Bus Rapid Transit

Bus System Design Features That Significantly Improve Service Quality And Cost Efficiency

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated August 27, 2007

---

This chapter describes “Bus Rapid Transit,” which refers to bus transit systems with various features that improve service quality.

Description

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:

• Grade-separated right-of-way, including busways (for bus use only) HOV lanes (for buses, vanpools and carpools), and other Transit Priority measures. Some systems use guideways which automatically steer the bus on portions of the route.

• Frequent, high-capacity service that results in passenger waits of less than 10-minutes during peak periods.

• High-quality vehicles, that are easy to board, quiet, clean and comfortable to ride.

• Pre-paid fare collection to minimize boarding delays.

• Integrated fare systems, allowing free or discounted transfers between routes and modes.

• Convenient user information and Marketing programs.

• High quality bus stations with Transit Oriented Development in nearby areas.

• Modal integration, with BRT service coordinated with walking and cycling facilities, taxi services, intercity bus, rail transit, and other transportation services.

• Excellent customer service.

• Improved Security for transit users and pedestrians.

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 Brazil and Columbia during the 1990s, but the concept has become widely accepted by transportation planners and transit advocates throughout the world. However, it is wrong to consider this simply a debate between the merits of bus versus rail transit. Each is appropriate in certain circumstances (see discussion in Litman, 2004).

How it is Implemented

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).

Travel Impacts

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
Vancouver 96B	30%	23%
Las Vegas Max	35-40%	24%
Boston Silver Line	84%	NA
Los Angeles	27-42%	NA
Oakland	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.

Benefits And Costs

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 U.S. data. For a typical agency, both BRT and LRT have lower operating costs on a per space-kilometer basis during base periods than regular buses. Both the lower BRT and LRT cost estimate are comparable for adding service during peak periods. Using the higher cost estimate, peak BRT costs 24% more than LRT. For trunk line capacities below about 1,600 spaces per hour the headway versus cost tradeoff favors BRT. Above 2000 spaces per hour, BRT headways become so short that Traffic Signal Priority may not be effective and operating speeds may decrease. The marginal cost of adding off-peak BRT service is substantially less than the average cost of regular buses, LRT less yet. Peak Fleet Size seems to be an important driver of costs.

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.

Equity 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.

Applications

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).

Category

Improved Transport Choice

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

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.

Stakeholders

Bus Rapid Transit requires support from various government agencies, businesses or local residents. Patrons and labor organizations are also affected.

Barriers To Implementation

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 Sao Paulo can also provide capacities over 30,000 passengers per hour per direction. This is more than all LRT systems and many metro systems.
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, Manila, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur.
BRT requires a great deal of road space and cannot be built in narrow roadways	Design solutions exist for virtually every road space circumstance. Quito runs a BRT system through three metre wide streets in its historical centre. Even rail takes space, for example, support pillars for SkyTrain require a traffic lane.
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, Curitiba, or Quito feels that they have an “inferior technology”. The appearance of BRT stations, terminals and vehicles can all be made to appear as sophisticated and inviting as any rail option.
BRT cannot deliver the transit-oriented development and land use advantages of rail	Experience in cities such as Bogotá and Curitiba indicate that BRT can stimulate urban development around stations similar to rail transit, if given appropriate support.
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.

Best Practices

Various publications, including Levinson (2003) and Wright (2004) provide guidance for implementing BRT. Best practices include:

• Insure that BRT really provides a high quality of service that will attract discretionary riders. This requires significantly increased travel speeds, quality vehicles, comfort and convenience.

• Integrate BRT with other transportation services.

• Integrate BRT with land use development.

• Develop high-quality stations that are comfortable, safe and attractive.

• Insure that pedestrian access to BRT stations is convenient and safe.

• Portray BRT as a service for all types of people in all income classes.

Wit and Humor

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.”

Case Studies and Examples

For more examples and case studies see Levinson (2003) and Wright (2004) and the Bus Rapid Transit Exchange (www.fta.dot.gov/brt).

Bus Rapid Transit (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 Boston’s Silver Line declined from 20-40 minutes down to a reliable 15 minutes, which doubled ridership during its first year of operation.

· Vancouver’s B-Line routes have experienced 20-25% ridership gains.

· Los Angeles express arterial bus service has reduced travel times by as much as 29%, resulting in ridership increases of nearly 40%.

Adelaide O-Bahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus)

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 Tea Tree Plaza, a shopping centre in Tea Tree Gully and traces through the Linear Park that runs from Walkerville to Modbury.

The technology behind the O-Bah