| Technology |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Some
cities
where operating |
Useful
for |
| Heavy
rail systems - underground, elevated or at
grade |
Very high carrying capacity
High speedVery low pollution in operations
Needs very little urban space
|
Very high capital costs
High per unit operating costs if capacity
utilization is low
Inflexible
Needs extensive feeder network or very dense
captive area
Complex interconnectivity with feeder system
Relatively complex technology requiring
highly specialized manpower for O&M
|
Singapore,
Tokyo, Hongkong and several cities in Europe
and North America |
Very
high density corridors, where road space is
very limited.
Well suited for densely populated cities that
have low sprawl and few spinal, long haul
corridors
At grade systems are very good for suburban
systems and the fringe areas of a city where
space is more easily available |
| Light
rail systems |
Capital
costs are less than for heavy rail systems
Per unit operating costs are less than for
heavy rail systems
Low pollution levels
Needs less urban space than bus based systems
Needs limited urban space if elevated or u
n d e r g r o u n d (however capital costs
go up |
Capital costs higher than
for bus systems
Inflexible
Per unit operating costs higher than for
bus systems if capacity utilization is low
Needs substantial urban space if at grade
Carrying capacity is lower than for heavy
rail systems though comparable to high capacity
bus systems
Needs extensive feeder network or dense
captive area
Complex interconnectivity with feeder system
Relatively complex technology requiring
specialized skills for O&M
|
Several cities
in North America and Europe |
Medium
density corridors where space availability
is adequate for supporting elevated structures
or at grade tracks
Medium density cities with limited sprawl |
| High
capacity bus systems on dedicated lanes |
Capital
costs lower than for rail based systems
Higher capacity than normal bus services
More flexible than rail based systems
Needs less extensive feeder network than rail
based systems
Easy connectivity with feeder system
Relatively simple technology with easy availability
of manpower for O&M |
Capacity
not as high as heavy rail systems though comparable
to light rail systems
More polluting than rail based systems
Needs imported fuel
Needs urban space for dedicated corridor |
Brazil, Colombia
and several other cities in Latin America |
Medium density
corridors where space availability is adequate
for supporting the dedicated right of way
Medium density cities with limited sprawl |
| Sky
bus |
System
is non-polluting Needs limited urban space
for supporting elevated structures |
Not
yet proven anywhere on commercial operations
Inflexible |
|
Medium density
corridors where space is limited Promising
for dense city centers |
| E
l e c t r i c Trolley bus |
Advantages / disadvantages
of normal bus system but with a higher capital
cost, though non-polluting. Relatively inflexible
and impacts city aesthetics due to overhead
clutter.
|
San Francisco |
All routes
suitable for buses but where local pollution
has to be low |
| Normal
buses on shared right of way |
Very
low capital cost
Low operating costs
Highly flexible
Do not need feeder systems |
Very
low capacity
Polluting
Low speeds
Poor social image |
Most cities
around the world |
Low density
corridors where local pollution is not a critical
issue
Feeder to higher capacity systems |
| |
|
|
|
|
HOME 
