20 November, 2014 - 08:19

Assume you have limited space, and ALL traffic is choked. Successive attempts at road addition have failed to help. What would you do first?

Doesn't it make sense to (at least) proportionally allocate dedicated space to the more space-efficient mode of transport? 

That, in a nutshell, is what the BRTS does. I have no vested interest of any sort in it - but it just makes sense to dedicate 50% space to the mode that carries >50% people!!

Will it involve initial pain? Most certainly! Much of it fairer than now - and at least the pain will be reduced for 50% commuters who're not contributing to causing that pain right now.

Bogota, where this was pioneered, is now running into it's new iteration of problems with the system and needs to add capacity and updates a few things - that's a good thing. And it's still the fastest mode of transport around town!! 

Will it be totally smooth? Likely not, and we'll have to evolve our methods and variants.

But show me a smarter immediate solution (esp in conjuction with other smart solutions liek the CRS, smaller privately run shared vehicles as local feeders) that's as space efficient, cheap to build, flexible with the city's growth, and fair. 

This has GOT to be tried out. Again, if Bangalore comes to a standstill inside 6 months, we might be forced to do this anyhow. I hope so, at least.

Plan it well and be very realistic

MaheshK - 20 November, 2014 - 04:41

The BRTS idea and concept is great. Will it work in our narrow roads? My suggestion would be to plan it well and be very realistic.  Take some more time. Let’s not rush it just for the heck of it. Hope BRTS works well not like the bicycle only lane. The implementing agencies need to be careful while listening to the b***s**t from the so called “experts”.

 In a related note, last night I saw the auto only lane in Malleswaram 8th main road. Mainly two wheelers were zooming leaving the autos to use the single lane that was available with other vehicles. As usual, no traffic cops were there.  

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!