Uruguay
The Uruguayan government evaluates a metropolitan BRT network and sets aside the metro option
A report from the Metropolitan Transport System Agency compares rapid buses and light rail for the main corridors in the metropolitan area. The document argues that the bus alternative would allow a broader expansion of the network over the next 15 years.
The Metropolitan Transport System Agency, made up of the national government and the municipalities of Montevideo, Canelones and San José, prepared a report on the future trunk mobility system for the metropolitan area. According to reports by El País and El Observador, the first stage foresees work on the 8 de Octubre-Camino Maldonado and avenida Italia-avenida Giannattasio corridors, both connected with 18 de Julio.
The official diagnosis warns of a sustained deterioration in public transport over recent decades. According to the document, the annual number of passengers fell from around 400 million in the 1990s to 200 million in 2025. The report links that decline to the rise of private cars, along with the impact of the 2002-2004 crisis and the covid-19 pandemic.
The text proposes replacing the current point-to-point line scheme with a trunk-feeder network, with high-capacity corridors and complementary services. It also says the average commercial speed of buses is around 16 km/h, below the 21 to 22 km/h of private traffic, and sets a target of bringing the main corridors up to about 25 km/h.
The possibility of building a heavy metro between Montevideo and Canelones was ruled out because of demand levels. The report notes that this type of project is usually justified by flows close to 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, while the highest-demand corridor in the metropolitan area records about 4,300 passengers per hour per direction.
Against that backdrop, the comparison focuses on a BRT system and an LRT, that is, a tram or light rail. ASTM argues that service quality does not depend only on whether vehicles run on rails or tires, but on factors such as traffic priority, dedicated lanes, intersection treatment, the payment system and the distance between stops. According to the report, a well-designed BRT can offer performance comparable to that of a rail system for the expected demand.
In terms of capacity, the study does not find a conclusive advantage for either model on the corridors analyzed. The document says the superiority of LRT begins to become relevant with demand of between 8,000 and 10,000 passengers per hour per direction. By contrast, the maximum estimate is 4,300 on 8 de Octubre and up to 2,500 on avenida Italia.
The Tres Cruces hub appears as one of the critical points because of congestion. The report says both BRT and LRT would require specific works, including underground solutions, to ensure traffic continuity, although it stresses that those geometric requirements and their costs are greater in the case of the rail system.
The main difference lies in investment. According to the document cited by El País, the estimated cost for the two corridors is about US$ 575 million in the case of BRT and US$ 1,544 million for LRT. ASTM argues that this gap would make it possible, with the same amount of public resources, to develop a more extensive network of rapid bus corridors.
Official planning foresees that, over a 15-year horizon, the network will add at least five radial axes and two crosswise routes linking the three departments of the metropolitan area. In that framework, the report presents BRT as the most viable alternative to build a complete metropolitan network rather than limiting itself to one or two isolated lines.
Sources
About this note. Written by El Notero with the assistance of artificial intelligence, based on what was published by the cited outlet. El Notero did not conduct its own reporting on this event.
