Bus Rapid Transit
Bus System Design Features That Significantly Improve Service Quality And Cost Efficiency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes “Bus
Rapid Transit,” which refers to bus transit systems with various features that
improve service quality.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, also called Quickway or 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.
New North American BRT systems have attracted higher ridership than would be expected based on standard modeling of service frequency, travel speed and fare. It is now common practice to apply up to a 12-minute in-vehicle travel time “bias constant” for rail rapid transit (that is, the travel times for mode-split modeling purposes would be 12 minutes shorter for rail in comparison to conventional local bus service), and (Kittleson & Associates, 2007).
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; Litman, 2007a), 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. New
North American Studies of ridership based upon applying elasticities to
arterial street BRT lines in
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 various 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. BRT 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. Kittleson & Associates (2007) provides generic estimates of BRT component costs, such as separate lanes and special vehicles.
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 (Hensher, 2007).
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, 2007)
|
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 (2007) 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 (2007) 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-Bahn is remarkably simple and flexible. Specially
modified buses with guide-wheels attached to the steering arms are used to
travel on the O-Bahn, which enter by aligning the bus with the track which is
made of concrete.
The
buses are driven normally on ordinary streets. This technology allows the bus
to travel at up to a speed of 100km/h. The system is capable of moving 18,000
people an hour in each direction. The O-Bahn consists of 5,800 sleepers, 5,600
pylons drilled to a depth of 3 metres, 4,200 track pieces, 25 bridges, 8
pedestrian overpasses and a 60 metre-long tunnel.
There
is a current proposal to implement an O-Bahn in the Southern suburbs of
(Eric
Taub, The New York Times, September
14, 2000)
Thanks
to new technology plus common sense, 70,000 commuters a day can now often
outpace the drivers on nearby clogged freeways by traveling on two routes
served by red Metro Rapid buses, powered by natural gas. Los Angeles County
transportation officials have managed to shave as much as 25 percent off the
travel time of a local bus trip by adopting technology that, among things, can
keep green lights on just a little longer as the bus approaches – as long as
doing that does not cause another set of traffic problems.
The
regional authority decided to take action because a survey showed that speed
was the biggest complaint of bus passengers. In just a few years, average bus
speeds had declined 17 percent, to just 10 miles per hour from a torrid 12. The
Metropolitan Transportation Authority learned through its surveys that buses
spent half their time standing still, either at red lights or at bus stops,
waiting for passengers to get on and off. Officials had tried to speed things
up a decade earlier by equipping buses with special transmitters that would
hold traffic lights on green until buses passed through. But that just backed
up the traffic on cross-streets, so the initiative was abandoned.
In
1997, traffic officials heard about a similar effort in
On
June 24, the transit authority began a system that gives express buses priority
at traffic signals. It first had to embed 210 antenna loops in the pavement at
various spots along the route. As a bus passes over one of the loops, a $75
transmitter mounted on its front sends an identifying signal to an equipment
box that controls the traffic light at the next intersection. The signal is
also sent to a central control center downtown, so the bus can be tracked in
the computer system.
But
the $10 million project needed to find a way to ease the way for buses to clear
intersections without tying up traffic on cross-streets. So the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation wrote software that lets a green light be extended
– held on green longer or switched to green earlier – for no more than 10
seconds. If several buses approach an intersection as the light is about the
change, they can still get only 10 more seconds of green. Buses arriving later
than that have to wait. And at important intersections, the green light can be
extended in only every other cycle.
To
prevent bus drivers from speeding up to make the system extend green lights,
there are no visual indicators in the buses to tell drivers when some extra
speed would accomplish that. The movement of each express bus is tracked in the
authority’s bus control center downtown, both on a computer screen (using the
transmitter signals) and through information from video cameras placed at
strategic intersections throughout the region.
As
a bus passes over a pair of electronic loops embedded in the street, its speed
is calculated. Then its arrival time is transmitted via a cell phone link to an
electronic display at the next bus stop. Buses are dispatched every 3 to 10
minutes. And if a Metro Rapid bus finishes its route quicker than scheduled,
that’s fine. That just makes for a more contented rider. To prevent Metro Rapid
buses from bunching up into packs, the central dispatcher radios the driver to
slow down or speed up (without breaking the speed limit) to keep from getting
too close to another bus.
The
project has been successful so far. On the 16-mile
Will
the improvements brought about by this new technology be enough to persuade the
middle classes, and not just people without cars, to use public transportation?
“That’s what we’re hoping for,” Mr. Gephart said. The authority hopes to add 15
to 20 new express lines, he said, and transit systems around the country are
calling him to find out how they can adapt the
A single BRT lane carries six
times more persons than a mixed traffic lane. Travel times along the BRT
corridors have been reduced by a factor of five. This led to an 11% increase in
public transport use and a 27% reduction in traffic accidents during its first
year of operation.
Study finds a slight improvement in traffic flow since the
opening of the Valley busway – although most motorists may not feel the change.
By Caitlin Liu, LA Times (www.latimes.com), 30 December
2005.
The first attempt to
determine if the new Orange Line busway has eased rush-hour traffic has found
an improvement in the morning commute on the 101 Freeway — although one so
small that most harried commuters probably haven’t noticed.
The study of the freeway, conducted by researchers at UC Berkeley on behalf of The
Times, determined that traffic through the south
It also found that congestion on the heavily traveled freeway is now beginning
about 11 minutes later than before the Orange Line opened, with the onset of
the morning slows shifting on average from 6:55 a.m. to 7:06 a.m.
The researchers were quick to point out that the changes are only shaving a few
minutes off a commute that can still take more than an hour and removing
perhaps a few hundred cars from a freeway that carries more than 7,000 vehicles
an hour during peak periods.
But they concluded that traffic on the freeway has improved because of the
Orange Line.
“The freeway is operating more efficiently,” said Hamed Benouar, director of
the
Researchers said that saving even a minute or two a day adds up over time and
results in less smog and a significant saving in gasoline. “When more vehicles
go through at higher speeds, the pollution is less,” Benouar said. “That has an
impact on the environment.”
The research finding is significant, because there had been questions about
whether the Orange Line, despite its high ridership, was actually taking people
out of their cars. The busway now handles about 16,400 passenger boardings a
day. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority estimated before the line opened
that it would have 5,000 to 7,000 daily boardings. But the MTA has acknowledged
that many Orange Line users had already been taking buses to get around, and
critics noted that the park-and-ride lots have been far from full.
Officials don’t know how many of the
“Our objective was to offer
people an alternative to the freeway. Without a doubt, we’ve gotten people out
of their cars,” said
The
The
Because traffic in the
Another factor that
distinguishes the MetroBus system from others is its flat fare. Passengers now
pay $3.50 pesos (about $0.30 USD) per trip regardless of how far they travel, a
departure from the previous distance-based system.
These positive changes have
not gone unnoticed by passengers. In a poll also fielded by CTS/EMBARQ,
MetroBus passengers gave the system an average approval rating of 8.2 out of
10, and 6% of passengers reported having switched from using cars since
MetroBus was opened.
Perhaps the project’s most
important accomplishment is the discussion it has spurred throughout the city
about the need to invest in high quality public transport. Newly elected mayor
Marcelo Ebrard has promised that his administration will build ten more
MetroBus lines during his term.
A number of studies indicate
that quality public transit service tends to increase nearby property values.
Residential and commercial property near transit stations is typically worth
10-20% more than otherwise comparable land farther away, reflecting the value
or transit accessibility and their ability to provide a catalyst for more
accessibile, walkable urban villages, called Transit
Oriented Development. Such impacts are generally associated with rail
transit stations, but there is some evidence that, under the right conditions,
BRT stations can have similar impacts. Rodriguez and Targa (2004) found that,
after controlling for other factors, a reduction of 5 minutes walking time to
BRT stations increases property prices 6.8% to 9.3% in
Between 1999 and 2005, the streamlined routes’
service-hours increased 16.3% while ridership on those routes increased 18.2%.
In contrast, over the same period, the number of vehicle-hours allocated to
non-Frequent Service routes has decreased 2.4% and ridership on those routes
has decreased 0.7%. This represents 12,000 additional weekday bus riders, which
provide $1.7 million additional annual farebox revenue.
The
By Erico Guizzo, Spectrum Online (www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun07/5139)
The concept of a modern,
high-capacity bus system is often called bus
rapid transit (BRT). BRT differs from conventional bus operations in that
the coaches—often newer, more comfortable vehicles—run on dedicated portions of
roadways, and stations feature off-vehicle fare collection and slightly
elevated platforms to speed up boarding. Proponents say BRT systems have lower
construction costs, can be built in a quarter to half the time subways require,
and their operating costs are almost always covered by fare collection,
eliminating the need for subsidies. BRT also offers more flexibility, because
routes can be adjusted as the city grows, different bus types can be deployed,
and cars can be allowed to use bus lanes during weekends.
Now,
there’s some debate about how many people BRT—or other systems, for that
matter—can transport. One way transportation experts assess a system is by
measuring its maximum throughput—much as a mechanical engineer would gauge the
flow of water through a pipe. In that way, a single-lane BRT line is said to
transport up to 15,000 passengers per hour in one direction, or nearly seven
times as many as a freeway car lane. BRT’s capacity is similar to light rail’s
but smaller than that of subway systems, some of which carry more than 50, 000
passengers per hour. Although it would be nice if every metropolis had ample
subway service, building such infrastructure is often beyond a city’s means.
Whereas construction costs for a light-rail line can run anywhere from $15
million to $25 million per kilometer and subway systems from $50 million to
$200 million, BRT systems require from less than $1 million to $20 million.
Not
all bus corridors in
During
the past decade,
“
Other
cities that have built or are planning BRT systems include
How do planners in a megacity like
Use
of public transportation had been declining for decades, but now for the first
time its share is smaller than that of private transportation: 47 percent
versus 53 percent, according to the last major government-sponsored survey.
With more cars on the street, driving has only gotten worse. Rush-hour backups
throughout the city routinely add up to more than 100 km. And every three
minutes, an additional automobile joins the fray. Lined up bumper-to-bumper,
all of
After
locking itself away in the “situation room” for numerous meetings, a group of
experts recently emerged with a major review of
For
the review, Benvenuto summoned transit officials, city planners, consultants,
academics, and representatives from subway, rail, and bus companies. The work
begins with the experts devising plans to increase access to public
transportation, speed up existing services, build new infrastructure, and so
on. Then it’s the modelers’ turn. This subgroup examines the proposed plans
using an urban planning simulator called Tranus, an open-source program used by
dozens of cities that’s like a kind of SimCity—the popular city-design
game—minus the sleek graphics. The program simulates how transportation affects
land use, and vice versa. To run it, the modelers feed in a digital
representation of
The
group’s proposed review envisions an ideal 2025 city where public
transportation ridership increases to about 60 percent, low-income people
double the average number of daily trips they can afford, and even car drivers
benefit, with average traffic speed increasing by 20 percent. The plan will
require $20 billion in investments and calls for a significant expansion in all
types of transportation infrastructure. Most resources will go into extending
the subway network to 168 km from 60 km and the rail system to 372 km from 270
km. The bus system, which will continue to be the city’s largest people mover,
is slated to receive an additional 366 km of dedicated lanes and 40 new
transfer terminals. It’s an ambitious plan. But is it enough?
As
any bus rider here will attest, there’s plenty of room for improvement. Many
lines need better speed and consistency. Decrepit coaches (latas
velhas, or old cans, some would call them) need to be replaced. And some
busways need more lanes and enhanced stations to keep long, slow-moving lines
of coaches from bogging down the whole system. For experts like Pedro Szasz,
Sustainable Transport, No. 23, Institute for Transportation &
Development Policy (http://itdp.org/STe/ste23/johannesburg.html),
March 2007
In November 2006,
Johannesburg City Council approved a full BRT system, to be called Rea Vaya,
which is scheduled to open by April 2009. With the impetus of the upcoming 2010
Soccer World Cup, Mayor Amos Masondo has articulated a new vision of effective
and sustainable public transport. The project is being led by Mayoral Committee
Member Rehana Moosajee and Director of Transportation Bob Stanway. With support
from the Clinton Climate Initiative, operational planning for the system is
beginning in March for the Phase I system. The 94-kilometer (54.4-mile) system
will have a North – South corridor connecting Sunninghill to
A key selling point for Mayor
Masondo was the possibility of incorporating the existing minibus taxi industry
into the new system as private operators. During apartheid the minibus taxi
industry was one of the few places where black South Africans were able to
invest. After the African National Congress took power, in order to prevent the
creation of powerful mafias, no owner was allowed to own more than ten
vehicles. Because of their quasi-legal status, these minibus fleets could never
become formal sector businesses. Currently,
Transantiago is the public
transport system serving
Transantiago’s implementation
was very problematic, indicating the problems that can develop from poor
planning, and the burden this places on users. During the first few months of
operation, many of the bus companies had significantly less than their full
planned fleet in operation, resulting in irregular headways, long queues
outside Metro stations and bus stops, and extreme crowding during peak periods.
The fleet management software (which includes the use of GPS to track bus
locations) was not implemented. Some of the segregated bus corridors were not
completed. There is also criticism of inadequate service to peripheral
neighborhoods that previously had direct bus services.
“
Amid all the bad news about
The spending, which encompasses everything from
museums and hospitals to housing and educational institutions, includes
projects completed since 2000, those now under way and those scheduled to start
within five or six years. The amounts they and nonprofit institutions are
investing will easily dwarf the money spent by government and partners in
the 1990s on sports stadiums and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.
One big reason for the energy is the Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority’s $200 million Euclid Corridor BRT project, which is
reshaping
The mortgage-foreclosure crisis, which has left as
many as 12,000 homes vacant in
“I’m a living example of it,” says developer Dick
Pace, who has spent $7 million over the past two years to turn a 1910 auto
showroom at
Pace and others say that by connecting downtown and
University Circle, the city’s two big employment hubs, Euclid Corridor is
adding value and potential to everything that lies between. Indeed, the price
of an acre in the long-blighted Midtown area has
doubled in the past five years from $200,000 to
$400,000, said Jim Haviland, executive director of the nonprofit Midtown Inc.,
which has assembled 15 acres along
Aside from the anticipated boon for riders, the RTA
project is changing the mood on the avenue by freshening a major piece of
public infrastructure with new utilities, sidewalks, traffic lanes and transit
stops. “Developers gravitate toward places where they see investment
happening,” said Lillian Kuri, director of special projects for the Cleveland
Foundation. “There’s no question [about Euclid Corridor], it’s a catalyst.”
The robust growth of institutions on or near the
avenue, such as the Cleveland Clinic and Cleveland Museum of Art, while not
caused by the Euclid Corridor project, is likely to expand bus ridership and
encourage further investment.
“It’s huge,” said Edward Hill, interim dean of the
If the momentum continues, blighted sections of
This is still hard to imagine downtown, where many
buildings along
The new
Developers want to provide their buildings with cars for
short-term rentals, and include RTA bus passes with leases. They say it
will be far quicker to go from a downtown apartment to the Clinic on the bus
than to drive and hunt for a parking space. Trends contributing to the rebirth
on
The impending revival has a certain déjà vu quality,
said Christopher Leinberger, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in
The
Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (GVTA), the Greater Vancouver Regional
District and Transport
The
But
the problem isn’t the number of riders -- it’s the frequency of the buses.
Heavy commercial and private-vehicle traffic on
“This
is the problem of the banana service,” says Stephen Rees, program manager for
transportation policy at the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (GVTA), whose
job it is to make the
It’s
a concept easily understood by anyone who has waited too long on a rainy day at
a stop without a shelter, and
The
showcase project plans to redesign the streetscape with ‘bus bulges’ –
extensions of the curb at bus stops and intersections that allow buses to load
and unload passengers without pulling out of traffic. These also make street
crossings narrower, reducing the time needed for pedestrian-crossing signals
and speeding up the flow of all traffic.
‘Queue
jumpers’ – short , dedicated bus lanes at congestion points along the route --
will allow buses to move quickly past areas that currently slow them down.
A
signal-priority system will allow buses to ‘hold’ green lights long enough to
get them through intersections, reducing the number of stops for red lights.
Better bus stops, with electronic displays similar to those used on the No. 98
B-Line are to be included to make using the bus more attractive to a wider
range of riders.
The
three-year project aims to improve efficiency by 10 to 15 per cent, and the
GVTA suggests the freed-up resources could be used to increase bus service
along
“What
that does is, it antagonizes people, because it puts fast traffic next to
people who are walking on the sidewalks, and when the sidewalks are crowded,
that’s an uncomfortable feeling for everybody. It also gives people the wrong
impression that what we’re trying to do is just speed up the buses and get you
through your neighborhood, and that’s not the idea at all.”
He
adds that the aim of the
Arturo Ardila-Gómez (2004), Transit Planning in
BRT NewLane (www.calstart.org/programs/brt) provides information on Bus Rapid Transit development.
BRT Resources Website (www.sutp.org/newweb/brt/brtress.htm) maintained by the Sustainable Urban Transport Project, provides a variety of BRT planning guides and other resources.
Eric Bruun (2005), Comparison of BRT and LRT Operating Costs Using a Parametric Cost Model, Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Bus Rapid Transit Exchange Website (www.fta.dot.gov/brt) provides information on various strategies to improve bus transit service performance.
CalTrans (2007), Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov); available at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/DOCS_PDFS/BRT/BRT_Handbook_0307.pdf.
Graham Carey (2006), “Bus Rapid Transit – The Eugene-Springfield, OR, USA, Experience,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 7 (www.ite.org), July 2006, pp. 20-23.
Robert Cervero, et al (2004), Transit-Oriented
Development in the
CIT (2001), Study of European Best Practice in the Delivery of Integrated Transport, Commission for Integrated Transport (www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/exec/index.htm).
Graham Currie (2005), “The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No.1 (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%208-1%20Currie.pdf), pp. 41-55.
Nicolas Estupinan
and Daniel A. Rodriguez (2008), “The Relationship Between Urban Form And
Station Boardings For
John E. Evans and Richard H. Pratt (2007), Transit Oriented Development; Chapter 17, Travel Response To Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1034.
FTA, Bus Rapid Transit/Reference Guide/Case Studies, Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov/7644_14601_ENG_HTML.htm).
GAO (2001), Mass Transit; Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-O1-984 (www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf).
Carmen Hass-Klau, Graham Crampton, Carsten Biereth & Volker Deutsch (2003), Bus or Light Rail: Making The Right Choice, Environmental and Transportation Planning (www.etphassklau.co.uk).
Brendon Hemily and Rolland King (2008), Uses of Higher Capacity Buses in Transit
Service, TCRP Synthesis 75,
Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org);
at www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9213.
David A. Hensher (2007), Bus Transport: Economics, Policy and Planning, Research in Transportation Economics Vol. 18, Elsevier (www.elsevier.com).
David A. Hensher and Thomas F. Golog (2008), “Bus Rapid Transit Systems - A Comparative Assessment,” Transportation (forthcoming), Insitute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Australia (www.itls.usyd.edu.au).
Dario Hidalgo (2006), Comparing Transit Alternatives After Recent Developments in BRT in
Latin America, Transportation
Research Board 85th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org);
available at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/Files/06-2186.pdf.
Alan Hoffman (2008), Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The “Quickway” Model as a Modal Alternative to “Light Rail Lite,” National BRT Institute (www.nbrti.org), Federal Transit Administration, USDOT; at www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/BRT%20Network%20Planning%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
IEA (2002), Bus Systems for the Future: Achieving Sustainable Transport Worldwide, International Energy Agency (www.iea.org).
Kittleson & Associates (1999), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP Web Document 6, Project A-15, TRB, (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/TCRP+A-15).
Kittleson &
Associates (2007), Bus Rapid Transit
Practitioner’s Guide,
Report 118, Transit
Cooperative Research Program, TRB (www.trb.org);
at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf.
Peter Koonce, Paul Ryus, David Zagel, Young Park and Jamie Parks (2006), “An Evaluation of Comprehensive Transit Improvements—TriMet’s Streamline Program,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 3, (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt), pp. 103-115; available at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-3S%20Koonce.pdf.
Herbert Levinson, et al. (2003), Bus Rapid Transit: Vol. 1 - Case Studies and Vol. 2 - Implementation Guide, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 90, Transportation Research Board (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v1.pdf).
Herbert Levinson, Kelly Blume,
Alan Danaher and Samuel Zimmerman (2008), Bus
Rapid Transit: Assessing Costs and Effects, Transportation Research Board 87th Annual
Meeting (www.trb.org).
Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2007), Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements: Considering Comfort and Convenience In Transport Project Evaluation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/traveltime.pdf.
Todd Litman (2007), Build for Comfort, Not Just Speed: Valuing Service Quality Impacts In Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/quality.pdf.
Ramon Munoz-Raskin (2007), Walking Accessibility to Bus Rapid Transit: Does it Affect Property Values? The Case of Bogotá, Colombia, 11th World Conference on Transport Research, Berkeley, California (www.wctrs.org).
MTA (2006), New York City’s BRT Project, New York City Transit MTA (http://mta.info/mta/planning/brt/index.html)
National BRT Institute (www.nbrti.org) provides information on BRT with a North American perspective.
NextBus (www.nextbus.com) is a private company that uses Global Positioning Systems
(GPS) to provide real-time transit vehicle arrival information to passengers
and managers in various North American cities.
NJARP (2006), Bus Rapid Transit - Not for New Jersey, New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers (www.nj-arp.org/brt2.html).
John Luciano Renne (2007), Measuring
The Performance Of Transit-Oriented Developments In Western Australia, Planning and Transport Research
Centre of Western Australia and the Institute for Sustainability and Technology
Policy, Murdoch University; at www.vtpi.org/renne_tod_performance.pdf.
Tom Rickert (2006), Bus Rapid Transit Accessibility Guidelines, World Bank (www.worldbank.org); at www.gobrt.org/AccessibilityWB.pdf.
Daniel A. Rodriguez and Felipe Targa (2004), “Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System,” Transport Reviews, Volume 24, Number 5, Sept. 2004, pp. 587-610; based on Felipe Targa’s Masters Thesis: Examining Accessibility and Proximity-Related Effects of Bogotá’s Bus Rapid System Using Spatial Hedonic Price Models; at www.unc.edu/~ftarga/Publications.html.
Daniel A. Rodríguez and Carlos H. Mojica (2008), “Value Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: The Case of Bogotá’s TransMilenio,” LandLines, April 2008, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu).
Alainna Thomas and Elizabeth
Deakin (2008), Land Use Challenges to
Implementing Transit-oriented Development in
William Vincent
and Lisa Callaghan Jerram (2006), “The
Potential for Bus Rapid Transit to Reduce Transportation-Related CO2 Emissions,”
Journal of Public Transportation (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journal.htm),
Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 219-237; at www.gobrt.org/BTI_BRT_CO2_Journal_2006.pdf.
William Vincent and Lisa Callaghan (2007), A Preliminary Evaluation of the Metro Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit Project, Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center (www.gobrt.org), for presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting; at www.gobrt.org/Orange_Line_Preliminary_Evaluation_by_BTI.pdf.
Lloyd Wright
(2006), “Bus Rapid
Transit,” module in the Sustainable
Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities, published by the Sustainable
Urban Transport Project – Asia (www.sutp-asia.org),
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (www.gtz.de), and the
Lloyd Wright (2007), Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/brt_planning_guide.
Lloyd Wright
and Lewis Fulton (2005), “Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing
Nations,” Transport Reviews, Vol. 25,
No. 6, Nov. 2005, pp. 691–717; at http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/articles-70119_paper.pdf.
Samuel Zimmerman (2001), “Bus Rapid Transit Primer,” SMART Urban Transport, Vol. 1 No. 1 (www.smarturbantransport.com) September 2001, pp. 6-9.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#120