Bus Rapid Transit
Bus System Design Features That Significantly Improve Service Quality And Cost Efficiency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
August 27, 2007
This chapter describes “Bus
Rapid Transit,” which refers to bus transit systems with various features that
improve service quality.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, also sometimes called O-bahn) refers to a set of bus system design features that provide high quality and cost-effective transit service. These include:
In the past, bus transit was generally considered an inferior service, to be provided for people who lack alternatives, and in communities that cannot afford “better” transportation services such as rail or private automobile. This creates a self-fulfilling prophesy, resulting in reduced investment and support for bus transit, and an emphasize on cost minimization, that leads to inferior service. Bus Rapid Transit represents a shift in perception, so decision-makers recognize that buses can provide high quality service which can attract discretionary travelers (those who have alternative travel options).
Bus Rapid Transit is considered a more affordable
alternative to Rail for improving transit service
quality and attracting travelers who would otherwise drive on congested urban
corridors. It was initially implemented in less developed countries such as
Bus Rapid Transit systems are usually implemented through a cooperative effort involving local planning agencies and transit service providers. To be effective it requires coordination of roadway design and management, bus purchasing, transit operations, local land use planning decisions, transit marketing and TDM programs.
Bus Rapid Transit requires that bus transit be given increased respect and priority in transportation planning decisions, including investments, roadway management and land use development. Where transit service quality is currently poor, BRT implementation may require policy and institutional reforms, such as changes in transportation planning and roadway management practices (to give buses priority in traffic); vehicle purchasing; transit regulations and contacting (to maintain a high quality of service); and urban design (to increase development near BRT routes).
Where it is effectively implemented, Bus Rapid Transit can significantly improve transit service and increase transit ridership, particularly under congested urban conditions (Currie, 2005; Evans and Pratt, 2007), although there is some debate as to how BRT compares with rail transit service (Litman, 2004). The table below summarizes the total ridership growth and portion of new transit riders achieved by various BRT systems.
Table 2 BRT
Ridership Impacts
(BC Transit, Unpublished Research)
|
BRT System |
Ridership Growth |
Portion of New Transit Users |
|
|
30% |
23% |
|
|
35-40% |
24% |
|
|
84% |
NA |
|
|
27-42% |
NA |
|
|
66% |
32% |
BRT tends to attract more riders than lower quality bus transit service, and less than Light Rail Transit service on the same corridor, but in situations in which BRT provides greater service coverage (such as dispersed destinations with low to moderate transit demand), it may attract more total riders than rail for a given investment.
Table 3 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Explanation |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
3 |
Can reduce automobile use. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
3 |
Tends to be attractive for
commute trips. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
2 |
Can encourage
higher-density, clustered land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
1 |
Can support cycling. |
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
Supports pedestrian travel. |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
By improving service quality BRT provides direct benefits to transit users. By making transit more attractive to discretionary travelers on congested urban corridors, BRT can provide a variety of benefits, including reduced traffic congestion, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, improved mobility options for non-drivers, increased safety, reduced pollution, and support for urban infill. Many BRT features improve operating efficiency, increase transit demand, and reduce unit costs of providing transit service.
BRT
implementation requires various investments in vehicles, facilities and
increased management responsibilities. It may require reducing parking or
general traffic lanes, and it may change traffic patterns in ways that may harm
some people (such as businesses that lose on-street parking). The magnitude of
these incremental costs varies and depends on how they are Evaluated.
Bruun (2005) compares BRT and LRT annual operating costs using
Critics claim that BRT is less effective the rail at attracting transit ridership, particularly discretionary riders, and so tends to be less cost effective overall (NJARP, 2006). BRT appears to contribute less than rail transit to Transit Oriented Development, although the differences are difficult to quantify and may be minimized with supportive, New Urbanist land use policies.
Table 4 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
3 |
Reduces automobile use on
congested corridors. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces road space and
parking requirements. Buses may increase road wear costs. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases transport choice
for non-drivers. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Tends to be safer than
driving overall. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Tends to reduce air
pollution. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
Tends to discourage sprawl. |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
Contributes to neighborhood
livability. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Bus Rapid Transit tends to benefit a broad range of people, including those who already use bus transit, those who shift to bus due to improved service, and those who continue to drive but experience less traffic and parking congestion. Because people who are economically, socially and physically disadvantaged tend to rely heavily on bus transit, BRT tends to support Equity Objectives. It improves Transportation Options, provides Basic Mobility, and increases Affordability.
Table 5 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
1 |
Provides benefits that are
valued by most groups. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
0 |
Requires subsidies, but
often less than for driving. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility for lower-income people. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Provides mobility for
non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Provides basic mobility. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Bus Rapid Transit is particularly appropriate on congested urban corridors, although it can be integrated with other transport services, such as longer-distance bus routes and Park & Ride lots, and so can help improve transportation throughout an urban region.
Table 6 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
2 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
1 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
0 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
1 |
Neighborhood association. |
1 |
|
|
|
Campus |
2 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved Transport Choice
Bus Rapid Transit supports and is supported by most other TDM strategies, particularly Transit Improvements, HOV Priority, Commute Trip Reduction programs, Transit Oriented Development, Nonmotorized Transportation Planning, and Parking Management. Bus Rapid Transit is often considered an alternative to Light Rail Transit.
Bus Rapid Transit requires support from various government agencies, businesses or local residents. Patrons and labor organizations are also affected.
Major barriers to BRT implementation include a lack of leadership, limited funds, automobile oriented land use planning, and stigma that is sometimes associated with buses.
Myths of BRT (Wright, 2004)
|
Myth |
Reality |
|
BRT cannot compete
with rail system capacity. |
Bogotá’s TransMilenio
system moves 36,000 passengers per hour per direction while BRT corridors in |
|
BRT is only
appropriate for small cities with low population densities. |
BRT is implemented in
many large cities, including Bogotá which has 7 million inhabitants, |
|
BRT requires a great
deal of road space and cannot be built in narrow roadways |
Design solutions
exist for virtually every road space circumstance. |
|
BRT cannot compete
with rail options in terms of speed and travel time |
A US GAO study found
that a comparison of BRT and LRT systems actually showed that BRT systems
produced faster average speeds (US GAO, 2001). |
|
BRT uses vehicles with
rubber tyres which is an inferior technology; customers will never accept BRT |
It is doubtful that
anyone in Bogotá, |
|
BRT cannot deliver
the transit-oriented development and land use advantages of rail |
Experience in cities
such as Bogotá and |
|
BRT is fine as a
feeder service, but it cannot serve main corridors |
BRT can provide both
feeder service and on high-density mainline urban corridors. |
Various publications, including Levinson (2003) and Wright (2004) provide guidance for implementing BRT. Best practices include:
|
A
dog went to a telegram office, took out a blank form and wrote: “Woof.
Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof.” The
clerk examined the paper and politely told the dog: “There are only nine
words here. You could send another ‘Woof’ for the same price.” “But,” the dog replied, “that would make no sense
at all.” |
For more examples and case studies see Levinson (2003) and Wright (2004) and the Bus Rapid Transit Exchange (www.fta.dot.gov/brt).
In
recent years a number of Bus Rapid Transit projects have been implemented,
resulting in benefits to users and increased ridership.
·
Bus travel times on
·
·
The
Adelaide O-Bahn is the world’s fastest guided busway, and at 12 kilometres the
world's longest. It originally opened in 1986 as a part of the Adelaide Metro
in South Australia, shuttling over seven million passengers back and forth a
year. The project cost around $98m Australian dollars. It takes roughly 20
minutes to travel the length of the busway. The busway runs from the Adelaide
Central Business District (CBD) to
The technology behind the O-Bah