Urban Transport in the OIC Megacities
27
BRT's other disadvantage is that it has less carrying capacity than metro and commuter rail; it has
comparable capacity to light rail. Whether higher-capacity modes can be cost-justified depends on the
land use patterns of a given area. In suburban areas like the Hudson Valley, ridership on a flexible BRT
system will likely be higher than on a fixed-route light or commuter rail system, even if commuter rail
can theoretically carry more passengers (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2015).
The largest articulated BRT buses still carry fewer passengers than individual light and heavy rail
trains, so to provide the same amount of service as a rail system, a BRT systemmay have higher labour
needs but provide more frequent service. For example, a light rail system may run a 500-passenger
train every 10 minutes, while a BRT system may run a 200-passenger bus every four minutes to
provide the same amount of service (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2015).
Lower-end BRT using on-street bus lanes and/or signal priority should be considered as a
replacement for (and an upgrade from) high-volume regular bus routes. The advantages are self-
evident: faster travel and increased ridership. BRT conversions may face political opposition if a
parking or traffic lane is taken for buses, so planners should ensure that a BRT conversion will indeed
result in noticeable improvements (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2015).
While some critics have argued that bus rapid transit is less energy efficient than rail transit, the
available evidence is mixed. A study of German cities estimated that bus transit was 4 times as energy
efficient as car travel, while light and metro rail was 2.5 times as efficient as car travel (per passenger-
kilometre). By contrast, a U.S. study found that the average train trip was 8.4%more efficient than the
average bus trip, and 16.3%more efficient than the average automobile trip (Tri-State Transportation
Campaign, 2015).
The large discrepancies in existing studies may exist because transit energy efficiency depends on
many variables, including the level of congestion in an area, how heavily used a transit system is, and
the differences between various bus and train models. For example, a significant portion of New York
City's public bus fleet is diesel-electric hybrid. Because both rail and bus transit are more fuel-efficient
than cars, the relevant question is not which mode is theoretically more efficient but which mode or
combination of modes will best divert automobile users to transit (Tri-State Transportation
Campaign, 2015).
For further information see Appendix A2-Public Transport, Land Use Planning and Social Innovation,
the case of Curitiba, Brazil
3.4.3. Non-motorized transport (NMT)
3.4.3.1. NMT of megacities in developed countries
The two main modes of NMT, walking and cycling, provide significant environmental benefits for the
urban environment and also are a very good form of physical exercise. NMT has been recognized in
many cities across the world as the best opportunity to reduce private vehicle use in the urban
Best practice case study: Public Transport, Land Use Planning and Social Innovationthe case of
Curitiba, Brazil
Curitiba is a leading example and a pioneer in BRT systems. Many of the OIC megacities examined in this
report already have a BRT system and others are examining the option of adopting one. The lessons to
be learned from Curitiba are not only related to the benefits of the system itself but also to the wider
urban, social and transport strategies adopted in the city. Curitiba has proven that public transport can
be the backbone of all operations in a city, not only transport. From social accessibility and green spaces
to economic growth, Curitiba provides valuable lessons for cities of all sizes and economic status.