Nor is Bogota’s BRTS (named TransMilenio) controversy-free and it isn’t quite the case that this is a system that has been completed. The first phase only opened in December 2000 and subsequent phases are stuck in public debate. If one does not compare apples and oranges, the cost advantage of BRTS over something like a Metro is not that remarkable. The inspiration behind Bogota’s BRTS was Curitiba in Brazil. Notice that Curitiba is a success in urban planning, not BRTS per se, and picking out the BRTS while ignoring the rest of urban planning is silly.

In Curitiba, development was channelled along BRTS corridors. It is a slightly different matter to introduce BRTS in a city that already has pre-existing patterns of development. Notice also that when Curitiba now plans to extend public transport, it no longer relies on the BRTS alone. Of course, many cities have BRTS. However, the key to a successful BRTS hinges not so much on the nature of vehicles, but the nature of routes. Does one have preferential treatment for buses in lanes, cross roads and traffic intersections? Does one have dedicated high-occupancy vehicle lanes that buses use? Does one have dedicated bus lanes? Are these dedicated bus lanes carved out of existing lanes or are new ones created through elevated roads and tunnels? Relative cost comparisons of BRTS versus MRTS (light rail-based) can mean operating costs or capital costs. And cross-country experience tells us there is little to choose between the two on operating costs and the answer also depends on fuel (diesel, electricity) used. The capital cost comparison is messier. The more efficient a BRTS is (such as with elevated roads and tunnels), the closer its capital costs approach those of MRTS. The less efficient a BRTS is (such as use of existing roads), the cheaper its construction.

... contd.