Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Bus Rapid Transit Systems, or BRTs, are not a new technology. Called subways on wheels, they date to the 1970s and were first implemented in Curitiba, Brazil but until Bogotá, Colombia copied and improved on the system a decade ago they remained more of a novelty. Today, BRT systems can be found the world over with more cities studying the feasibility of adding lines. In 2006, Los Angeles opened its Orange line and on Monday, the city of Everett, Washington is opening a $29.6 million 17-mile bus line, called Swift. By comparison, Charlotte's light rail project is running $44.5 million per mile.

Curitiba is a city of 1.7 million with some 3.2 million people in its metropolitan area. The city is about the same size as Phoenix. While in Curitiba 75 percent of commuters use public transportation to get to and from work, in Phoenix only 1 percent do. The BRT system in Curitiba is used by more than 2 million people a day. There are more car owners per capita than anywhere in Brazil, and yet per capita gas consumption is the lowest in Brazil. And while the population has doubled since 1974, auto traffic has declined by 30 percent in that same time frame. The result is atmospheric pollution that is the lowest in Brazil which then translates into better health metrics for Curitiba's citizens.

Light rail is now all the rage in the United States since Portland's widely-respected system came on line. Not to rain on light rail's parade, but BRT systems have several key advantages. A light rail project is ten times more expensive and it can take a decade or more to build. A BRT system can be implemented in less than three years at a fraction of the cost. Because BRT builds off existing infrastructure and has a high carrying capacity of up to 270 passengers per vehicle compared to 180 per train for light rail, it is simply more economical than light rail. A typical BRT system costs between $1 million and $35 million per mile, while a light rail or subway system typically costs $13-$336 million per mile. Moreover, BRT systems always run at capacity with buses added as passenger demand requires it. And though derailments are rare, a derailment can shut down a whole system as occurred earlier this month in San Francisco. The other key advantage to the Curitiba and Bogotá models is that their BRTs are not publicly subsidized. That frees up city budgets to pay for needed investments in healthcare, education and parks.

Jaime Lerner, the three time mayor of Curitiba who created the basics of the BRT system back in the 1970s, likes to say that simple solutions to complex urban problems are generally the better answer. With transportation responsible for as much as a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, reducing fossil fuel use in the sector is considered critical.  A 2006 study found that Los Angeles' Orange Line BRT is saving more than 18,600 barrels of oil per year. Getting American out of their cars five days a week is a national security imperative. If Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has never been to Curitiba, he should hop on the next plane. Below a video on the Los Angeles BRT and below the fold some projects currently being considered for San Francisco (which I am working on), the Oakland-Alameda East Bay Metroplex, Birmingham and Washington DC areas.

San Francisco, CA

Birmingham, Alabama

The In-Town Transit Partnership has spent almost three years designing a bus rapid transit corridor (BRT) that will serve as the backbone for Birmingham's regional transit system. For more information on the In-Town Transit Partnership and other proposed transit related improvements in the Greater Birmingham Area, visit the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham contact website at www.rpcgb.ort or call Darrell Howard, Principal Transportation Planner at dhoward@rpcgb.org.

East Bay Bus Rapid Transit

AC Transit's vision for a Bus Rapid Transit system connecting Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro, California. For more information, please visit Act For Me.

Washington, DC K-Street Busway

Tags: BRT Systems, Curitiba, Jaime Lerner, Los Angeles, Secretary Ray LaHood (all tags)



Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

The arguments for BRT make a lot of sense... and yet, I'm awfully happy it's LRT that's going to be running down the Central Corridor in the Twin Cities and not an expanded bus system.  I doubt we'd have bought a home by the future rail line were it buses that were going in.  Silly?  Maybe... but there's a certain caché with fixed rail transit (and perhaps a certain type of development it encourages-- that I don't know).

by dvk 2009-11-27 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

The issue with bus rapid transit is that often, it's not that rapid.  But that's a matter of policy, not fundamental engineering.  It's hard to convince car-centric suburbanites to build asphalt and not let every damn SUV drive on it.

In Baltimore, we have a rather weak light rail line.  Through downtown Baltimore, it is slower than many north-south bus routes that run parallel to it, and it doesn't go very fast in the suburbs either.  The problem is the low speed limits on the at-grade vehicles, coupled with miserable traffic light management.  I'd love to see a bicycle race against the light rail down Howard Street.

But properly implemented, you can get an entire bus rapid transit system of 80-100 miles of corridor for the price of a 1 or 2-spoke light rail line.  And if you make the investment in traffic signal controls, curb cuts, dedictated rights of way and getting rid of overly cautious speed limits on the exclusive right-of-way, middle class people will board it.  If you make the buses comfortable with low floors - hardly space-age technology - people will take it.

If you invest in real stations like in this video, not just unprotected sticks in concrete, and put in some realistic measure of security, middle class people will use it rather than pay for parking and sit in traffic.  But if you half-ass it, make a low-rent experience, people who have choices will tell light rail or BRT to go kill itself.  Wish there were a more politically correct way of saying it.

by Bruce Godfrey 2009-11-27 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Actually when BRT is built correctly, it is MUCH faster than light rail.  The problem is, here in the States we don't any good examples to compare to.

BRT is faster than light rail because rail vehicles can't pass each other.  That means every train stops at every stop, precluding any sort of "express" service.  

Furthermore, buses can do local service in a neighborhood, turn onto the BRT facility, and swoosh downtown (or to a suburban employment center) in a fraction of the time it would take to ride a bus, transfer to rail, stop at every stop, etc.

BRT is cheaper, faster, better.  Google Ottawa busway or Brisbane BRT and you'll see some serious, non-3rd world success stories.

by billycub 2009-11-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

And just how is this different from a regular bus system? From the previous comments, it sounds like it uses dedicated lanes -- and you're still going to have problems like traffic lights and relatively low speeds compared to rail. Plus you're going to piss off commuters, who I guarantee would rather see additional lanes for themselves rather than being backed up in traffic next to a lightly used dedicated bus lane. And what about areas that allow curbside parking? How are you going to run a dedicated bus lane through there?

by bucky katt 2009-11-27 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

If you watch the LA video, it shows the hallmarks of a BRT system.

Dedicated lanes, pre-paid boarding, buses at frequent intervals (every 60 seconds), level platform entry for easy access, smart traffic lights, inter-modal transport options.

Commuting by car is unsustainable. Phoenix in the long run is a failed city. You can choose to drive yourselves into the ground or you can change your behaviour.

LRT is laudable effort but it is ten more expensive than BRTs and less flexible.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

What are the long term costs like?  My understanding, call it lightly educated, is that buses wear out faster than trains do, and that the overall energy use is higher.

Then there are the comfort issues of bus vs. rail.  I travelled in Italy for a month.  Train was far better than bus although both had their distinct places.  Trains were for longer trips, bus's were local, and WALKING was expected for a large portion of it.  THAT expectation might make America think twice as we don't seem to be walking inclined.  :)

by Hammer1001 2009-11-27 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems
  We're currently arguing in suburban DC (Maryland) over whether to have light rail or rapid-transit bus from Montgomery County to Prince George's county.  Light rail is winning.  I favor light rail too.
   Light rail is less flexible, and that is a good thing.  Transit authorities can't dismantle the routes when it suits them.  Rapid-bus transit makes areas a lot less walkable with all the additional lanes.  My area is walkable and highly congested, and it would do better to but light rail underground, not add lanes to already overcrowded residential streets.  BRT seems more suitable for sprawling western cities, not highly dense northeastern cities.
by cilerder86 2009-11-27 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Actually BRTs now are designed to encourage inter-modal transit especially pedestrian and biking. In the downtown areas, pedestrian malls are often planned. The plan for Birmingham, AL includes one.

Putting a LRT underground raises the cost by a factor of 100. The Second Avenue subway in NY ran over a billion dollars a mile.

Bogotá is a city of 7 million. Beijing is putting them in so is Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore. In fact, over 80 cities have them now with another 100 cities getting started.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

The Second Avenue Subway in no way can be compared with BRT. It will handle over 200,000 riders a day and rival the Lexington Ave Line and the future Wilshire Line in LA for busiest subway in the country. In fact, BRT cannot approach the capacity of heavy rail, but that's why no one ever compares BRT (or LRT) to traditional heavy rail subways.

BRT needs to basically be light rail with asphalt instead of rails to be successful. In the U.S., it really hasn't been done that way. But there still is a mental vision of a bus versus a train, and for whatever reason, the train wins every time.

It's also pretty much a half-assed solution. Cities that need heavy-rail subways will build BRT and say their transportation system is complete. New York is doing this now, such as with the very busy BX-12 express BRT bus on Fordham Road, which could probably be the anchor of a cross-town outer borough subway line if the city had the money or the will to build it. It's still successful, but only works because it connects subway stops with transit deprived areas.

by ctman1638 2009-11-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

You're right about the mental obstacle. Portland cited it in its decision to go with LRT.

I'm not sure about the half-assed solution nor the capacity. Curitiba's BRT moves almost as many people as Sao Paulo subway in terms of passenger per hour per line at peak. Buses have tighter headways - 13 seconds - versus a minute for rail.

I like the Fordham line.

But again the point I am trying to make is that LRT is expensive and in an age of tight budgets every dollar spent on a LRT is a dollar that can't be spent on Afghanistan.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Oops. I meant healthcare or any other domestic priority, not Afghanistan.

Granted I think Afghanistan is a huge waste of scarce dollars.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

I think you mean that Iraq is a large waste of scarce dollars.

Afghanistan is a war strategy that needs to be reformed, but by securing the country and their government is extremely valuable and hardly a waste of the US taxpayer dollars (as say opposed to a blank check to Wall Street).

by Dickie Simpkins 2009-11-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Here in Boston...

The green line here in Boston is the oldest subway in North America. Outside the City Center, it operates as a streetcar system. The division between light rail and streetcars is subtle. While the green line is technically referred to as a trolley or streetcar system, there are few significant differences to light rail (LRT), and the streetcar portion of the system predates Portland by about 50 years.

We also have the silver line here in Boston, which is bus rapid transit (BRT). I am a Civil Engineer, and I have ridden it extensively. I was not involved with the original engineering.

I agree that there are some merits to BRT, namely the lower cost. But there are also large drawbacks that aren't mentioned.

Unless you are creating new right of way (ROW) for rapid transit, closed to other vehicles, then you are likely not reducing travel time and convenience significantly.

And it is that new ROW that is the bulk of the construction cost for either project. A BRT with new right of way will cost more to build (but not operate) than LRT using existing right of way.

The silver line uses new ROW and also operates at street level in supposedly dedicated travel lanes. When on its own ROW, there is little difference between between the silver line and riding any of the light (or heavy) rail lines. However, when operating on the surface and sharing lanes, the general feel is that it is no different than riding any other bus.

BRT advocates point to computerized technology that enables the buses to overcome the hurdles inherent in sharing your ROW with traffic. I am unconvinced. The Sierra Club produced a scathing and subjective report highlighting the shortcomings of BRT.

I agree that when faced with the choice of nothing versus BRT, go with BRT. I argue that it must be built with the possibility to be upgraded to LRT in the future. But I also believe that many benefits of BRT of overstated, to put it mildly.

It is very hard for taxpayers to swallow tens (even when in comparison to hundreds) of millions of dollars for a transit system that looks and feels like riding a bus. Buses have a huge comfort disadvantage (as well as an ADA disadvantage). This gives the uneducated public a negative perception of transit projects in general.

For urban areas, the challenge will always be to create new ROW. But this brings up the subject of eminent domain...

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-27 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Here in Boston...

A BRT by definition requires dedicated lanes. Otherwise it is just a bus line.

The reason that Portland went with a light rail system is that in their studies buses were perceived as inferior to trains. Buses aren't sexy. But they are efficient and cost-effective. You can't transport as many people on a LRT as you can on a BRT.

Bogotá's BRT reduced carbon emissions by 40% in the first year and in 2006 the system became the first transportation system in the world to be certified to sell carbon offsets.

The Sierra Club report is about Boston and largely over a tunnel. Furthermore drawing a <> in the lane doesn't make it a dedicated lane. You need a physical barrier because otherwise cars will just break the law.

It is also true that a BRT can be converted to LRT in future. The big advantage for an LRT is that it is powered by electricity which can come renewable energy sources. Buses run either on diesel or natural gas.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Here in Boston...

Municipalities with LRT and BRT often use a shared ROW for part of the route to cut cost. Even when the ROW is not shared, there are often MV ROW at grade crossings. This is a major detriment to both.

However, both BRT and LRT can be powered by electricity.

Here in Boston, we have several existing bus lines (referred to as trackless trolleys) that run on electricity, and the silver line (our BRT) uses electricity for the dedicated ROW portion (and then must undergo a painstakingly slow crossover). Electric buses exist in many countries.

Yes, the Sierra Club report was highly subjective and carried on about the tunnel (a completely separate issue). But the key source of public contention was receiving an ineffective BRT system in place of a promised LRT system to replace a heavy rail/elevated system demolished two decades prior.

If the Bogota system used electric busses (I don't know if it does), it is possible it could have offset even more carbon.

To me, though, it doesn't matter so much as to whether a system is LRT or BRT. Both must have dedicated ROW, and in the US, that will be hard to implement without either costly tunneling or eminent domain.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-27 06:58PM | 0 recs
Easy come, easy go

If it's cheap to bring a bus line in, it's just as cheap to take it out. The trouble with BRT is that without fixed infrastructure, you can't plan around the buses being there next year or ten years from now. So you won't see the kind of transit-centric building that springs up around subway stations.

by taradinoc 2009-11-27 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Easy come, easy go

Curitiiba has had a BRT since the early 1970s and they have only expanded them. Brisbane opened a line five years. So successful that it is being expanded. In Los Angeles, they were expecting 18,000 riders per day. They got 26,000 meanwhile Denver's LRT is getting a 10% occupancy rate. That' one of the beauties of a BRT you can tailor the size of the bus to ridership (buses come in 3 sizes) while light rail cars come in oner size only.

You don't get it. Every dollar that you pour into a LRT is a dollar that you can't spend on healthcare, on education. So by going with a BRT you can then invest in other projects.

SF has a $522 million dollar deficit. Most cities face similar shortfalls.  

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 11:38AM | 0 recs
L.A. Orange Line

   Part of the reason the Orange line busway was possible and is successful is that the right of way already was there going across parts of the San Fernando Valley. There used to be streetcars and other rail lines in some of those places. While the busway (and bike lane and walking trail) had to be built, they had a head start from the old days. The other thing is that the Orange Line connects to the Red Line subway which then can take you from the SFV to Hollywood and Downtown L.A. I was skeptical when it was being built but it has grown a large ridership. I don't ride it because I live along the Ventura Blvd corridor farther south. We have express buses which go to the subway station near Universal City. The Rapid Bus is good except when traffic gets real slow on the Boulevard. There is the advantage of a dedicated busway; those buses on the Orange Line don't get stuck in traffic.

by Zack from the SFV 2009-11-27 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Charles when you are talking about the Everett BRT and the Charlotte LRT, you are talking apples to oranges.  It's silly to compare them because they are completely different service types and goals.

Your capacity numbers are for buses that aren't even allowed to run in the United States because of safety issues.  The largest bus operating now is 65 feet on the Orange Line in LA.  And unlike your comment above, LRT can be scaled:

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2008 /04/streetcar-scalability-and-capacity.h tml

As for implementation time, BRT has to go through the same environmental regs as a light rail system.  In fact San Francisco has been designing BRT for over 10 years now.  It would be nice if we could just build BRT where we wanted to, but unfortunately they have a lot of hoops to jump as well.

I've been involved in the mode wars for a while now, but I understand the need for BRT.  Actually many regular bus lines in the united states that don't have the passenger density for LRT should be upgraded to BRT.  It would greatly improve transit ridership all over the country.  On the other hand, in places where you need LRT, BRT isn't going to get the job done.  There's a huge difference in how places like South America operate and how the United States operates.

In any event, I highly suggest everyone here go and read Human Transit on this exact same subject. It's much more thorough and goes through all the arguments in a super detailed manner over about 4-5 long posts.  This subject is a lot more intricate and nuanced than this post makes it out to be.  

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/bus- rapid-transit-some-questions-to-ask.html

PS: Woohoo 1st MyDD post.  Sorry it took so long to sign up.  I've been reading since 06 and just never felt compelled to get involved.  

by The Overhead Wire 2009-11-27 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

This post is intended to be a cursory introduction, not a fully developed treatise. The post is after all but 4 paragraphs long. Really I am taking advantage of the Everett BRT coming on line to make a point about costs and budget priorities. At any rate, this is the first of a series of posts on urban problems and on transportation.

No question that there are societal differences between LATAM and the US. BRTs have a headway (distance bet. vehicles) in LATAM of just 13 seconds. I doubt that's possible in the US. Even so studies that I have seen point to 28,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) for US lines.

The two BRT lines in SF has been held up for more than just environmental impact studies but my point is more that from the time the first shovel to the time it is operational, the time frame for BRT system is under two years compared to an LRT which is closer to a decade.

LRTs are likely inevitable simply because they run on electrical power. Still they are currently running at least 10x more per mile. I chose Charlotte's because that's the cheapest cost per mile for an LRT. Pittsburgh's North Shore Connector, a 1.2 mile project, cost $435 million or $363 million per mile. Granted the cost for the Pittsburgh NSC is largely due to tunnels.

The larger point I want to make is about budget priorities. Can we use BRTs as an alternative transportation solution even if on an interim basis given the daunting budget shortfalls we face? I believe that we can.

Jaime Lerner and Enrique Peñalosa both make the same point. When they came into office, they were presented with transport projects that would have exhausted their budgets for everything else. So they opted for what they thought was a stop-gap transportation project and discovered instead that BRTs were just if not more efficient. What Bogotá proved was that BRTs could work in a dense urban environment. And the success in Brisbane proved that BRTs are not just for a third world environment.

In the US, we face several unsustainable trends. Healthcare and transportation being two of the most pressing. The number of commuters using mass transit in most US cities is in single digits. That's unsustainable. I think it prudent to consider BRTs as a substitute for a number of LRT projects even if only on an interim basis because it will allow much needed social investment on other fronts.

Welcome to MyDD. I look forward to your insights. And I must admit it is rather cool than a post on a topic as mundane as buses drew such great comments and feedback.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-27 05:29PM | 0 recs
thanks for de-lurking!

Hope you will contribute more in the future.

by desmoinesdem 2009-11-28 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

I think really good BRT systems, and not just glorified bus lines, with their own ROW, really nice buses, stops, etc end up costing comparable to light rail for capital expenses (ie $30-$50 million / mile), and then they have higher operating expenses than light rail b/c typically your bus fleet requires many, many more operators than trains.

And isn't Curitiba adding rail lines now?

I think BRT is great, but light rail is still the way to go for denser areas (or areas where we should be promoting density) like most major US cities.

by mikes101 2009-11-27 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems


This is one of the best diaries I have read on mydd in a while. Too much of the banter has been on the politics of the day and less about issues.  So this post is very refreshing.

I travel frequently in Asia, and have been blessed to witness many variations of the BRT. I have actually been on one in Brasil (but I can't remember the city, Sao Paolo or Rio), and it was a great system.  Passengers get on from the middle of the street, and the lanes are "bricked off" from other traffic. The traffic light systems, etc work really well.

Specifically in Asia, I have witnessed huge money poured into and ultimately failed in the BRT system in Bangkok.  The way done here was a bad project from the word 'go', and the finishing has been impossible.  Imagine, they have everything here from the stations, etc., but the bus system, and the cordoning off of the lane is impossible. But I blame this on the planning, not on the BRT itself.

In Delhi, the BRT system is wonderful. In general, Delhi has a great Metro Rail and BRT system in place now, that it has become easier to travel far distances. However within the "colonies" (Delhi-ite term for suburban districts), travel is still restrictive, and cabbies or private taxis make up for it.

For the US, BRT should be a no-brainer, but it involves a lot of committment, and seemingly in the United States, you have politicians who still don't believe in limiting carbon emissions, much less stating that global warming is a hoax of epic proportions (and we're the leader of the free world... go figure). I could see wonderful BRT systems in place like Washington DC, Richmond VA, and major West Coast cities in general.

The BRT, if planned properly, is a cheap way of reducing carbon footrpint, while maintaining good public service.

Once again, great diary. I really think there should be studies of the Bangkok BRT, which is an epic fail.

by Dickie Simpkins 2009-11-27 07:32PM | 0 recs
brt and light rail

my point of the Bangkok story was actually to highlight that in dense urban environments, perhaps the better way to go would be light rail, but for more sparse urban/suburban environments (like New Delhi which is more a collection of 'colonies' than a major city with a dense downtown).

by Dickie Simpkins 2009-11-27 07:35PM | 0 recs
East Bay BRT probably not happening

I live in the service area of AC Transit that has been planning for a BRT line from Berkeley through Oakland to San Leandro for several years.  I live in Richmond so the BRT is not something that would personally benefit me.  I do strongly support the idea and have been a long-time fan every since I read about its genesis in Curitiba.

There has been a very vocal minority opposed to it in Berkeley which fortunately has done no more than slow things down.  However, due to a huge drop in revenue, the AC Transit Board is seriously considering shifting the money budgeted for BRT to supporting current bus routes.  I would guess that the Board will, indeed, make that decision in the near future.  Given how severely current bus routes would have been cut, I think saying no to BRT for now is probably the right decision.  

by chrisdarling 2009-11-28 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bus Rapid Transit Systems

somebody sold you a bill of goods. those BRT systems in south america remain failures, just as they are here in north america and around the world. that why Ottawa is undergoing an extremely expensive retrofit to do what they should have done in the first place -- rail. south american cities are building subways now, like they should have done in the first place.

fortunately, even tiny island developing nations have learned from the horrible mistakes of Lerner and his dreadful bus experiment, and so are going straight to rail.

but don't take my word for it -- search out some real facts, like the percentage of bus riders before and after BRT in places like Curitiba and Bogota. BRT achieved zero mode shift. get some facts about the ever-increasing car ownership in those cities, including along those bus lines. get some facts about the overcrowding and pick-pocketing and groping so prevalent on those buses because they have so little capacity.

the US is going BRT-crazy? could have fooled me. i could have sworn everybody was busy building rail lines. shows how much i know.

read an account of someone who actually went and saw for themselves:

A contrast I noticed between two of my days in Bogota best describes my experience there. I spent a Saturday riding by myself through many of the bike paths that my guide Andres had not shown me on the day before.

It was a pretty bad day. I have never seen traffic like what I saw that day, in any city. Nor have I breathed such polluted air. And this is coming from someone who is a frequent visitor to Mexico City! Bogota traffic was considerably worse than anything I have ever seen in Mexico, and the air was worse, too.

The bike paths were nice, but they ran alongside busy streets that were full of cars, buses, and trucks belching out fumes. Many of these vehicles are Chinese-made and appear to have no emissions controls whatsoever.

Also, many of the bike paths went along sidewalks that were so full of pedestrians doing some Saturday shopping that bicycling on them was not really feasible.

At the end of that day I retired to my hotel with stinging eyes and lungs and the strong feeling that it is not bike advocates so much as car advocates who need to visit Bogota. It truly is a pre-apocalyptic technological dystopia there, all because of the damned cars. If someone had asked me on that day if I could live in Bogota, I would have said no . . . f . . . ing . . . way. I would do anything necessary not to live in that city.

so i say, go ahead, build your own BRT systems and experience dystopia for yourself in your own hometown. just don't push it in my hometown.

by shmooth 2009-12-23 12:14PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads