Iru research
-
Upload
stuart-colley -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Iru research
A Comparative Analysis of Bus Rapid
Transit Systems in the World
Analyzing Cost and Time Efficiency
Research Outline and Introduction, 1st version
March 2014
University of Groningen
Research Group Coordinator:
Ayanga Edubio
Researchers:
Jordi Nahumury, BA International Relations and International Organization
Yan Hai, MA International Relations and International Organization
Eleni Toulkaridou, MA International Political Economy
Marlieke de Vries, BA International Relations and International Organization
Table of Contents
1. Introduction What is a BRT? ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Historical Development .......................................................................................................................... 5
BRT Standards and Goals ........................................................................................................................ 6
Why opt for a BRT System? ................................................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Research and Research Sample ...................................................................................... 12
2. Time Efficiency Service Planning ................................................................................................................................... 13
Routes and Duration of journey ....................................................................................................................... 14
Passengers ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Frequency ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Ticket Purchase ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Infrastructure
Types of Buses ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Center Stations
...............................................................................................................................................?
Connectivity + Access to stations ...................................................................................................................... ?
Passing Lanes and Corridors ............................................................................................................................... ?
Area Mobility and Urban Planning .................................................................................................................... ?
3. Cost Efficiency Operation............................................................................................................................................. 43
Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Growth Rates and Passenger Use .......................................................................................................... 44
Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 45
CO2 Emissions.................................................................................................................................................... 47
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
Introduction
What is a BRT?
In the ever-changing and fast-paced Global Village we inhabit, people‘s needs are becoming
increasingly more demanding with regards to more efficient systems of transportation,
catering not only to the consumers but also to environmental sustainability. Advocates of the
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system state that it can potentially meet these demands. What,
exactly though, is a BRT?
There are several definitions of what a Bus Rapid Transit system is. A recurring
concept in these definitions is that it is a bus-based transit system. This system combines the
high-performance, high-capacity, high speed and reliability of rail and the lower price and
flexibility of a conventional bus. The system aspires to optimize the mobility of citizens by
setting up a fast-paced bus service with a high quality and a high rotation/frequency, using
special buses and specially assigned infrastructure at reasonable prices for the customers as
well as the general community.1 The Transit Cooperative Research Programme (TCRP) report
90 provides a very detailed description of this means of transportation: “BRT is a flexible,
rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways,
and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong identity. BRT applications are
designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they
can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments (from rights-of-way totally
dedicated to transit—surface, elevated, underground—to mixed with traffic on streets and
highways).”2
BRT systems can be distinguished from one another by looking at whether the system
has a segregated right-of-way infrastructure. A segregated right-of-way infrastructure
indicates that there are lanes which are exclusively used by the buses operating in the BRT
system. Within high-end BRT systems this exclusive right-of-way infrastructure for
operational buses is present whereas low-end BRT systems, or BRT-Lite, do not have this
infrastructure. Furthermore, high-end BRT systems have a more considerable station
platforms and boarding areas whereas low-end BRT systems have simpler bus shelters. Also,
the high-end BRT is characterized by a higher technological level than the low-end BRT since
1BRT article smart move –
2Herbert S. Levinson et al., “Bus Rapid Transit: Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines,” TCRP Report 90
(2003): 23.
it possesses Automated Vehicle Location (AVL). This makes it possible to manage the whole
operation more efficiently by for example influencing signals at signalized intersections in a
favorable way for the buses in the BRT system. Nonetheless, there exist also some similarities
between both systems. Examples are that the buses are quiet and have a high capacity and that
platforms are raised so that there is same-level boarding. High-end BRT systems can be found
in Bogotá, Colombia, and Guangzhou, China.3 Low-end BRT systems can be found in North
America, for example in Chicago.4
In Europe the term Buses with High Level of Service (BHLS) is frequently used to
distinguish the European bus-based systems from the BRT systems in the rest of the world.5 A
short definition of BHLS is “The Bus with High Level of Service is a bus-based system,
clearly identified, that is an element of the primary public transport network. It offers to the
passenger a very good performance and comfort level, as a rail-based system, from terminus
to terminus at station, into vehicle and during the trip. The “system” approach across
infrastructure, vehicles and operating tools have coherent and permanent objectives in
accordance with the mobility network and city context.”6 BHLS systems focus on service
instead of focusing on all characteristics of a BRT system. They provide some components of
BRT systems in order to improve passenger experience.7 In order to improve passenger
experience, the BHLS focuses on punctuality/regularity, frequency and speed.8 The reason
why only components of the BRT systems are implemented in European cities is that the
urban context is different in the sense that the cities have narrower streets and most activities
and residence are mixed.9 BHLS systems thus are bus-based transit systems which have
features of BRT systems. For the further duration of this research paper, the terminology BRT
will be employed for both BHLS and BRT systems.
3Robert Cervero, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport,” ACEA 20
(december 2013): 3. 4Brendan Finn et al., Buses with High Level of Service: Fundamental Characteristics and Recommendations for
Decision-making and Research,(European Cooperation in Science and Technology, 2011), 16. 5Darío Hidalgo and Luis Gutiérrez, “BRT and BHLS around the world: Explosive growth, large positive impacts
and many issues outstanding,” Research in Transportation Economics 39, no. 1 (2013): 1. 6Finn et al., 20.
7Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 1.
8Finn et al., 20.
9Ibid., 17.
The subsequent pages will look into the historical development of BRT systems till date, as
well as distinguish between the different standards, gold, silver and bronze, of this
transportation system. The concluding part of the introduction will present a brief collection
of justifications, why it is advisable to opt for the BRT system.
Historical development
In the 1930s, there were already suggestions and plans for the application of elements of the
current BRT systems, but the first application of the full idea of the BRT system emerged
merely four decades ago in Curitiba, Brazil. There, in 1974, the Rede Integrada de Transporte
(RIT) was implemented. Initially, the system comprised only dedicated lanes for the buses,
but during the decades that followed further developments and innovations were implemented
to improve the system. Despite, the existence of the RIT for almost 40 years, it was not until
the turn of the century that the popularity of the BRT systems increased. Figure 1 shows a
remarkable growth in cities that introduced the BRT system since the beginning of the 21st
century. During the last decade, the success of some BRT systems, particularly the
TransMilenio in Bogotá that was introduced in 2000, induced this large increase of BRT
systems around the world.10 Nowadays, there are already 168 cities worldwide with a BRT
system and this amount is likely to grow in the upcoming years. More specifically, amongst
these cities there are 56 Latin American cities, 43 European cities, 35 Asian cities, 24
Northern American cities, 7 Oceania cities and 3 African cities.11 The total of existing
systems carries almost 31 million passengers per day and has a combined route length of over
4,4 million kilometers.12
10
Elvira Maeso-González and Pablo Pérez-Cerón, “State of art of bus rapid transit transportation,” European
Transport Research Review (September, 2013): 2. 11
“Global BRT Data,” Embarq and ALC-BRT, last modified November 28, 2013, accessed March 1, 2014,
http://www.brtdata.org/#/info/about. 12
Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.”
Fig. 1. Cities with BRT/bus corridors 1970-2011. Source: EMBARQ BRT/Bus Corridors Database, (EMBARQ,
2011).
In Europe, the infrastructure and organization of the traditional bus systems started to develop
already from the 1970s onwards, but this development halted in the 1990s when tramways
became the focus. Due to the financial costs of these tramways, the modern Light Rail Transit
(LRT), BHLS became a suitable and financially attractive alternative for LRT and found its
way to the European public transport system.13
The growth of the BRT systems worldwide is accompanied by recent institutional and
academic developments. There have been several initiatives to bundle efforts and knowledge
that have led to the creation and organization of non-profit associations, conferences and
research centers.14 Some examples of these initiatives are the BRT-ALC Centre of Excellence
and the Buses with High Level of Service in Europe. Another important development is the
growing interest and support of national governments, private investors and vehicle and
technology manufacturers.15 This increases the likelihood of transformed institutional
arrangements and new national programs to implement BRT and stimulates new
developments in production and technology of buses.
BRT Standards and Goals
BRT systems, albeit not very popular in European countries, have been in usage in the United
States and Brazil since the late 1970' s. These systems are a vital element for the urban
development of cities and facilitating the journeys of commuters at a low cost on the one
hand, yet, in a greener, faster and safer manner on the other hand. The designation of a BRT
system is a multifaceted and highly unique process, therefore, it is crucial to properly define it
so that it can be distinguished from traditional bus systems that often carry a misleading label
of BRT.
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) sought to give a common
framework of the BRT systems, in a way that it efficiently specifies their respective qualities
13
Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 8. 14
Ibid., 11. 15
Ibid., 12.
and design planning. Therefore, the implicit definition, contributes to system-designers and
policy-makers' awareness, as well as to more efficient and sustainable designing of BRT
systems. Hence, these BRT standards serve as guidelines for implementation of BRT systems,
incorporating a set of rating measures and best practices. According to ITDP, the standards
assist BRT systems to offer “world-class passenger experiences” and attribute positive
economic and environmental benefits.
Thus, the ultimate goal is to spread the know-how of BRT systems, while specifying the costs
and benefits of a prospective implementation. Furthermore, the dynamics of each market are
not to be ignored, on the contrary, understanding the needs of each city and designing a
market-driven type BRT is the way to a successful transportation system.16
Prior to proceeding with an explanation of the certification system, we should point out that
the scoring concerns corridors which can be defined as follows: “A section of a road or
contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes that have dedicated lanes with a
minimum length of 4 kilometers.”.17 Accordingly, there is a “Demand Profile” for these
corridors, which are given 3 points by the BRT Standard Technical Committee in case they
serve high passenger demand sections.
The certification scheme ranges between gold, silver, bronze score and basic BRT. This
scoring distinction falls under an international hierarchical system, which enables BRT
systems around the world to share best practices, hence, to deliver an exquisite output.
16
Cost Action TU0603:BHLS Some European examples, 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Meeting
Brussels, 10 September 2013, 3. 17
BRT Standards 2013, ITDP, GIZ, ClimateWorks Foundation, ICCT, Rockefeller Foundation
, 6.
The criteria examined to award the BRT corridors, refer to:
top customer service quality;
BRT experts' unanimity on best practices;
politically-challenging decisions on behalf of the designing team, resulting in superior
performance;
the variety of corridors according to size and passenger volume (“high-low
ridership”);
transparency and easy access to the scoring system.
The Point System:
Gold standard BRT (85 – 100 points): The gold standard represents the best practice
internationally, with regards to performance, efficiency and customer service. As for
the financial aspect, it might be costly, but it can easily attract capital, since it can be
applied to any corridor with adequate demand of passengers.
Silver standard BRT (70-84 points): The silver standard incorporates the majority of
the best international practices qualities and it holds a high possibility of corridor
applicability and
hence, it is most likely to attract investment.
Bronze standard BRT (55-69 points): Bronze standard satisfies some of the
internationally defined best practices features. It presents in any case, higher
performance and customer service qualities than the basic BRT systems.
Basic BRT (18-54 points): This standard signifies the minimum features that a BRT
should have to be labeled as such, according to the common defined framework of
BRT systems. The basic BRT renders reward with the three aforementioned rankings
possible.
The Basic BRT is composed by:
7 points:
Bus way alignment: the best possible location where the risk of intersecting
with other means of transport is averted;
Dedicated right-off way: dedicated lines eliminating the possibility of
congestion;
Off-bus fare collection: time-saving and maximizing customer satisfaction
when purchased off board.
6 points:
Intersection treatments: this feature includes traffic-light prioritizing of BRT
systems, in order to increase speed level to destination;
Platform-level boarding: it concerns the less possible boarding time, facilitated
by the same level of platform and bus floor.
In particular, the most critical elements determining the distinction from other types of
transportation available, are the bus way alignment and the dedicated right-of way, in which
the corridors should score at least 4 points to qualify for BRT systems.
In total, the points that a BRT system can be credited with amount to 100. The performance of
the corridors is under inspection throughout a year and at the end of the respective year the
Technical Committee certifies them accordingly. The results of the evaluation process are
publicly disclosed during the first months of the following year.18 The scorecard below is
indicative of the elements and the score that BRT systems need to achieve.
Source: ITDP Website
18
BRT Standards 2013, ITDP, GIZ, ClimateWorks Foundation, ICCT, Rockefeller Foundation, 7-21.
Among the existing BRT systems currently in function, three of the most successful examples
awarded with a gold standard are Guangzhou' s GBRT in China, Bogota' s TransMilenio in
Colombia, and Curitiba' s Linha Verde in Brazil, which are subjected to scrutiny in this study.
To sum up, defining BRT systems and adopting a common framework of standards, enables
all the stages - from designing to implementation - to achieve a superior level of performance.
The concept of the BRT systems is essential to be clarified by decision makers and the
industry community, so that the prospective benefits can be acknowledged and disseminated.
It should be clear, that the ultimate purpose of BRT systems is to present the best possible
performance, to achieve the maximum customer service satisfaction, to operate in a flexible
and low cost way. Planning is the harbinger of a successful BRT system, which assisted by the
standards can be time saver and more effective. Moreover, integral part is the matching of the
BRT needs to the market about to operate and cooperation between industry and private
actors.19
Why opt for a BRT system?
When considering investment in a relatively novel means of transportation, it is imperative to
look at all beneficial elements, that can be attributed a BRT. First and foremost, the BRT
system is cost-effective: lower capital cost for construction, lower operating cost and higher
speed. Compared to the capital cost of constructing a heavy rail system, the numbers of
building a bus system, are really astonishing. Looking, for example, at the data provided by
the Honolulu government – this showed that a rail would cost as much as $300 million per
mile, whereas you can improve a lane for buses on arterial streets for $1 million per mile, or
you could build a new lane for buses -- the bus way would cost about $14 million per mile,
again compared to the Honolulu rail system at $300 million per mile. While Hawaii remains a
geographically individualized case in the subsequent chapters, the message it attempts to
convey is, a bus lane can be built much more quickly and much more cheaply than a rail line
and they can be easily repaired.20
19
Levinson et al., 23. 20
Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18926-Costs-amp-
Advantages-of-Bus-Rapid-Transit
Furthermore, the construction cost as well as the operating cost for bus rapid transit systems
are significantly lower than those for rail based transportation systems. This is partly due to
the former's greater pool of customers and their greater flexibility: buses must not remain
operational when they charter no customers, as opposed to the way trains must remain in
rotation, even in the non-peak hours. Additionally to the low cost of construction, operation
and repair, BRT vehicles can operate in a wide range of environments without forcing
transfers or requiring expensive running way construction over the entire range of their
operation. It will help to deal with the severe traffic congestion. It helps to save the money
and improve the citizens’ travel efficacy. Practically, it is beneficial for the government and
the citizens to opt BRT system.
Secondly, BRT systems can highly improve the transportation efficiency of the travelers. BRT
systems can be deployed more quickly, and in greater quantities, than rail based systems. For
example, the Guangzhou BRT system is connected to the subway, which saves the travel time.
More importantly, with the exclusive bus lane, BRT systems do not face the problem of traffic
congestion which have a high potential of reducing the accident rates. This increases
opportunities to attract people out of their cars, increasing the share of public transit trips. It
has more social effect in some countries for example in China BRT is regarded as a way to
improve social equity.21
Thirdly, BRT also contributes to the sustainable urban development. The exclusive lane for
the BRT will carry more passengers, which can also highly improve the efficient in terms of
intensive land use. Invoking the second reason discussed before, BRT will contribute to the
decrease of private-vehicles and traffic congestion as well as the adoption of clean energy,
which will surely reduce the emission of motor vehicles. In that sense, BRT is the best transit
strategy for most cities to reduce transportation-related CO² emissions. That’s why BRT was
the first, and so far the only, mass transit technology certified under the Kyoto Protocol.
Finally, beyond the benefits that BRT can bring to the human life, there is a big potential for a
more effective BRT system. According to the BRTdata.org, the overall utilization in not fully
developed. Specifically, 5.91% of the German passengers are making use of BRT systems
while the percentages of BRT passengers per day is 22.15%, 9.42% and 6.26% in France, UK
21
He Dongquan and Liu Daizong, “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Developments in China,” Bejing, August 2007,
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/029efdeb81c758f5f61f6748.html.
and Netherlands respectively.22 To take full advantage of BRT system, we need to involve the
public attention to transfer private-vehicles to BRT system.
Purpose of the Research and Research Sample
The purpose of this research is to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of BRT systems in
terms of time- and cost efficiency. In particular, this research aims at providing a framework
for EU policy makers and private entrepreneurs to reach a well-considered decision on
whether or not to invest in BRT systems in Europe. Both parties can benefit from an
economically, financially and politically viable BRT system. The following chapters will look
at those elements that can contribute to answering whether BRT systems are time- and cost
efficient. In these chapters a comparison will be drawn between EU and non-EU countries to
benchmark a sample of existing BRT systems in the EU to a sample of relatively successful
systems in the rest of the world. This makes it possible to look at the potential time- and cost
efficiency of a BRT system and gives an indication of the status of the European systems
when looking at efficiency.
The research sample of EU and non-EU cities is:
BRT systems in EU cities:
Madrid, Spain (BUS-VAO)
Nantes, France (Busway)
Kent, UK (Fastrack)
Amsterdam, Netherlands (Zuidtangent)
Helsinki, Finland (Bussi Jokeri)
Stockholm, Sweden (Blabussar)
BRT system in Non-EU cities:
Guangzhou, China (GBRT)
Bogota, Colombia (Transmilenio)
Curitiba, Brazil (Linka Verde)
Brisbane, Australia (South East Busway)
Cleveland, OH, USA (Healthline)
Johannesburg, South Africa (Rea Vaya Phase)
22
Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.”
The EU cities are chosen according to their size and region within Europe to create a diverse
sample that gives a good representation of the EU systems. The non-EU cities are chosen
according to their geographical diversion, size and BRT rankings. More specifically, the non-
EU cities have a gold or silver rating to be better suited for benchmarking the different
systems.
2. Time Efficiency
This chapter will analyse several elements relating to the time efficiency of the different BRT
systems. Three broad categories of elements will be discussed: service planning, delays and
traffic jams, and infrastructure. The first category of service planning will analyse routes,
amount of passengers, peak frequency and peak load of a system, and the presence of pre-
board fare collection. The second category will analyse the delays and amount of traffic jams
experienced or caused by the BRT systems. Infrastructure, the final category, will analyse the
types of buses used, the placement of the bus stations or bus stops, connectivity and access to
stations, passing lanes and corridors, and area mobility and urban planning. The statistics and
performances of the elements incorporated in this research of all the cities will be analysed
and then a comparison will be drawn between the EU cities and most of the non-EU cities.
The non-EU cities used for this comparison are Ahmedabad, Johannesburg, York Region, and
Montevideo. Bogotá and Curitiba are used for benchmarking with the EU-cities, because
these cities have BRT systems that are among the top-performing systems, which were
awarded with a Gold Standard BRT System.23 Before making an analysis of the data and
compare and benchmark the different elements, the relation of each element to the time
efficiency of a BRT system will be discussed.
2.1 Service Planning
Service planning covers the routes, time schedules, passengers, and fare collection system of
the various BRT systems. First, the length of the systems and the type of network design will
be discussed. Second, the amount of passengers and the relativity to the total population will
be analysed. The third element that will be discussed is the peak frequency of the buses in the
23
system together with the related peak load. Finally, presence or absence of pre-board fare
collection will be discussed.
2.1.1 Routes
The length of the BRT system has no direct influence on the time efficiency of the system, but
it does give an impression of the scope and reach of the particular BRT systems. The scope of
the system is related to the area and its inhabitants. These inhabitants are potential users of a
BRT system. Therefore, the length of a system could relate to its reach in terms of users. So,
the relation to time efficiency can be merely a quantitative one in terms of potential users of a
system that fall within the reach of the route. But, the contribution of this factor is unknown
and remains speculative, also because route length and the potential scope depends heavily on
the type of network design of the particular system.24 For instance, an urban system is often
relatively short compared to a peripheral system, but in the scope of an urban route are
relatively more potential users.
More directly affected by route length are the number of locations a passenger can reach
without transfers.25 Whereas, longer routes minimize the necessity for transfers by
passengers, a shorter route can provide more time travel reliability, but may require a
passenger to transfer more often.26
Table 2.1 Route length and Duration per BRT System
Route length (km)
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm 40
Madrid 8,32
Nantes 6
Kent 15
Non-EU cities
24
Robert Cervero, “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): And Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport,” 20th
ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report (December 2013): 14. 25
Roderick B. Diaz, ed., Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (Washington: Federal Transit
Administration, 2004), 2-68. 26
Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-68.
Brisbane
Johannesburg 43
York Regional Municipality 59
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá 106
Curitiba 81
Source: brtdata.org, Finn et al., and Cervero. 1An urban route operates within the core urban
area, a local or distributor route operates locally in the inner or outer suburbs, including feeder routes, and cross-city route connects different parts of the urban and suburban areas via the main city centre. (Cervero, p. 14) with the other systems in the sample and do not fit into one of the categories.
Furthermore, table 2.1 shows that the systems of Bogotá and Curitiba have the longest
systems. Both systems are more mature than the other systems, so this may indicate that a
more mature system is consequently more extensive and intensive system and therefore
longer. Related to this maturity is that the systems of Bogotá and Curitiba go beyond the
traditional types of network design and combine several types.
Two EU cities, Madrid and Nantes, have an urban network design. Compared to Montevideo,
the only non-EU city in this sample with an urban system, the route length is quite similar. All
three systems are under ten kilometres and much shorter compared to all the other systems in
the sample. The EU cities with an peripheral or tangential network design are Stockholm,
Amsterdam, and Helsinki and the non-EU cities are Ahmedabad and Johannesburg. The
routes in Johannesburg, Stockholm and Ahmedabad are around forty kilometres. Amsterdam
is a bit longer with 56 kilometres, and Helsinki is shorter with a route length of 27,5
kilometres. On average, the EU and non-EU cities don’t differ much and all these peripheral
systems are significantly longer than the urban designs. Kent is the only EU city in this
sample with a local or distributor network design. Compared to York Region, a non-EU local
or distributor system, Kent is significantly shorter. While the York Region system is longer
than the other peripheral routes, Kent falls between the urban and peripheral systems.
2.1.2 Passengers
The amount of passengers or other data related to passengers has no influence on time
efficiency, but gives an impression of the performance of the BRT system in terms of
passengers transported. If it becomes clear that a particular system is relatively time efficient
or inefficient then this data shows how many people are profiting or suffering from this time
efficiency performance. To take into account the potential users of each individual system,
table 2.2 also shows a percentage of the amount of passengers relative to the total population
in the area of the particular system. Note that passengers are not defined as unique passengers,
so the percentage does not show the exact percentage of the population using the BRT system
daily. But, it gives an impression how widespread the usage is within the population relative
to other BRT systems.
Table 2.2 shows that Bogotá and Curitiba have the highest amount of passengers per day and
the highest percentage of passengers relative to the population with almost thirty per cent.
These numbers are far above those of the other cities in the sample in both the EU and non-
EU category. The highest percentage after these two top-countries is the urban system of
Nantes with almost nine per cent. Compared to the other urban systems of Madrid and
Montevideo, respectively 1,4 and 1,9 per cent, Nantes has a higher amount of passengers
relative to the population. Of the cities with a peripheral system, Stockholm has the highest
percentage, 6,4 per cent, followed by Amsterdam, 5,0 per cent, and then Helsinki, 4,9 per
cent. The non-EU cities have lower amount of passengers relative to the population.
Johannesburg is just behind the European cities, but Ahmedabad is well behind with 0,9 per
cent. Furthermore, table 2.2 shows that the two regional systems of Kent and York Regional
don’t differ much from each other with percentages of, respectively, 2,9 and 3,5.
Table 2.2 Percentage of Passengers per BRT System Relative to the Total Population
Passengers (p/day) Population
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm 57.000 889.501
Madrid 43.900 3.215.633
Nantes 25.000 284.970
Kent 5.725 199.370
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg 42.000 957.441
York Regional Municipality 35.300 1.032.524
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá 1.980.000 7.363.782
Curitiba 508.000 1.776.761
Sources: brtdata.org, Finn et al., and vrk.fi. 1Passengers are not defined as unique
passengers per day, but as daily passenger boardings in the system. So, this percentage does not represent an exact percentage of the population that uses the system daily, but merely serves to give an impression of the use per city in relation to the total population.
2.1.3 Peak Frequency and Peak Load
The peak frequency and peak load of a BRT system have a direct impact on the time
efficiency. The peak frequency is defined by EMBARQ, the World Resource Institute (WRI)
signature initiative for sustainable transport and urban development, as “the average number
of buses per hour serving the segment with the highest passenger boardings during peak hour
and in the peak direction”.27 So, if the peak frequency of a BRT system is higher, it has a
larger amount of buses available and, consequently, the system is able to transport more
passengers during those hours, reduces waiting time and has an overall positive effect on the
time efficiency.28 Peak load is defined by EMBARQ as “the maximum number of passengers
aboard buses per hour per direction along the most heavily loaded segment”. A higher peak
load shows that the passenger capacity of the system is higher. So, the system is capable of
transporting more passengers at a certain moment and this has a positive effect on the
system’s time efficiency. Note that peak frequency and peak load both refer to situations,
hours and specific segments of the route, when the BRT system has to perform at its best and
as time efficient as possible.
Table 2.3 Peak Frequency and Peak Load per BRT System
Peak frequency (buses/hour)
EU cities
27
“Global BRT Data,” Embarq and ALC-BRT, last modified November 28, 2013, accessed April 10, 2014,
http://www.brtdata.org/#/info/about. 28
Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-73.
Hamburg
Stockholm 15
Madrid
Nantes 17
Kent 14
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg 64
York Regional Municipality
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá 320
Curitiba 67
Source: brtdata.org, go-fastrack.co.uk, and chinabrt.org
Table 2.3 shows that Bogotá has an immense peak frequency and peak load, that extends far
above the other systems. Its peak frequency is 320 buses per hour and the peak load is 43.000.
Curitiba has the second largest frequency and peak load with 67 buses per hour and 11.000.
(………DATA GAP..…….)
2.1.4 Pre-board Fare Collection
Pre- or off-board fare collection means that passengers pay or validate their fare before getting
on board of the bus.29 The completion of the fare payment or validation before boarding
ensures that this process does not have to be done anymore by the bus driver during the
boarding of the passengers. In this manner, the bus can reduce its dwell time spent at the
boarding platforms of bus stops and stations and increases its reliability.30 Pre-board fare
collection reduces the duration of a bus ride by making the boarding process more efficient
and less time-consuming. So, the presence of pre-board fare collection has a direct and
positive effect on the time efficiency and reliability of a BRT system.
Table 2.4 Pre-board Fare Collection per BRT System
Pre-board fare
29
Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.” 30
Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-45.
collection
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm
Madrid All
Nantes None
Kent Mixed1
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg All
York Regional Municipality All
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá All
Curitiba All
Sources: brtdata.org, go-fastrack.co.uk, chinabrt.org, and yorkregiontransit.com. 1”Due to uneconomic levels of use, ticket machines at Route B stops have
been withdrawn from use.” (go-fastrack.co.uk/service-information.html) So, although there was pre-board fare collection at the stops, this has been partly withdrawn. No exact numbers available.
Table 2.4 shows that almost all non-EU cities in this sample, including top-performers Bogotá
and Curitiba, have a pre-board fare collection. The only exception is Montevideo that has no
form of pre-board fare collection. When comparing this non-EU group with the EU systems,
the latter group shows a much more mixed result. Only Madrid has a system with a totally
integrated pre-board fare collection. Both Amsterdam and Nantes do not have an off-board
type of fare collection. When Kent implemented their BRT system, it had installed pre-board
fare collection at every stop and station, but due to uneconomic use of a lot of these machines
they uninstalled some of them. So, Kent now has a mix of stations with and without pre-board
fare collection. Also, Helsinki has a mixed implementation with about a third of the stops and
stations featured with pre-board fare collection.
(………DATA GAP..…….)
2.1.5 Conclusion
2.2 Infrastructure
2.2.1 Definitions of Stations
Like rail systems, stations are the link between the community and the system. They are
designed to integrate into the community, promote economic development, enhance travel
time, and encourage intermodal connectivity. They also minimize boarding and "dwell" times,
thus helping people reach their destination more quickly. In addition, center stations facilitate
transfers between buses however often at the expense of disruptions to customer access.31
There are several types of stations of which 3 are relevant to this research:
a. A center platform station, which is a potential station configuration with BRT boarding on
both sides;
Center Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)
b. side platform station, which is a potential station configuration with BRT boarding on one
side only;
31
http://www.gobrt.org/whatis.html
Side Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)
c. curb-side platform station, which is a potential station configuration that also functions as
part of the continuous sidewalk.
Curb-Side Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)
The stations constructed for the BHLS system, are permanent structures which can not be
displaced at any time for reasons like underground works. The stations should in general be at
least 400-500 m distant from each other, so as to enable buses to develop high speeds. In
order to reduce dwell times, high quality docking should be installed at all the bus doors, so
that accessibility is rapid for all the social groups.
The criteria of the best practices of BRT stations and vehicles can be seen below:
Low Level BRT High Level BRT
As far as the types of the vehicles is concerned, the common BHLS trend is a fleet of 18
meters long articulated buses. Dwell time can be determined by vehicle size, number of doors
and door arrangement .The combination of opening and closing the doors, as well as pulling
in and out of a bus stops lasts about 10 seconds on average. This time however, can be
prolonged per meter in case the vehicle is larger. Furthermore, most BHLS buses have a low
floor, allowing limited boarding time by 20% in comparison to high floors. 32 The picture
below illustrates level boarding between the bus floor and the platform.
Accessibility is a means of social inclusion, thus, every station and vehicle should be easily
accessible to every social group. Therefore, infrastructural adjustment of public spaces plays
a key role in order to facilitate the whole process.33 Otherwise no matter how well organized
32
Finn- Rapport, Final COST BHLS 2011, p. 52
33
the vehicles are, the BRT system is not going to work, hampered by infrastructure
discrepancies.
Another fact that should be noticed, is that according to the number of the doors, a better
passenger circulation can be allowed and thus, diminished dwell time combined with comfort
is accomplished. Last but not least, integral part of the BHLS systems is the installation of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, which enable on-board passenger information containing
next stops, schedules and delays.
2.2.2 Nantes
The BRT system in Nantes was implemented to solve the problem of low demand of
traditional public transportation in 2006. Though 70 bus lines and 4 tram lines were serving
the routes from suburbs to the city center, the inadequate passenger capacity did not
compensate for their cost. Once the BRT system was implemented, it provided the city not
only with lower financial cost, but also with shorter travel times. Within a little matter of time,
passengers increased surprisingly, owing mostly to time saving. More specifically, the
difference between time travel from terminus to terminus by BRT instead of car is more than
20 minutes during the rush hour. 34
BRT line 4, which operates under the name Busway, is comprised of 15 stations. The stations
are located on the side of the street and are equipped with information systems that indicate
real time next stop/terminus, disturbances, waiting time of the next connected services of the
network, arrival of the bus and accessibility. The stations are barrier-free so that they can
facilitate access on the bus, and what is more, there is a retractable ramp to cover the gap
between the platform and the bus. All the stations are placed outside intersections, so that
people do not have to wait for the traffic lights to cross the streets, thus saving time. It some
parts of the city, stations accommodate pedestrian access straight from the residential areas,
such as the Mauvoisin station in Boulevard de Vendée, which is located on the east side to be
easily accessible from residential street Fromenteaux. 35 In addition, the stations can be easily
34
http://www.mercedes-
benz.fi/content/finland/mpc/mpc_finland_website/fi/home_mpc/bus/home/consulting/brt/systems_brt/nantes.
0004.html
35
Linternaute.com website, http://www.linternaute.com/nantes/magazine/urbanisme/dossier/busway/en-savoir-
plus.shtml
recognized by their distinctive design, colour and brand, so that passengers can quickly locate
them. Finally, stations can be easily accessed by cycling lanes.
Mauvoisin station
The buses are equipped with CNG engines, as well as small ramps to enable quick entrance.
As far as the connectivity is concerned, there are several bus stations which facilitate
intermodality, such as the the Grèneraie station which is connected to 6 different lines of
public transport, such as the Nantes Tramway.
2.2.3 Kent
The stations in Kent are located on the side of the streets and access is facilitated by walking
and cycling routes. The platform level at the stations is adjusted to the bus floor so that the
passengers can walk straight to the bus without slowing down the departure. All stations
feature hard-standing and raised kerbs, so that easy access to them can be achieved. Real time
information about bus schedules is also available at each stop. According to a survey
conducted in October 2006 in Kent, the 40% of the passengers use the bus to go to work or
college, while another 30% commute by bus to go shopping.36 Both facts indicate, that the
location of certain bus stops such as the one directly connected to Bluewater shopping mall, is
really important for making the BRT preferable medium of transport, as it enables fast access
to destinations. Furthermore, stations connected to public interest infrastructure, such as the
36
http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/downloads/72-six-month-report-1/file.html
one outside Darent Valley Hospital, encouraging ridership for health reasons due to fast
accessibility.
Interchange with other means of transport is possible from the whole bus stop network.
Fastrack A and B serve connections between the national rail network and bus hubs.
Furthermore, taxi ranks are nearby the bus stops, thus, time to destination using different
means of transport is reduced.
Fully-accessible vehicles with a low entrance and no steps inside the front half. The entrance
can be lowered to the level of low pavements if necessary, however, this is a rare case, as each
vehicle is fitted with an extending variable height ramp to enable access. The ramp at the
entrance allows wheelchairs, pushchairs and buggies as well to be easily wheeled on or off.
Kent' s BRT buses are constructed with a low emission technology, as they satisfy Euro 4 and
Euro 3 standard on routes A and B respectively.
2.2.4 Bogotá
Bogota's BRT system, which is among the most successful ones, is often used to benchmark
other BRT systems-as it is also the case in this research. However, Bogota was not always
distinguished for its exquisite transportation system. On the contrary, the BRT system was
developed to cure the chaotic situation caused by an unsuccessful creation of subway. The
infrastructure construction lasted for a year and its network is comprised by exclusive bus
lanes, accessible by all types of social communities.37 Paths for bicycles and pedestrians
facilitate time efficiency, while the tremendous volume of passengers encourages investment.
Interestingly enough, an increase on private fuel consumption tax contributed to BRT funding
(half of the 25% gasoline tax levied in Bogotá is used for the continued expansion of
TransMilenio).
Bogota's BRT system is comprised of 2 types of service, the first one being express (specific
stops in the route) and the other one being standard (stops all throughout the route). The
station platforms enable fast boarding by adjusting to the bus floor. The same level of
platform and bus floor also accommodates effortless accessibility for the elderly and people
37
http://www.mercedes-
benz.fi/content/finland/mpc/mpc_finland_website/fi/home_mpc/bus/home/consulting/brt/systems_brt/nantes.
0004.html
with disabilities. What is more, the stations are equipped with transponders recording
information about bus schedules and routes.38
The articulated buses use diesel fuel and technology which complies to Euro 2 environmental
standards. The buses are able to reach high commercial speeds of 27 km/h and they are
equipped with 4 doors in order to enable the littlest possible delay upon the stop.
2.2.5 Curitiba
Special stops called "tube stations" (70 passengers) which allow for a faster passenger
boarding of passengers with anticipated payment.
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/11/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%
20Transport%20Conference/european_transport_pol/public_transport_p1783.pdf
2.2.6 Madrid
Radio frequency system (WiFi network, etc.) to ensure underground vehicle location. Travel
planner, web site and information phone number to inform passengers and to help them to
connect to other public transport services.
http://www.ebsf.eu/images/stories/documents/usecases-web%202012.pdf
Madrid, Moncloa Station / BusVao-Metro interchange
38
http://www.esc-pau.fr/ppp/documents/featured_projects/colombia_bogota.pdf , p.8-9
Table 2.5 Stations
Stations away from intersections Station spacing (m) Platform level
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm 500
Madrid
Nantes Yes 470
Kent Yes
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg
York Region
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá Yes 500
Curitiba Yes 600
Sources:
ITDP calls for a minimum of three doors for articulated buses and two for regular buses.
(… LACK OF DATA …)
Table 2.6 Types of Buses
Number of doors
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm
Madrid
Nantes Right side/4
Kent 1
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg
York Regional Municipality
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá Left side/4
Curitiba Left side/5
Sources:
Table 2.7 Connectivity and Access to Stations
Pedestrians
People with reduced mobility
Taxi
Bicycle lanes
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm yes
Madrid
Nantes Accessible for wheelchairs and children’s pushchairs
yes
Kent
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg yes no
York Region
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá
Crosswalks & traffic lights/sidewalks near terminals
Adapted platforms/access to terminals non-existent/4 terminals only with special facilities
No taxi stands at terminals
eight out of the thirteen terminals can be reached by bicycle paths.
Curitiba 55% of absence of disability 64% of the 6 of the 22 terminals
terminals/poor quality of the sidewalks
terminals directly
Sources:
2.2.6 Running Way Components39
Running ways, along with stations and vehicles, are essential parts of any BRT system. How
well they perform has an important bearing on BRT speed, reliability, identity, and passenger
attraction.40 This is mainly because BRT systems provide “Priorities” for buses over other
vehicles, which helps to reduce the travel time for BRT buses.
The Priorities, for instance, in the perspective of infrastructures includes: dedicated
(exclusive) lanes for the buses; the signal priority with regard to traffic lights at intersections;
BRT-only bridges and tunnels. There are some BRT systems require the other vehicles to give
way to buses when the buses need to go back to the main road from the stations. Those
priorities accompanied with the well-organized schedule of the routines will definitely save
the time for BRT buses. Besides the priorities, most BRT lanes have passing lanes for buses,
which also save the time for buses from waiting in queue. Moreover, BRT lanes also have
segregated bike lanes along main corridors, which will increase the mobility and attract bike
users. So the “priorities” and above mentioned “passing lanes in stations” and “segregated
bike lanes in main corridors “demonstrate the effectiveness of BRT with regard to “time
efficiency”.
2.2.6 Priorities: Dedicated Bus Lanes, Bus Only Tunnels or Bridges and Signal Priorities
Invoking the discussion in the Introduction, dedicated lanes is one of the most significant
characters of BRT systems: “In particular, the most critical elements determining the
distinction from other types of transportation available, are the bus way alignment and the
dedicated right-of way.” “Running ways are the key element of BRT systems around which
the other components revolve since running ways serve as the infrastructural foundation
around which the other elements function. “41 As is shown in the table, all the BRT systems
39
TCRP,Page4-1 40
TCRP, Page4-2 41
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PWP/2009/PWP-2009-01.pdf
in EU and non-EU cities have dedicated or at least semi-dedicated lanes for the buses. While
the low level BRT buses are running in mixed Traffic operations with basic bus lanes, high-
level BRT buses are running in Median Busway on Arterial or at grade (separated) bus way.
Here is a difference between bus lanes or bus-street bus-ways: while a lane on an urban
arterial or city street is reserved for the exclusive or near-exclusive use of buses, A bus street
or transit mall can be created in an urban center by dedicating all lanes of a city street to the
exclusive use of buses. The types of running ways for BRT service can range between mixed
traffic operation and fully grade-separated bus-ways. Most Arterial BRT systems operating in
mixed-traffic rely on Transit Signal Priority and “Queue Jumpers” to minimize delay at
signalized intersections.
Table 2.8 BRT Components: Running Ways
Source: Adapted from TCRP 90 – Volume 2, 2003
Note: The traffic Engineering also lays on the running ways. For the sake of
Figure 2.1 BRT Transit Way
A BRT transit way is made of concrete lanes or concrete tracks with a grass-strip divider that
is used exclusively by BRT vehicles. In general, the BRT transit way is separated from
adjacent genera-purpose lanes by a concrete curb and/or median and general-purpose vehicles
only at signalized intersections traverse the transit way.42
Figure 2.2 BAT (Business Access and Transit) Lane
In general, a BAT lane is a concrete lane, separated from general-purpose lanes by a paint
stripe and signage. A BAT lane provides BRT priority operations, but general-purpose traffic
is allowed to travel within the lane to make a turn into or out of a driveway or at an
intersecting street.
Figure 2.3 BRT-Only Lane
42
http://jwneugene.org/documents/WestEugeneEmXExtensionAlternativesAnalysisReport.pdf
In general, a BRT-Only lane is a concrete lane, separated from general-purpose lanes by a
paint strip and signage. Operationally, the BRT-only lane is for the exclusive use of BRT
vehicles. In general, right-or-left-turning or crossing general-purpose traffic is allowed to
traverse (cross) the BRT-only lane at intersections and/or driveway entrances. BRT-only lane
is proposed in locations where buses would travel in reverse flow to general-purpose traffic or
where buses would have to travel in mixed traffic.
Table 2.8 Typology of Right of Ways
Source: professor Vukan R. Vuchic, – “Urban Transit systems and technology” – version 2007.
Table 2.9 Generalized effects of BRT Running way Elements.
Source: TCRP EXHIBIT 4-2
2.2.7 Madrid43
The BUS-HOV system in Madrid consists of a physically segregated corridor that uses rigid
barriers to separate the buses and HOV vehicles from other traffic lanes. It has both semi-
dedicated lanes and dedicated lanes.44
The Bus-HOV lane on the A-6 corridor in Madrid remains a unique scheme in Europe despite
the fact that it was opened almost ten years ago. Other European cities have implemented high
occupancy vehicle systems but so far have made far less impression than the Madrid scheme.
The Madrid system has the twin aim of improving public transport in the form of the bus
routes using this metropolitan corridor and of promoting car pooling. An analysis of the
mobility development along the A-6 corridor confirms that the bus HOV system is attracting
corridor users to high occupancy modes as the 63.3% increase in the number of travellers
carried on it over the 1991 to 2001 period was much higher than the corresponding 40.5% rise
in vehicles. The scheme has had a spectacular impact on interurban buses. While in 1994 a
total of 1,260 buses operated along the corridor, the figure has now reached almost 4,000,
implying an increase in bus patronage of 220% as compared to a 40% increase in population
along the corridor. Furthermore, one of the key elements to the successful increase in
carpooling is the good supply of public transport along the corridor, guaranteeing a
convenient means of return journey for those who cannot go back with the person who
brought them in. The result is a complementary more than a competitive interaction between
carpooling and public transport, taking efficient advantage of the surplus capacity of the
restricted access lane. The bus success is having a knock-on effect on two elements of the
system, one is its interchange which has reached saturation levels making extension inevitable
and the other is the bus lane, which also needs to be widened to solve the growth of
incidences occurring in it. Both of these operations will enhance the quality of service of the
buses operating on the bus-HOV lane.45
43
http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/transport/madrid-changing-behaviour-towards-
sustainable-transportation/ 44
http://www.gobrt.org/db/project.php?id=222 45
http://www.aecarretera.com/en/servicios/publicaciones/revista-carreteras/articulos-publicados/170-revista-
carreteras-n-133/1155-la-calzada-bus-vao-de-madrid-optimizacion-del-uso-de-las-infraestructuras-en-el-
corredor-de-la-carretera-a-6
2.2.8 Nantes46
The southern 2km section, around 1/3 of the line, has only 1 BRT lane. (Jul-11)
2.2.8 Kent Mixed traffic and dedicated lanes
46
http://www.uitp-bhls.eu/IMG/pdf/Abstract_Nantes_Busway2008.pdf
Source 47
2.2.9 Amsterdam48
Zuidtangent has segregated bus-ways and bus-only roadways running in mixed traffic. Since
the traffic congestion has negatively impacted bus travel in the mixed traffic lanes, buses have
an absolute right-of-way at traffic lights.
2.2.10 Helsinki semi-dedicatted and dedicated
47
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46341292@N05/11277970773/in/photostream/ 48
http://www.gobrt.org/db/project.php?id=126
2.2.11 Stockholm
2.2.12 Non-EU Cities
1. Bogotá(2000)
2. Curitiba
3. Johannesburg (Rea Vaya)
Source:49
4. Montevideo
49
http://www.reavaya.org.za/consumer-information/smartcard-information
Source50
2.2.13 Dedicated lanes
5. Ahmedabad
50
http://dominicanoshoy.com/index.php?id=58&tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=12
&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=82409&cHash=4ee995060cb288c751ca39f6701a712c
Source:51
2.2.14 Bus Signal Preference and Pre-emption52
Preferential treatment of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or
actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon detection of an approaching bus.
Intersection priority can be particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus
lanes or streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene between buses and traffic
signals.
Priority treatment of buses at intersections holds the potential to reduce a significant source of
delay in bus operations. Today’s traffic signal control systems are tightly interconnected,
however, in order to provide progression of general traffic through urban grid networks.
Therefore, bus signal priority treatments would have to be constrained to modest variations
within the context of maintenance of progression. Bus operating speeds may also improve if
traffic signal cycles are coordinated to the time required for passenger service, i.e., the red
phase occurs during the time needed for passenger boarding and fare collection.53
2.2.15 Level Boarding
Changes in bus or platform design that could provide for level boarding through the use of
low-floor buses, raised platforms, or some combination thereof could make boarding both
faster and easier for all passengers.54
2.2.15 Ridership: The Impacts of BRT
Busways and bus lanes enhance ridership by saving time in conjunction with expanded
service.
This part will perform a before and after type of analysis to quantify the impacts of
implementing BRT in this setting consisting of traffic and ridership impacts.
51
http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:Ahmedabad_BRTS.jpg 52
file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 2 53
file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 4 54
file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 2
3. Cost Efficiency
The purpose of this chapter is to discover the strengths and weaknesses of BRT systems in
terms of cost efficiency. The chapter will look at those elements that can contribute to
answering whether BRT systems are cost efficient. It will therefore look at operation costs,
infrastructure costs, growth rate and passenger use, and environmental costs. Operation costs
consist of costs for buses and their maintenance, gas costs, and employment costs.
Environmental costs consist of costs regarding greenhouse gases such as CO2. We will start
this chapter with operational costs.
However, before we start with the operational costs, we provide a table with the information
per country. Not all information is available. Therefore, the chapter is written in more general
terms rather than providing all the country specific information.
Table 3.1
Buses and maintenance costs
Gas costs
Employment costs
Infrastructure costs (USD/km)
Growth rate and passenger use (p/day)
EU cities
Hamburg
Stockholm
Madrid
Nantes Rolling stock: 9,2 M€ HT
50 M€ HT for 7 km 25,000
Kent
Fuel in use by BRT: Diesel
Between 37,000 and 40,000 weekly
Non-EU cities
Brisbane
Johannesburg
York Region 31555296 2926267 35,300
Bangkok
Gold Standard Cities
Bogotá Around 9 1,980,000
Curitiba Around 4 508,000
Sources:
3.1 Operation
As already mentioned in the introduction, a BRT system is cost-effective. It has significantly
lower operating costs compared to other means of public transport. Typically, a BRT system
will cost ten to hundred times less than a metro system and four to twenty times less than a
light rail transit (LRT) system.1 BRT systems have lower costs because the faster average
speed reduces operation costs and BRT facilities cost less to build than light rail since they do
not need specialized electrical infrastructure, track infrastructure, vehicle maintenance
infrastructure or storage infrastructure.2
The vehicle size is the main link between the transportation service and the performance of
the infrastructure. The vehicle size strongly affects the maintenance and replacement costs.
Therefore, operation costs are immediately related to the frequency of the vehicles and the
number of passengers transported.3 Operational costs increase when the frequency increases
and when the number of lines increases.4
BRT systems have lower operating costs. The economic advantage of BRT systems in
comparison with rail-based systems with the same transport capacity shows that operating
costs per passenger seat and annual operating costs are lower. The ongoing operating costs,
including maintenance, interest rates, fixed and variable costs declare the overall financial
sustainability of a public transport project. BRT systems have a clear advantage when looking
at operation costs and when comparing the BRT system with LRT/tram systems. The
11David A. Hensher, “Sustainable Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network-
based Approach and away from Blind Commitment.” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 100.
22Idem: 101.
33Bernardo Caicedo, Manuel Ocampo and Mauricio Sanchez-Silva, “An Integrated Method to Optimise the
Infrastructure Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems,” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11 (November
2012): 1019, accessed March 25, 2014, doi: 10.1080/15732479.2010.499951.
44Alejandro Tirachini, David A. Hensher and Sergio R. Jara-Díaz, “Comparing Operator and User Costs of Light
Rail, Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit over a Radial Public Transport Network,” Research in
Transportation Economics 29 (2010): 233.
advantage is mainly based on the high maintenance costs for infrastructure that rail-based
systems require.30
3.2 Infastructure
In the introduction it was mentioned that a BRT system has lower capital cost for construction
than other means of public transport.
BRT systems generally have lower investment costs. Investment costs for systems of
transportation usually consist of costs for land and property acquisition, construction costs of
infrastructure (bus lanes, stations, depots, etc.) and costs for vehicles. With BRT systems
investment costs are much lower if they are directly compared to rail-based systems which
offer the same efficiency and service quality. The exact investment level of will surely depend
on local conditions and can vary remarkably between systems in developing nations and
systems in industrialised countries. However, a BRT system investment will generally be less
than LRT/ tram and far less than an underground investment.31
The infrastructural construction costs of a BRT system range from $1 to $12 million per km.
That is up to five times cheaper than LRT systems and ten times cheaper than metro systems.
The variation of the costs is linked with the specific characteristics of each system and,
particularly, the level of segregation and integration with other modes.32
3.3 Growth Rates and Passenger Use
Around the world there is growing support for the delivery of service capacity through BRT
as a legitimate alternative to heavy and light rail. Typically 1 billion US Dollar buys 400 km
of dedicated BRT in contrast to 15 km of elevated rail or 7 km of underground rail. This is
important since this can not only deliver greater network coverage but this can also falsifies
the traditional view of the capacity of specific public modes of transport. The traditional view
30
brt.mercedes-
benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad
van/cost.html 31
brt.mercedes-
benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad
van/cost.html 32
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fbic.asn.au%2FLiteratureRetrieve.aspx%3FID%3D94243&ei=EWtMU4f4NMG1PPPSgKAC&usg=AFQ
jCNHiD83gQvUsp68xP86d1KSnmOC3zA&bvm=bv.64542518,d.ZWU
is that buses can move up to 6000 passengers per hour in one direction in comparison to up to
15,000 for light rail/tram and over 15,000 for heavy rail/metro. Nowadays, advanced BRT
systems such as the TransMilenio in Bogotá can move 38,000 passengers per hour in each
direction. The most important should thus not be the capacity of vehicles but the capacity of
the service.33
In Latin America BRT systems have shown to be capable of moving passengers at a fraction
of the cost of other modes of transport of high capacity. The most important is that they have
helped to reshape the less than desirable image of road-based public transport.34
A small comparison of selected BRT, light rail, elevated rail, and subway systems suggests the
appeal of BRT in terms of passenger flows and costs. At relatively high commercial speeds,
that is 15–32 km/h, Curitiba is carrying peak volumes in excess of 14,000
passengers/h/direction This can increase to over 20,000 passengers/h/direction where at bus
stops extra passing lanes are provided. The doublewidth busway of the TransMilenio in
Bogotá accommodates 35,000 passengers/h/direction with a mixture of all-stop and express
bus services. Thus, high-capacity vehicles, frequent service, and flexible routing structures
allow BRT to match or exceed the passenger volumes of the busiest light rail systems.35
3.4 Environment
BRT systems also contributes to sustainable urban development, as was mentioned in the
introduction of this research. BRT systems can modify in a positive way the use of private
vehicles, traffic congestion, and the adoption of clean energy, which will surely reduce the
emissions of motor vehicles. Therefore, BRT systems are a good transit strategy for most
cities to reduce emissions of greenhouses gasses, such as CO2, related to transportation.
BRT systems reduce the emission of greenhouse gas through mode shift, reducing congestion,
and influencing long term land use patterns. Mode shift means that it gets people out of their
cars and onto buses of the BRT system. Congestion reduction means that the number of
vehicles on the road is reduced and that the flow of traffic is smoothened. Land use impacts
33
David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -
based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 99. 34
David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -
based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 100. 35
David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -
based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 101.
means that over time the BRT system's stations and other major transit hubs attract denser,
pedestrian-friendly development patterns to their immediate vicinities. These development
patterns allow people that live and work in the area to travel shorter distances and to walk and
bike more, even if they do not use the BRT system. However, system expansion also increases
emissions when new transit vehicles enter service, using additional electricity and fuel each
day. The greenhouse gas impact of the system expansion is the combination of emissions
reduced and emissions produced.36
A good example is that there are less ilnesses through improved air quality through the
implementation of the TransMilenio in Bogotá.37
Since there are high levels of air pollutants found in transportation modes and there are often
long commuting times between transportation modes, an important place to reduce air
pollution concentrations are transport microenvironments. By reducing air pollution in these
environments it is possible to minimize overall population exposure. There exist many
transportation measures that might lead to significant improvements in commuters’ air
pollutants exposure by reducing both in-vehicle air pollution and commuting times. An
example of these measures is that BRT systems are implemented in cities around the world as
an efficient, sustainable, and low-cost alternative to conventional public transport. What BRT
systems provide is a more rapid, metro-like service to commuters by the inclusion of such
features as separated bus ways, high capacity vehicles, fixed stations and offbus fare
collection. These improvements to the bus systems in city's potentially can lead to significant
environmental benefits because they can reduce the number of vehicles on the road, control
the number of starts and stops which are highly polluting and replacing old buses with cleaner
new generation public transport vehicles with improved technologies. Especially in the
rapidly growing cities of developing countries such as Bogotá in Colombia, BRT systems
have been recognized and used as a low cost solution to increasing traffic problems.38
People's exposure to air pollutants during travelling thus can be effectively reduced by BRT
systems, mainly by reducing the penetration of emissions from surrounding traffic. From a
36
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Cost Effectiveness
Study,” (June 2010): 22. 37
Darío Hidalgo, Liliana Pereira, Nicolás Estupiñán and Pedro Luis Jiménez, “TransMilenio BRT System in
Bogota, High Performance and Positive Impact – Main Results of an Ex-post Evaluation.” Research in
Transportation Economics 39 (2013): 137. 38
Henry Wöhrnschimmel, Miriam Zuk, Gerardo Martínez-Villa, Julia Cerón, Beatriz Cárdenas, Leonora Rojas-
Bracho and Adrián Fernández-Bremauntz, “The Impact of a Bus Rapid Transit System on Commuters’
Exposure to Benzene, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 in Mexico City,” Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 8195.
health point of view, BRT systems should thus be considered as a cleaner and less hazardous
alternative to conventional public transport systems, especially in the quickly growing cities
of developing countries. However, a proper maintenance of conventional transport modes
should still be ensured in order to reduce people's exposure to a air pollutants.39
3.4.1 CO2 Emissions
As explained above, BRT systems have positive effects on the environment since it causes
that there are fewer cars on the streets, there is optimal driving, better technologies used, there
is no stop-and-go through exclusive lanes and there is lower fuel consumption. All of this
combined with a high capacity utilisation, leads to lower emissions compared to any other
mode of public transport. Therefore, CO2 emissions are also reduced. In comparison to other
modes of transport, the CO2 emissions can be 72% lower.40
39
Henry Wöhrnschimmel, Miriam Zuk, Gerardo Martínez-Villa, Julia Cerón, Beatriz Cárdenas, Leonora Rojas-
Bracho and Adrián Fernández-Bremauntz, “The Impact of a Bus Rapid Transit System on Commuters’
Exposure to Benzene, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 in Mexico City,” Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 8201. 40
http://brt.mercedes-
benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad
van/Environmental.html
References
Thread: Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18926-Costs-amp-Advantages-of-Bus-Rapid-
Transit
He Dongquan, Liu Daizong, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Developments in China August
3, 2007, Beijing http://wenku.baidu.com/view/029efdeb81c758f5f61f6748.html
Global BRT data. http://www.brtdata.org/#/location
三峡日报社:快速交通将这样改变宜昌http://www.yichanginvest.gov.cn/art/2014/2/24/
art_37194_494975.html
Alameda-Contra Costa: Why BRT? http://www.actransit.org/planning-focus/your-guide-to-
bus-rapid-transit/why-brt/
Heshuang Zeng: Bus Rapid Transit in China-On the Way, TheCityFix.com. May 9, 2013
http://thecityfix.com/blog/bus-rapid-transit-brt-china-transportation-briefing-series-
guangzhou-beijing-heshuang-zeng/
ACEA
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=1377342132526640&eid=ASsTT3xSaIa
NS-
DG0OShoojWMCCIwZVGrIuaCZpsJUEXKre_ZiNiiGCMRh96yXxHUBM&inline=1&ext=
1393858076&hash=ASuwzMfwut8QPTvN
But what is BRT? (From: BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) – the mobility hit of the decade
https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.co
m%2Fdownload%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D430060347127127%26time%3D139385799
2%26metadata&access_token=100002020446739%3AAVIlNrgTdlJAI0OHv-
G40mSiC9EsPx26kESLO1CSNFGFtA&title=BRT_article_Smart_Move.docx)
COST (BHLS)
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=265229363638936&eid=AStiZXSdJUk
mjyLc30UZkwuEYmnoh-
0CA6uoC8usPpla8ZasXwUzkEh4wIBsDDp2Wr8&inline=1&ext=1393857761&hash=ASuU
PtTVC9IcQSTM
Elsevier (Research in transportation economics)
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=728896913801407&eid=ASsmN9McRF
FRKs4ogwrbUlBNPMQIXXJ5R1b_fmWvMWMtr8ETkDIeL1zUqTYBdjzaXvM&inline=1
&ext=1393858004&hash=ASvuU4uPWVRxpo5Q
TCRP report 90
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v2.pdf