Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit a Review of the Literature

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 10 June 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 778562168]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Transport ReviewsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713766937

Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review of the LiteratureTaotao Denga; John D. Nelsona

a Centre for Transport Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

First published on: 10 November 2010

To cite this Article Deng, Taotao and Nelson, John D.(2011) 'Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review of theLiterature', Transport Reviews, 31: 1, 69 — 96, First published on: 10 November 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2010.492455URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.492455

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713766937

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.492455

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Transport Reviews, Vol. 31, No. 1, 69–96, January 2011

0144-1647 print/1464-5327 online/11/010069-28 © 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2010.492455

Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review of the Literature

TAOTAO DENG AND JOHN D. NELSON

Centre for Transport Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKTaylor and FrancisTTRV_A_492455.sgm

(Received 16 October 2009; revised 4 May 2010; accepted 7 May 2010)10.1080/01441647.2010.492455Transport Reviews0144-1647 (print)/1464-5327 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Professor [email protected]

ABSTRACT Bus rapid transit (BRT), characterized by modern vehicles, dedicatedbusway and applications of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies, isincreasingly considered as a cost-effective approach of providing a high-quality transportservice. Many cities across the world have recently launched ambitious programmes ofBRT system implementation with varying success. This paper intends to provide an over-view of the recent developments of BRT across the globe, and discusses the current issuesand debates relating to the land development impact of BRT. It considers in turn theimpact of BRT examining technical performance, cost issues and land developmentimpact. The paper concludes that appropriately designed and operated BRT systems offeran innovative approach to providing a high-quality transport service, comparable to a railservice but at a relatively low cost and short implementation time. In common with otherforms of mass transit, a full-featured BRT has the potential to offer significant effects onland development; the literature review also indicates that more work is needed to investi-gate this.

Introduction

Following a few pioneering implementations in the later part of the twentiethcentury, bus rapid transit (BRT) has emerged as a leading mode of urban passen-ger transit in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In part this has beendue to the evidence of an ability to implement mass transportation capacityquickly and at low to moderate cost, while harnessing existing resources andstakeholders, coupled with a better understanding of its potential by nationalgovernments and by development partners, such as the World Bank. BRTsystems have been implemented throughout Latin and North America, South-east Asia, China, Australia, and now increasingly in Africa and India. In Europe,the number of BRT systems is steadily increasing, especially in France and theUK. BRT can have considerable impact when implemented as part of the ‘co-modality’ concept promoted by the EU, for example working in co-operation

Correspondence Address: John D. Nelson, Centre for Transport Research, University of Aberdeen, FraserNoble Building, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Queensland University of Technology] At: 02:35 10 June 2011

70 T. Deng and J. D. Nelson

between public transport fleet operation and parking management systems topromote BRT corridors.

In common with other forms of mass transit, BRT systems have potential tooffer significant impacts on urban economic, social and environmental develop-ment, although less attention to date has been given to the economic impact ofBRT. The objective of this paper is to examine the impacts of this relatively newtransport mode by analysing technical performance, cost issues and land devel-opment impacts. This is the subject of a comprehensive literature review. Thepaper is organized in four sections. The first describes the evolution of the BRTconcept and presents the implementation of BRT systems across the globe. Thenext discusses the performance and benefits of BRT with a focus on technicalperformance, consumer perception and cost issues. The third seeks to identify theimpact of BRT on land development. Finally, the paper concludes with the majorfindings from the review of literature. The paper is illustrated throughout withexamples from applications of BRT systems worldwide.

Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: State-of-the-Art

Basic Concept and Components

The term ‘mass transit’ refers to a large-scale system of public transport serving acity or metropolitan area, characterized by fast running speed, high passenger-carrying capacity and mostly operating on an exclusive right-of-way. Mass transitsystems can be distinguished from other forms of public transport by making useof specific infrastructure to be separated from general traffic. Mass transit modesinclude rail-based systems and rubber-tyred transit, such as mass rapid transit(MRT) (often called ‘Metro’), light rapid transit (LRT) (some also called ‘tram’ or‘streetcar’), monorail, commuter rail, and BRT, providing high capacity and highfrequency of service (Midgley, 1994; Grava, 2003).

Bus rapid transit is an emerging form of mass transit, which ties the speed andreliability of a rail service with the operating flexibility and lower cost of aconventional bus service. BRT systems are flexible and can be built economicallyand incrementally compared with other forms of mass transit. Some BRT systemsshare operating infrastructure with LRT systems (with no loss of performance toeither), whilst others allow conventional bus services access to certain keysections of BRT infrastructure to facilitate interconnection and performanceenhancement. As discussed below, an increasing number of cities are consideringBRT as a cost-effective way of providing a high-quality transport service to meettheir mass transit needs. In short, BRT is a wide and varying concept; Table 1shows several definitions of BRT.

These definitions set BRT apart from the conventional bus system describingBRT as a form of ‘rubber-tyred rapid transit, providing high-quality service’. Theterm ‘BRT’ originated in North America and is increasingly used elsewhere. Thesame concept is expressed through different names in various locations, includ-ing (Rambaud and Babilotte, 2005; Wright and Hook, 2007):

● high-capacity bus systems,● high-quality bus systemsm,● Metro-bus,● surface Metro,


Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit 71

● express bus systems,● busway systems, and● high-level bus service.

A BRT system is an integrated package of rapid transit elements, which generallyincludes seven main components, as shown in Table 2 below.

These elements work together to guarantee the efficiency and effectivenessof BRT systems. On the basis of busway type, which plays a pivotal role in

Table 1. Definitions of bus rapid transit

BRT Definitions Source

BRT is “a rapid mode of transportation that can combine the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”.

Thomas (2001)

BRT is “a flexible, rubber-tyred form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong identity”.

Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Gast, et al. (2003, p. S-1)

BRT is “a rubber-tyred rapid transit service that combines stations, vehicles, running ways, a flexible operating plan, and technology into a high quality, customer focused service that is frequent, fast, reliable, comfortable and cost efficient”.

Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) (2004, p. 16)

Table 2. Main components of a BRT system

Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al. (2003)

Canadian Urban Transit Association, (2004)

ComponentsRunning ways

BRT vehicles operate primarily in exclusive transit-ways or dedicated bus lanes. Vehicles may also operate in general traffic.

Three types of busways, including exclusive busways, dedicated lanes and mixed traffic.

Stations BRT stations, ranging from enhanced shelters to large transit centres.

Sufficient shelter from inclement weather, seating, customer information, appropriate lighting and ample platform space for boarding, alighting and waiting are the minimum requirements.

Vehicles Quiet, high-capacity vehicles use clean fuels to protect the environment.

The ideal BRT vehicle has a level of passenger comfort, is visually attractive, and is environmentally friendly.

Services High-frequency service. The integration of local and express service can reduce long-distance travel times.

A variety of service alternatives, including all stops route(s), limited stop service, feeder services.

Route structure

BRT uses simple, often colour-coded routes.

—

Fare collection

Pre-boarding fare collection. They allow multiple door boarding, reducing time in stations.

Multi-door boarding for customers with pre-paid fare media.

ITS Applications of ITS technologies include automatic vehicle locationing (AVL) systems, passenger information systems, and traffic signal preference at intersections.

A collection of computer and communication technologies that can enhance the convenience, safety and reliability of a BRT service.



determining the capital cost and overall performance, BRT systems can bedivided into four groups: running in mixed traffic (with signal priority), usingshoulder bus lanes, using median busways and using exclusive busways (Cainet al., 2009), as indicated in Figure 1.Figure 1. The spectrum of different BRT applications. Note: It has been argued that BRT can match or even surpass the performance of LRT in some circumstances, but this is not reflected in Figure 1. Source: Tindale Oliver & Associates (cited in Cain et al., 2009, p. 3)An express bus offers a faster bus service than normal bus via a faster schedule,fewer stops and usually taking a quicker route. BRT can be regarded as a signifi-cant improvement on the express bus in terms of capacity and speed. The BRTsystem has adopted many elements from LRT and Metro to provide a rail-likeservice: high speed, large capacity and high reliability.

A critical issue in implementing BRT is how to provide rights-of-way for vehi-cles. Most efforts focus on upgrading bus services (such as advanced vehicles,and intelligent transportation systems—ITS applications), but the performance ofa BRT system, especially speed, reliability and image, greatly depends on thequality of busway. In order to create dedicated lanes, BRT systems often operatealong railroad alignments (Ottawa, Canada; Miami, Los Angeles, USA, etc.), onarterial median busways or freeways (Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Vancouver, Canada;Bogotá, Colombia; Seoul, South Korea; Beijing, Kunming, China, etc.), even intunnels (Seattle, Washington, and Boston, Massachusetts, USA), on bridges orelevated structures (Nagoya, Japan, etc.). Guided bus technologies, especially theapplication of curb guided bus (CGB), were introduced to ensure that the vehiclecould operate along the narrow rights-of-way. Guided busway can run both onelevated track and ground level road, completely separating vehicle from trafficby application of concrete tracks. Phillips (2006) argued that this technology couldoffer BRT an option to run on a narrow lane where the right-of-way width wasrestricted.

Evolution of the BRT Concept

Figure 2 presents the global diffusion of BRT and shares a sample of systemsdifferentiated by first opening time and form of guidance. The origins of the BRT

Figure 1. The spectrum of different BRT applications. Note: It has been argued that BRT can match or even surpass the performance of LRT in some circumstances, but this is not reflected in Figure 1.

Source: Tindale Oliver & Associates (cited in Cain et al., 2009, p. 3).



concept can be traced back to the first exclusive bus lane on a city street inChicago in 1939. A large step forward in the USA was the development of the‘busway’ concept. The busway was built to avoid traffic congestion and providereliable service in many cities. The first true busway in the USA was placed on theHenry G. Shirley Memorial Highway in 1969 in Northern Virginia (Grava, 2003).In 1971, Runcorn opened the first busway corridor in the UK, with an elevatedsection into a retail centre. It was built as part of the new town’s basic lay-outfrom its beginning. In 1980, Essen opened the first guided busway in Germany.The busway was converted from a former tram route. The ‘superbus’ operates onthe median road, separating the bus from the effects of normal traffic congestion.In 1986, Adelaide, Australia, opened one of the world’s longest and fastest guidedbusways, linking Northeastern suburbs to the Central Business District (CBD).The Adelaide Northeast Busway uses guided bus technology, providing a high-speed and reasonable ride comfort (Currie, 2006a). Additionally, guided buswayscan be found in Bradford, Crawley, Leeds, UK; Nagoya, Japan; Eindhoven, theNetherlands; Mannheim, Germany; Nantes, France and in many other places.Figure 2. The global diffusion of BRT systemsThe modern concept of BRT was developed in the 1970s by Latin Americanplanners, who sought a quick and relatively inexpensive way to speed up busesas the solution to deteriorating traffic conditions. Curitiba, Brazil (Figure 3), isoften held up as an example of a successful BRT system, which integrates land-use and transport planning to achieve environmentally friendly urban develop-ment (Smith and Raemaekers, 1998). BRT operates almost like a ‘surface Metro’,offering many features of a rail system—dedicated busway, advanced stations,off-board fare collection, high-quality service, high speed and frequency, but(crucially) it costs much less than a rail system. In Curitiba, the first buswayopened in 1974, operating in the high-demand, lower income district on theperiphery of the city. The early simple busway system gradually evolved to anadvanced BRT system including five busway corridors and integration withextensive feeder bus services. Curitiba’s BRT system uses bi-articulated buses and

Figure 2. The global diffusion of BRT systems.



well-designed ‘tube’ stations to expand corridor capacity. The 25-metre longbuses operate on median exclusive busway, capable of carrying 260 passengerseach (Menckhoff, 2005). Serving as the backbone of Curitiba, BRT has provided arange of benefits for the city. The efficient BRT has substantially reduced traveltime and fuel consumption, which helps to promote sustainable urban develop-ment. Curitiba’s BRT has successfully attracted mode shift. Even though Curitibahas one of the highest car ownership rates in Brazil, one rider survey (1991)suggested that 25% of these commuters who previously used car had switched tousing the BRT service (Rabinovitch and Hoehn, 1995).Figure 3. Curitiba Metrobus—tube station and typical vehicles. Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP (2005)Another worldwide-known BRT system is TransMilenio in Bogotá (Figure 4),which began operation in 2000. It was adapted by Bogotá city as a part of a long-term sustainable transport strategy to encourage the use of public transport, walk-ing, cycling. The TransMilenio comprises dedicated busway, articulated buses,enhanced stations, smart card-based fare collection system, advanced controlsystem, distinctive image as well as an affordable cost for low-income users. TheTransMilenio trunk services run on exclusive busway in the centre of the city

Figure 3. Curitiba Metrobus—tube station and typical vehicles. Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP (2005).

Figure 4. Bogotá TransMilenio—median busway and stations. Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP (2005).



street, supported by feeder services extending to peripheral areas of the city. Afterseveral years progress, the TransMilenio has achieved impressive results in traveltime saving, considerable passenger satisfaction, high capacity, accident and emis-sion reduction, and operation without subsidy (Cain et al., 2007).Figure 4. Bogotá TransMilenio—median busway and stations. Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP (2005)

Overview of the Implementation of BRT Systems across the Globe

The successful experience of BRT in Curitiba and Bogotá has boosted the subse-quent introduction of BRT in many countries. Some have launched single lines,while others have implemented complete BRT networks. These systems haveachieved impressive outcomes in terms of social, economic and environmentalbenefits, in spite of varying in size, design, service plan, operating features andtechnology application. Table 3 presents an overview of the recent implementa-tion of BRT systems in Latin America, North America, Oceania, Europe and Asia.

Following the lead of Curitiba and Bogotá, other Latin American cities, includ-ing São Paulo, Goiania, Brazil; Santiago, Chile; Pereira, Colombia; León andMexico City, Mexico; and Quito and Guayaquil, Ecuador; with similar socio-economic characteristics of Curitiba and Bogotá, have all launched ambitious BRTsystems recently.

Perceived to be more cost effective than rail transit, BRT systems have alsogained interest in America. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) initiated aBRT ‘demonstration programme’ involving 15 cities in the USA in 1999, aiming topromote improved bus services.1 The FTA has offered grant opportunities toencourage cities to share information and data on BRT. Due to high capital costand low-density residential development in the corridor, many cities have had toabandon further development of LRT projects. Combining the quality of rail tran-sit and flexibility of bus, BRT systems are considered as a rapid transit alternativeto capital-intensive LRT projects. Some BRT project evaluation reports (Kim et al.,2005; Hoffman, 2008) suggest that BRT can be uniquely and flexibly adapted to amultitude of urban environments and result in achievement of performanceobjectives, including higher ridership, higher speed, travel time saving, enhancedreliability and safety, and improved passenger comfort and convenience. LosAngeles’ Metro Orange Line is one of the full-feature BRT systems in America. Itopened in 2005, operating on a previously abandoned railroad corridor. It wasdesigned with characteristics similar to an LRT system, such as two dedicatedlanes, 14 dispersed stations roughly one mile apart, automated ticket machines,three-door boarding, park and ride facilities, and rail service branding. In a recentstudy conducted by Callaghan and Vincent (2007), the Orange Line wascompared to the Gold Line light rail service. Encouragingly, Orange Lineperforms even better than the Gold Line, which costs significantly more butcarries fewer passengers. The ridership achieved the Year 2020 projection (22 000average weekday boardings) by May 2006, only seven months after its opening. AJanuary 2006 survey found that Orange Line successfully attracted choice users:18% of riders switched from car to BRT. Although more than a third of passengershad a car available for their trip, 79% accessed the BRT stations by transit ratherthan car. It further suggested that full BRT systems have the potential to offer thehigh speed and level of reliability of rail transit, but at a significantly lower cost.

The BRT experience in Canada has a long and successful history. Ottawa has areputation for running one of the most extensive and efficient BRT systems,known as Transitway. The initial segment opened in 1983, constructed primarily



Tab

le 3

.O

verv

iew

of s

elec

ted

bus

rap

id tr

ansi

t sys

tem

s

Cit

y

Met

ro

popu

lati

on,

mill

ions

Yea

r op

ened

Syst

em o

verv

iew

Syst

em p

erfo

rman

ceK

ey r

efer

ence

Nor

th A

mer

ica

Las

Veg

as

(USA

)0.

52 (2

005)

2004

Met

ropo

litan

Are

a E

xpre

ss (M

AX

) sys

tem

in

corp

orat

es d

esig

n an

d o

pera

tion

al

char

acte

rist

ics

of li

ght r

ail s

yste

m, c

onne

ctin

g re

sid

ents

of N

orth

Las

Veg

as to

em

ploy

men

t and

se

rvic

e ce

ntre

s

(1)

Ave

rage

spe

eds

on M

AX

are

app

roxi

mat

ely

25%

hi

gher

than

ave

rage

spe

eds

on lo

cal f

ixed

rou

te.

(200

6)(2

)T

rans

it r

ider

ship

ros

e by

25%

dur

ing

MA

X’s

firs

t 5

mon

ths

of o

pera

tion

.

Kim

et a

l. (2

005)

Mia

mi (

USA

)2.

3 (2

003)

1997

The

Sou

th M

iam

i-D

ade

Bus

way

is lo

cate

d a

long

a

form

er r

ailr

oad

rig

ht-o

f-w

ay, o

pera

ting

pr

imar

ily a

s a

feed

er to

the

Met

rora

il he

avy-

rail

syst

em.

(1)

The

ave

rage

spe

ed is

18

mph

for

limit

ed s

top

serv

ice

and

12

to 1

4 m

ph fo

r lo

cal (

all s

top)

ser

vice

.(2

)R

ider

ship

in th

e co

rrid

or h

as r

isen

184

% in

nin

e ye

ars.

Hof

fman

(200

8)

Los

Ang

eles

(U

SA)

9.5

(200

0)20

03M

etro

Rap

id is

a n

etw

ork

of r

apid

bus

es, o

ften

re

ferr

ed to

as

‘BR

T L

ite’

. The

sys

tem

ope

rate

s in

28

cor

rid

ors

and

cov

ers

450

rout

e m

iles.

(1)

Ave

rage

spe

ed im

prov

emen

ts fo

r al

l 16

corr

idor

s av

erag

e 26

%. B

us tr

avel

tim

es w

ere

red

uced

by

abou

t 25

% in

the

corr

idor

s.

(2) B

y 20

04, r

ider

ship

incr

ease

d b

y 30

% w

ith

mor

e th

an

13 5

00 w

eekl

y bo

ard

ings

.

Hof

fman

(200

8)

Eug

ene

(USA

)0.

34 (2

008)

2007

Em

X G

reen

Lin

e is

one

of t

he fu

ll fe

atur

ed B

RT

, w

ith

excl

usiv

e bu

s la

nes,

hig

h-ca

paci

ty v

ehic

les,

ne

ar-l

evel

boa

rdin

g an

d o

ff-b

oard

fare

col

lect

ion.

The

rid

ersh

ip ju

mpe

d b

y al

mos

t 50%

sin

ce it

ope

ned

, w

ith

dai

ly b

oard

ings

ave

ragi

ng a

roun

d 4

700

.B

us R

apid

Tra

nsit

Po

licy

Cen

ter

ww

w.g

obrt

.org

Van

couv

er

(Can

ada)

2.2

(200

7)19

96T

he B

-Lin

e of

fers

fast

, fre

quen

t, lim

ited

-sto

p se

rvic

e in

maj

or tr

avel

cor

rid

ors,

usi

ng lo

w fl

oor,

ar

ticu

late

d b

uses

.

(1)

For

Rou

te 9

9, tr

avel

tim

es w

ere

red

uced

5–1

5 m

in

(20–

40%

) as

com

pare

d w

ith

loca

l ser

vice

. Pea

k sp

eed

s av

erag

e 23

km

/h.

(2)

Thr

ee B

-Lin

es c

arry

abo

ut 5

1 00

0 pe

ople

per

day

. (2

004)

Can

adia

n U

rban

T

rans

it A

ssoc

iati

on

(200

4)

Sout

h A

mer

ica

Mex

ico

Cit

y (M

exic

o)22

.3 (2

009)

2005

The

“M

etro

bus”

was

laun

ched

on

Mex

ico

city

‘s

prin

cipa

l art

eria

l rou

te, w

ith

98 a

rtic

ulat

ed h

igh-

capa

city

bus

es. I

t was

des

igne

d to

sat

isfy

hig

h tr

ansp

ort d

eman

d a

nd im

prov

e th

e qu

alit

y of

the

envi

ronm

ent f

or c

omm

uter

s.

(1)

Met

robu

s co

uld

acc

omm

odat

e a

dem

and

of 2

50 9

00

pass

enge

r tr

ips

per

day

.(2

)H

igh

oper

atio

nal p

rod

ucti

vity

: rep

orte

d m

ore

than

3

000

pass

enge

rs p

er b

us p

er w

eekd

ay.

Wöh

rnsc

him

mel

, et

al.

(200

8);

Hid

algo

and

G

raft

ieau

x (2

008)



Tab

le 3

.(C

onti

nued

)

Cit

y

Met

ro

popu

lati

on,

mill

ions

Yea

r op

ened

Syst

em o

verv

iew

Syst

em p

erfo

rman

ceK

ey r

efer

ence

São

Paul

o (B

razi

l)20

(200

5)20

02Sã

o Pa

ulo

is a

noth

er e

arly

pio

neer

of b

usw

ay

dev

elop

men

t. It

has

104

-km

med

ian

busw

ays.

B

uses

wer

e ar

rang

ed in

to c

onvo

ys w

hich

has

pe

rmit

ted

a tr

ain-

like

oper

atio

n.

(1)

Com

mer

ical

spe

ed: 1

8 km

/h;

(2)

Peak

load

: 20

000

pass

enge

rs p

er h

our

per

dir

ecti

on

(pph

pd)

Men

ckho

ff (2

005)

; H

idal

go a

nd

Gra

ftie

aux

(200

8)

Sant

iago

(C

hile

)5.

27 (2

009)

2007

Tra

nsan

tiag

o w

as fu

lly o

pera

tion

al in

Feb

ruar

y,

2007

. The

sys

tem

has

inte

grat

ed e

lect

roni

c fa

re

colle

ctio

n w

ith

loca

l bus

line

s an

d s

ubw

ay

netw

ork.

(1)

Com

mer

cial

spe

ed: 1

8 km

/h;

(2)

Peak

load

: 22

000

pphp

d(3

)Pa

ssen

ger

boar

din

g pe

r bu

s pe

r d

ay: 2

418

Gra

ftie

aux

(200

8)

Qui

to

(Ecu

ador

)1.

39 (2

001)

1995

Qui

to h

as 3

7-km

med

ian

busw

ays

on th

ree

corr

idor

s, T

role

bús,

Eco

vía

and

Nor

te.

(1)

Ave

rage

com

mer

cial

spe

ed: 2

3 km

/h

(Nor

te)

(2)

Tro

lebú

s an

d E

coví

a re

port

aro

und

2 0

00 p

asse

nger

s pe

r bu

s pe

r w

eekd

ay.

Hid

algo

and

G

raft

ieau

x (2

008)

Oce

ania

Ad

elai

de

(Aus

tral

ia)

1.1

(200

6)19

86A

del

aid

e N

orth

Eas

t Bus

way

, one

of t

he w

orld

’s

long

est a

nd fa

stes

t gui

ded

bus

way

, lin

king

no

rthe

aste

rn s

ubur

bs to

CB

D. I

t use

s th

e gu

ided

bu

s te

chno

logy

, pro

vid

ing

high

spe

ed a

nd

reas

onab

le r

ide

com

fort

.

(1)

Com

mer

ical

spe

ed: 8

0 km

/h,

(inc

lud

ing

stop

ping

ti

me)

, pot

enti

ally

one

of t

he fa

stes

t tra

nsit

sys

tem

s in

th

e w

orld

.(2

)O

ver

seve

n m

illio

n pa

ssen

gers

per

yea

r us

e bu

s se

rvic

es. I

t car

ries

4 5

00 p

asse

nger

s d

urin

g pe

ak

hour

.(3

)40

% o

f new

pas

seng

ers

prev

ious

ly d

rove

.

Cur

rie

(200

6a)

Bri

sban

e (A

ustr

alia

)1.

7 (2

004)

2001

Sout

h E

ast B

usw

ay is

one

of t

he m

ost

tech

nolo

gica

lly-a

dva

nced

Bus

Rap

id T

rans

it

(BR

T) s

yste

ms,

con

sist

ing

of tu

nnel

s,

und

erpa

sses

, ove

rpas

ses

and

a d

edic

ated

two-

way

roa

dw

ay.

(1)

Est

imat

ed ti

me

savi

ngs

is 2

min

per

mile

.(2

)R

ider

ship

has

incr

ease

d b

y 40

% d

urin

g th

e fi

rst s

ix

mon

ths

of o

pera

tion

(200

1).

(3)

It c

arri

es 1

5 00

0 pa

ssen

gers

dur

ing

peak

hou

r (2

004)

.

Cur

rie

(200

6a);

Rat

hwel

l and

Sc

hijn

s (2

002)

Auc

klan

d

(New

Z

eala

nd)

1.3

(200

6)20

08T

he fi

rst d

edic

ated

bus

way

in N

ew Z

eala

nd,

linki

ng N

orth

Sho

re C

ity

and

Hib

iscu

s C

oast

w

ith

the

CB

D.

It fo

rms

a ke

y pa

rt o

f Auc

klan

d’s

rap

id tr

ansi

t ne

twor

k.

It h

as b

roug

ht h

uge

impr

ovem

ent t

o pa

ssen

ger

tran

spor

t con

nect

ions

to th

e A

uckl

and

CB

D. T

he

busw

ay m

akes

trav

el to

the

CB

D fa

st, f

requ

ent a

nd

relia

ble.

Off

icia

l web

site

: w

ww

.bus

way

.co

.nz



Tab

le 3

.(C

onti

nued

)

Cit

y

Met

ro

popu

lati

on,

mill

ions

Yea

r op

ened

Syst

em o

verv

iew

Syst

em p

erfo

rman

ceK

ey r

efer

ence

Eur

ope

Am

ster

dam

(t

he

Net

herl

and

s)

0.74

(200

7)20

02Z

uid

tang

ent’s

iden

tity

incl

udes

the

use

of r

ed

bran

din

g to

sig

nify

spe

ed a

nd g

ray

to s

igni

fy

luxu

ry. B

uses

ope

rate

on

ded

icat

ed b

us la

nes

and

cu

rbsi

de.

(1)

Ave

rage

com

mer

cial

spe

ed: 3

8 km

/h

(2)

Tot

al s

yste

m p

asse

nger

trip

s: 2

8 50

0 pe

r d

ay(3

)H

igh

freq

uenc

y: 3

00 li

ne (b

etw

een

Haa

rlem

and

A

mst

erd

am B

ijlm

er A

rena

Sta

tion

) run

s on

wee

kday

s te

n ti

mes

per

hou

r, a

nd a

t nig

ht o

nce

per

hour

.

Wri

ght a

nd H

ook,

(2

007)

; Off

icia

l w

ebsi

te: w

ww

.zu

idta

ngen

t.nl

Rou

en

(Fra

nce)

0.53

(200

7)20

01R

ouen

’s th

ree-

line,

opt

ical

ly g

uid

ed B

RT

sys

tem

s (T

EO

R s

yste

m) p

rovi

de

relia

ble,

com

fort

able

and

ac

cess

ible

ser

vice

.

(1)

Ave

rage

day

trip

s: 3

5 00

0 in

200

3.(2

)T

he c

ost c

over

age

by fa

res

is b

etw

een

the

bus

and

the

tram

way

.

Ram

baud

et a

l. (2

008)

Asi

aH

angz

hou

(Chi

na)

6.4

(200

4)20

06T

he b

uses

ope

rate

on

a d

edic

ated

rig

ht la

ne. T

he

tran

sfer

is fr

ee a

mon

g th

ree

corr

idor

s. It

is

plan

ning

to e

xpan

d B

RT

net

wor

k w

ith

nine

new

B

RT

rou

tes.

(1)

Peak

rid

ersh

ip: 5

250

pph

pd(2

)C

ity

cent

re p

eak

hour

spe

ed: 1

5–17

km

/h

ww

w.c

hina

brt.o

rg ;

offi

cial

web

site

: w

ww

.hz

bus.

com

.cn

Kun

min

g (C

hina

)6.

1 (2

007)

1999

Kun

min

g cu

rren

tly

has

a 40

km

net

wor

k of

6

cent

relin

e, a

t-gr

ade

open

bus

way

s.(1

)T

he a

vera

ge o

pera

ting

spe

ed o

n th

e d

emon

stra

tion

lin

e in

crea

sed

68%

to 1

5 km

/h.

(2)

Rid

ersh

ip o

n th

e d

emon

stra

tion

line

incr

ease

d 1

3%(3

)T

he in

fras

truc

ture

cos

ts w

ere

rang

ing

from

$U

S0.5

to

$US0

.8 m

illio

n (e

xclu

din

g ve

hicl

es).

Dar

ido

(200

6)

Tai

pei

(Chi

na)

6.75

(200

9)19

99T

he fi

rst f

ull B

RT

sys

tem

in A

sia.

Tai

pei h

as 7

0 km

BR

T n

etw

ork.

It is

one

of t

he s

ucce

ssfu

l BR

T

mod

els

wit

h it

s in

tegr

ated

tick

etin

g sy

stem

. It

wor

ks a

s a

feed

er s

ervi

ce to

the

rail

serv

ice.

(1)

Sign

ific

antl

y lo

w c

osts

: $0.

35 m

illio

n pe

r ki

lom

etre

.(2

)A

vera

ge c

omm

erci

al s

peed

: 20

km/

hH

ensh

er a

nd

Gol

ob, (

2008

)

Seou

l (K

orea

) 23

(200

6)20

04Se

oul‘s

BR

T n

etw

ork

has

74 k

m o

f ded

icat

ed

med

ian

lane

, spa

nnin

g 8

corr

idor

s.(1

)C

omm

erci

al s

peed

dou

bled

from

11

to 2

2 km

/h,

af

ter

six

mon

ths

oper

atio

n.(2

)R

ider

ship

ros

e an

d d

aily

pas

seng

ers

outn

umbe

red

th

at o

f the

sub

way

sys

tem

by

mor

e th

an 1

00 0

00 in

20

09.

Cer

vero

and

Kan

g (2

009)



Tab

le 3

.(C

onti

nued

)

Cit

y

Met

ro

popu

lati

on,

mill

ions

Yea

r op

ened

Syst

em o

verv

iew

Syst

em p

erfo

rman

ceK

ey r

efer

ence

Jaka

rta

(Ind

ones

ia)

8.79

(200

8)20

04T

rans

Jaka

rta

curr

entl

y ha

s 7

corr

idor

s w

ith

32

new

cor

rid

ors

und

er c

onst

ruct

ion.

The

se

busw

ays

are

cons

ider

ed a

s a

low

-cos

t sol

utio

n to

m

eet t

he tr

ansi

t nee

ds

of Ja

kart

a.

(1)

Com

mer

cial

spe

ed: 1

7 km

/h;

pea

k lo

ad: 3

200

pph

pd(2

)It

cur

rent

ly m

oves

som

e 65

000

pas

seng

ers

per

day

an

d a

ttra

cts

som

e 14

% o

f the

se p

asse

nger

s fr

om

priv

ate

cars

, 6%

from

mot

orcy

cles

, and

5%

from

taxi

s (2

005)

.

Hid

algo

and

G

raft

ieau

x (2

008)

; IT

DP

(200

5)



on a railroad right-of-way. It provides travel from outlying residential areas to theCBD. The Transitway system consists of 60 km roadway, including 26 km of bus-only grade-separated roadway, with most of the remaining distance on reservedfreeway or arterial lanes. It links to the rail network, as well as park-and-ridestations. The Transitway system provides a high-frequency service, operatingalmost all day: 22 hours daily (4:30 am–2:30 am) with 3–5 minute peak headwaysand a 5–6 minute off-peak. It can serve 200 000 passengers everyday, with thepeak loading of 10 000 passengers (Canadian Urban Transit Association, 2004). Inthe light of its striking performance, the City of Ottawa has planned to expand thetransit route network to serve the increasing numbers of passengers. Recently,York University busway, newly opened in November 2009 in Ontario, provides afaster transit option for commuters.

Four cities in Australasia have implemented BRT systems as a cost-effectivemeans of providing quality service for cities with comparatively low density.Australasia has one of the oldest BRT systems—the Adelaide Northeast Busway(opened in 1986). It also has some of the world’s newest systems: the BrisbaneSoutheast Busway (Figure 5), the Brisbane Inner Northern Busway and the cross-corridor Sydney Transitways (Parramatta to Liverpool and Parramatta to RouseHill), opened in 2001, 2004, 2003 and 2007, respectively. These systems operate indifferent and autonomous states offering the opportunity to identify the impact ofinstitutional environment as well as distinctive technological and operationalaspects. Auckland opened its first exclusive busway, the Auckland NorthernBusway, in 2008. It has dedicated park and ride facilities, considered as a key partof Auckland’s rapid transit network.Figure 5. Brisbane Southeast Busway—dedicated two-way roadway. Source: Karl Fjellstrom, ITDP (2005)Bus rapid transit in Europe looks more rail-like in appearance than their coun-terparts elsewhere, examples include Eindhoven (the Netherlands), Paris (France)and Rouen (France).2 Those BRT systems operate on rights-of-way, with varioustypes of guidance systems. Rouen has three guided BRT lines, called TEOR(Transport Est-Ouest Rouennais). The use of optical guidance systems on TEORallows vehicles to run in a narrow urban space. Rouen’s three BRT lines provide areliable, comfortable and accessible service. In 2003, the average day trips werearound 35 000 (Rambaud et al.).

Figure 5. Brisbane Southeast Busway—dedicated two-way roadway. Source: Karl Fjellstrom,ITDP (2005).



In the UK, BRT is increasingly seen as a high-profile rapid transit mode, offer-ing an innovative solution to traffic problems. There are a number of public trans-port schemes approaching BRT, such as the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway,Crawley Fastway, Kent Thameside Fastrack and Luton-Dunstable Busway. TheCrawley Fastway system, incorporating most of the features associated with atram system, has proved that a busway system was more attractive than originallyanticipated, with patronage some 40% higher than forecast (DFT, 2005).Cambridgeshire County Council is building the longest guided busway system(25 km), linking the city of Cambridge to satellite towns and villages. Luton-Dunstable Busway has recently been approved. The service will be provided byspecial busway vehicle, which is capable of running both on the track and publicroads. In Leeds, the Super Busway concept was introduced in 1995. Superbusoperates on Scott Hall Road between the Northern suburbs and the CentralBusiness District. The guided bus technology effectively prevents unauthorizeduse by other traffic allowing buses to avoid traffic congestion in the rush hour. In2001, another guided busway launched on the east of the city (York Road).Recently, after the refusal of the Leeds captial-intensive Supertram proposal, aBRT system has been proposed by Leeds City Council due to its lower capitalcosts and greater flexibility (DFT, 2005).

While BRT schemes in the UK mainly use guided bus, Kent Thameside openeda non-guided modern BRT system in March 2006. It demonstrated clearly thatBRT can be fast, comfortable, reliable and attract new passengers. A passengersurvey conducted by the Fastrack Delivery Executive (2006), suggested that 19%of passengers previously using the car switched to the BRT service and 95% ofcustomers rated the overall Fastrack experience as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Itachieved a very high level of customer satisfaction, with passengers some 50%above forecast. The Fastrack network is planned to become 40 km and half ofroutes will operate on dedicated busway. In contrast, it is worth noting that theEdinburgh Fastlink BRT system has ceased operation with the construction of theEdinburgh LRT scheme.

Constrained by the high cost of rail transit, BRT has been considered as animmediate, practical and affordable solution to traffic problems in many cities inAsia. A growing number of cities, including Jakarta (Indonesia), Pune and Delhi(India), Seoul (Korea), Nagoya (Japan), Bangkok (Thailand), Beijing, Hangzhou,Kunming and Guangzhou (China), have implemented or are developing BRTsystems to meet rapidly increasing travel demands.

In Japan, two BRT systems with different guidance systems, operating on anexclusive median bus lane (Key Route Bus System opened in 1985) and elevatedtrack (Guideway Bus System opened in 2001), respectively, were introduced inNagoya. Both of these two systems can deliver improved operational speed andpunctuality. Takeshita et al. (2009) suggested that median bus lanes, longer busstop intervals and transit signal priority (TSP) contributed to the high operationalspeed (25 km/h) for the key route bus system, while the elevated track separatedBRT from general traffic, thus allowing the vehicle to run at a high speed of30 km/h, comparable with the speed of the subway.

In China, with an emphasis on offering an efficient and cost-effective mode ofmass transit system, BRT systems have been rapidly deployed in many cities,including Beijing (Figure 6), Changzhou, Hangzhou, Kunming, Ji’nan, Chongqing,Dalian, Xiamen, Hefei and Zhengzhou, with varying degrees of success. The mostnotable BRT system in China is the Southern Axis BRT Line 1 in Beijing (the first



BRT corridor in China), which is described by Deng and Nelson (2009). Beijing isone of the most congested cities in China. After years of heavy investments in build-ing rail systems, especially the Metro and LRT, the Beijing authority has facedincreasing difficulties in paying off the debts, subsidizing Metro and LRT opera-tion, and expanding the rail network. Considered as a more affordable way toprovide a high-quality transport service, an ambitious programme of BRT systemimplementation has been launched in Beijing. The Southern Axis BRT Line 1 startedcommercial operations in December 2004. Most lanes are physically segregated inthe median of the road. This rubber-tyred transit system has achieved almost 40%travel time reduction and high ridership, but with only 1/15 capital cost of a Metroline. When fully complete, it is planned the BRT network will measure 300 km inlength.Figure 6. Beijing Southern Axis BRT Line 1—median busway. Source: www.brtchina.orgAlthough there is world-wide evidence that BRT is a promising strategy forimproving travel conditions, implementing BRT inevitably encounters some chal-lenging issues of a technical, operational and institutional nature. As each city hascertain inherent characteristics, successful BRT experiences (for example) fromLatin American cities need proper modification to be applied in other contexts. InIndia, many high density cities have faced a transport crisis characterized byextreme traffic congestion, environmental deterioration, road crashes, due to anunexpected surge in transport demand. As bus travel accounts for over 90% ofpublic transport use in India, BRT systems are considered as an economically effi-cient mass transit mode for providing a high-quality service to a large lowincome population (Pucher et al., 2005). Nine major Indian cities have embarkedupon a programme of introducing BRT (Delhi, Pune, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad,Rajkot, Guwahati, Vizag, Surat and Jaipur) of which three—Delhi, Pune andAhmedabad—have implemented pilot schemes with mixed success. The pilotBRT project in Delhi has suffered from severe media criticism ever since thefirst trial run, due to poor design and lack of co-ordination with different stake-holders. Resistance from motorists was sparked since BRT requires its own right-of-way which needs twice the road space of a car. Nevertheless, the BRT systemhas acquired overwhelming support from the commuters. According to a jointperception survey of commuters travelling on the BRT corridor conducted by the

Figure 6. Beijing Southern Axis BRT Line 1—median busway. Source: www.brtchina.org.



Center for Science and Environment, Delhi Greens and the Indian Youth ClimateNetwork (2008), 83% of commuters were happy with dedicated BRT lanes andbelieved that BRT should be continued in the city. Twenty-six per cent of car andtwo wheeler commuters were willing to change mode if the BRT system had awell-covered network and connected with the Metro. More encouraging evidenceis reported from Ahmedabad’s Janmarg (opened in October 2009), India’s firstfully-featured BRT service with median stations, level boarding, and centralcontrol. ITDP (2009) argued that Janmarg had the potential to help revive theimage of public transport in India.

Finally, although the African situation has not been explicitly considered here,it is relevant to note that BRT is also being introduced in some African cities. TheseBRT systems focus upon delivering a high-quality transport service within a clearbudget. In Lagos, Nigeria, ‘BRT-Lite’ (Africa’s first BRT system) opened in 2008.In Johannesburg, the first phase of Rea Vaya system opened in 2009, aiming toprovide a high-quality transport service for the 2010 World Cup Soccer tourna-ment. It was the first full-feature BRT system in Africa, considered as a milestonefor developing high-quality and affordable transport in Africa. It deploys a new18-m vehicle on trunk corridors along fully segregated bus lanes with pre-paidplatform-level boarding stations to improve transport service (ITDP, 2007;Walters, 2008). Two other cities, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, have BRT systemsunder construction. In Accra, Ghana, proposals for BRT are just finishing detaileddesign.

The Performance and Cost of Bus Rapid Transit

Performance of BRT

The conventional bus is often viewed as a slow, unreliable and poor-quality trans-port mode. The emergence of BRT has improved the overall image and perfor-mance (speed, capacity, reliability, comfort, etc.) of bus services. Like other formsof mass transit, BRT can provide a high-capacity, high-frequency service. In manyaspects, BRT systems are quite similar to Metro and LRT, as indicated in Table 4.Case studies summarized by Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al.(2003) have demonstrated that BRT can be a cost-effective way of providing ahigh-quality service. It can significantly reduce journey times, increase ridership,provide sufficient capacity and induce transit-oriented development. Jarzab et al.(2002) argued that BRT on an exclusive busway did not markedly differ from LRTin terms of passenger flow control and off-vehicle fare collection. Technicalperformance of BRT systems are measured by three key attributes—travel speed,reliability and passenger volume.

For any BRT project, improving vehicle speed is probably the most fundamen-tal goal. The busway separates BRT from traffic congestion, allowing vehicles torun at a fast speed. For example, TransMilenio has increased its average speedfrom approximately 15 km/h to 26.7 km/h, resulting in a great travel time savingfor passengers (Cain et al., 2007). Hidalgo and Graftieaux (2008) reviewed BRTsystems in 11 cities in Latin America and Asia, and found the average commercialspeeds of those BRT systems were improved by between 14.5 km/h and 26 km/h,depending on the quality of busway. A BRT system operating on exclusivebusway can generally achieve impressive travel speed. The Adelaide NortheastBusway is probably one of the fastest BRT systems in the world. Using guided



bus technology, the average speed is 80 km/h (including stopping time), withmaximum running speeds of up to 100 km/h (Currie, 2006a).

Bus rapid transit systems that operate on exclusive busway generally experi-ence the most travel time reliability. Since the intersections generally cause themost delays for BRT, TSP systems are deployed to give BRT a little extra greentime to reduce the delays at intersections. This can substantially keep BRT runningat a high speed and make the service more reliable, while minimizing the impactson normal traffic. Furthermore, most advanced BRT systems utilize fast boardingtechniques, such as off-board electronic fare payment, multiple doors boardingand level boarding which can be achieved with either high-floor (Bogotá, Curitiba,Guayaquil, Quito, etc.) or low-floor vehicles (Beijing, Hangzhou, etc.), to acceler-ate passenger flow.

Table 4. Mass transit systems characteristics

Transport mode Bus rapid transit Light rail transit Metro

Right-of-way requirements Mainly shared right-of-way (at-grade) or exclusive right-of-way or arterial lanes

Exclusive right-of-way (elevated) or shared right-of-way (at-grade)

Exclusive right-of-way

Support Roadway Steel track Steel trackVehicle propulsion Internal combustion

EngineElectric Electric

Vehicle control Mainly visual Sign control Sign controlConstruction time <18 months 2–3 years 4–10 yearsSpace requirement 2–4 lanes taken from

existing road2–3 lanes taken from existing road

Little impact on existing road

Flexibility Flexible in both implementation AND Operation

Limited flexibility, somewhat risky in financial terms

Inflexible and financially risky

Direct impact on traffic flow Depends on design/available space in roadway corridor

Depends on design/available space in roadway corridor

Does not take space away from roadway

maximum capacity (passenger/unit)

160 170–280 240

Minimum headway (seconds) 12–30 75–150 120–150Maximum frequency (Transit units per hour)

120–300 24–48 24–30

Line capacity(passenger/h)

Medium9 000–30 000

Medium12 200–26 900

High67 200–72 000

Maximum speed (km/h) 60–70 60–80 70–100Commercial speed (km/h) 15–25 (higher for

some commuter systems)

15–25 30–40

Average capital cost (2000 US$/mile) (millions)

13.46 34.70 168.51

Average operation cost (2000 US$ per vehicle revenue mile)

4.73 12.22 8.54

Note:(1) Cost adjusted to fiscal year $2000; calculated by CPI avg(2) These findings were obtained from American case studies. It assumes that capital costs of BRT are

substantially higher than those in developing countriesSources: Vuchic (2005); Zhang (2009); IEA (2002).D

ownloaded By: [Queensland University of Technology] At: 02:35 10 June 2011


By the use of specially designed articulated vehicles and frequent service, aBRT system is capable of providing sufficient capacity to meet travel demandsin most corridors. Ridership figures from existing systems show that BRT iscomparable with LRT in terms of capacity. For example, daily ridershipreported for systems in North America ranges from 1000 in Charlotte to 40 000or more in Los Angeles and Seattle (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Gast, et al.,2003). Ridership of BRT in South American and Asian cities is substantiallyhigher because of large low-income populations and relatively higher popula-tion density. For nine single-lane BRT systems in Latin America and Asia,Hidalgo and Graftieaux (2008) found that ridership was between 3000 and13 000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). Ridership for BRT systems inCuritiba was measured at 532 000 passengers per day on the 65-km corridors in2005 (Menckhoff, 2005). Empirical evidence from Bogotá has demonstrated BRTis capable of providing considerable passenger capacity in a high populationdensity city. TransMilenio in Bogotá, the highest capacity BRT system in theworld, can carry up to 45 000 pphpd, which is even greater than many rail-based systems (Cain et al., 2007; Hidalgo and Graftieaux, 2008). In 2005,TransMilenio during Phase 1 (42-km corridors) could carry 770 000 passengersper day (Menckhoff, 2005). In 2007, the system could carry nearly 1.3 millionpassengers on the 84-km corridor routes on an average working day (Gilbert,2008). A more systematic assessment on peak ridership for 26 systems across theworld was conducted by Hensher and Golob (2008). It found that the ridershipof many BRT systems varied from 2000 to 8000 pphpd and BRT systems in fourSouth American cities (Bogotá, Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre, and Curitiba) couldcarry over 20 000 pphpd.

With the improvement of service quality (high speed, reliability, safety, comfortand user-friendly design), BRT systems have a positive impact on customer satis-faction. Cain et al. (2009) recently conducted an attitudinal survey of 2400 transitusers and non-users in the Los Angeles area, aiming to quantify the importance ofimage and perception to BRT. This survey used a set of tangible and intangiblefactors to identify the perceived differences among BRT, LRT and Metro. It wasfound that the general public had a high perception of the BRT service. TheOrange Line (a full BRT system) achieved similar ratings to the Gold Line (LRT)in terms of both tangible and intangible factors. It was concluded that a BRTsystem can compete with rail-based transit, at least based on the perception of thegeneral public. This evidence supports BRT’s ability to increase ridership andattract modal shift from private cars. Many studies have identified significantincreases in transit ridership in BRT corridors. Available evidence from Adelaide,Australia, suggests that BRT systems show higher satisfaction than on-street busand rail corridors (Currie, 2006b). The ridership of the Adelaide NortheastBusway grew 24% in 2004; about 40% of these new passengers previously drove(Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al., 2003; Currie, 2006a). A studyon Brisbane’s Southeast Busway suggested ridership had increased 40% after sixmonths of full operation in 2001 (Rathwell and Schijns, 2002). A passenger surveyconducted on the Beijing Southern Axis BRT Line 1 (Deng and Nelson, 2010) indi-cated that BRT was a competitive alternative to the private car, especially duringthe rush hour. 12.4% of the passengers claimed that they had a car alternative forthe journey, but they still chose to use the BRT. This surveyed modal shift fromprivate car is encouraging, considering that car ownership in Beijing is generallylower than many western cities.



Cost Issues and Externalities of BRT

Typically, the overall capital and operating costs for BRT systems are less thansimilar rail-based systems. The cost-effectiveness advantage has made BRT acces-sible to budget-constrained cities that could not afford a rail transit. Hensher(2007) argued that BRT has the ability to deliver a high-quality mass transitsystem but impose less burden on subsidy. It was further suggested that incontrast to other forms of mass transit, BRT is an increasingly preferred system togrow public transport patronage and deliver value for money. Wright and Hook(2007) found constructing a BRT system typically costs 4–20 times less than anLRT system and 10–100 times less than a Metro system.3 Menckhoff (2005)suggested investment cost for BRT is often less than one-tenth per km than otherrapid transit technologies. That means with the same budget, BRT can delivergreater network coverage than rail systems. Therefore, extensive BRT systemshave been built within a short period, 84 km of corridor in Bogotá (1999–2006)and 45 km in Guayaquil, Ecuador (2003–06), for example. Empirical evidencefrom the Bangkok mass transit project suggested a BRT system per km costs someone thirty-fourth of Metro, (US$1.3 million for BRT and US$43.4 million forMetro, respectively, per km) (Hossain, 2006). Studies from the US GeneralAccounting Office (US GAO, 2001) suggested BRT capital costs were generallylower than LRT capital costs on a per mile basis (described in Figure 7), but rider-ship and operating speeds was comparable between BRT and LRT systems. Whileexact capital cost depends greatly on local circumstances, especially involvingconstruction of busway, 20 existing BRT lines reviewed by GAO (2001) provedthat BRT was a cost-effective mobility solution despite running on exclusivebusways, high-occupancy vehicle lanes or arterial streets. Hidalgo and Graftieaux(2008) found that the total capital costs of 11 selected BRT systems in LatinAmerican and Asian cities vary from $1.35 million per km (Jakarta) to US$8.2million per km (Bogotá). Hensher and Golob (2008) examined the constructioncost of BRT infrastructure for 44 existing BRT systems throughout developed and

Figure 7. Capital cost per mile for LRT and BRT. Note: Cost adjusted to fiscal year 2000 dollars. Source: US Government Accountability Office, 2001, p. 17.



developing countries. The costs were found to vary due to significant differencein local context, labour cost and construction work. But the variation is notsystematic, as the overwhelming majority of systems cost less than US$10 millionper km (costs were converted to US$ 2006).Figure 7. Capital cost per mile for LRT and BRT. Note: Cost adjusted to fiscal year 2000 dollars. Source: US Government Accountability Office, 2001, p. 17)With respect to BRT operation cost, the evidence is mixed, especially due to thesignificant difference of labour cost among countries. Zhang (2009) measuredfour operating costs (cost per vehicle revenue mile, cost per vehicle revenuehour, cost per 1000 place miles4 and cost per 1000 passenger miles) among bus,BRT, LRT and MRT in America. The results suggested that BRT outperformedLRT in all of the four operating cost categories. Furthermore, in many cities(Bogotá, Porto Alegre, Kunming, etc.), there is no need for operational subsidyfrom government. Evidence from Porto Alegre (Brazil) has showed the BRTsystem operating with no public subsidies and returning a profit to private sectorfirms, whereas an urban rail system requires a 70% subsidy for each passengertrip in similar circumstances (Wright and Hook, 2007). High passenger demandand low labour cost contribute to explaining why operating BRT in those coun-tries is profitable.

Finally, like proximity to any other form of public transport, there is alsogrowing concern about BRT’s negative impact on urban life. Although Bogotá’sTransMilenio has successfully cut congestion along the main corridor andgained popularity among general public, complaints did occur over the years.During peak times, extreme crowding problems often occur on TransMilenio,which has caused passengers’ dissatisfaction of the service and pickpocketing toincrease (Gilbert, 2008). Indeed, all mass transit systems are likely to result intraffic disruption and environmental pollution, and BRT systems inevitablyhave negative impact on air pollution to some extent in spite of the modernengine technology. Nevertheless, as the conventional bus lines that formerlyoperated on the corridor are usually substantially reduced after the launch ofnew BRT vehicles, the levels of air pollutants along its corridor could beexpected to be reduced. Wöhrnschimmel et al. (2008) conducted a study,measuring commuters’ exposure to air pollutants before and after the imple-mentation of the Metro-bus BRT system in Mexico City. It was found thathuman exposure to traffic related air pollutants was effectively reduced after theimplementation of the BRT system. The findings further suggested that the BRTsystem was a less hazardous transport alternative, and actually could improvethe air quality for commuters.

Bus Rapid Transit and Land Development

Lessons Drawn from Rail Systems

It is widely appreciated that mass transit systems may have a positive effect onthe timing or probability of land development. Since proximity to mass transitcan greatly save time and money cost of commuting, properties near transportfacilities generally become desirable for new development or redevelopment. Asreducing commuting time is one of the major factors to consider for householdsand businesses in choosing their locations, they are likely to bid more for stationareas in a competitive property market, reflected by property value uplift. Theseimpacts are especially strong in places where a large number of low-income resi-dents rely heavily on public transport to get to work.



There is a large body of research investigating the impact of rail transit systems,specifically Metro and LRT, on property value. Many studies have identified thatcapitalization benefits occur for properties near rail systems (Al-Mosaind et al.,1993; McDonald and Osuji, 1995; Lewis-Workman and Brod, 1997; Weinberger,2000; RICS Policy Unit, 2002; Hess and Almeida, 2007). However, some evidencefrom transport improvement programmes does not show noticeable impact onproperty value (Du and Mulley, 2007). In addition, proximity to the transit systemcould bring negative impacts on property value. Within the immediate stationarea, nuisance effects, such as noise, traffic disruption, air pollution from dieselengines and safety issues, may decrease property value. This was observed by astudy of the impacts of LRT on property value in Portland, Oregon, but Al-Mosaind et al. (1993) argued that positive effects of accessibility were muchstronger than the negative nuisance effects. Although previous research has cometo varying conclusions, due to the difference of transport infrastructure improve-ment, local property market characteristics, general and regional economic condi-tions, time horizon, and policy objectives, overall, the presence of transportsystems has positive effects on land development.

The Impact of BRT on Land Development

As a relatively new mass transit mode, the impact of BRT on land developmentremains largely unexplored. In common with other forms of mass transit systems,BRT systems tend to offer impact on land development. Due to physical spaceand funding limitation, BRT can be implemented in phases. This provides a goodopportunity to show early progress with small capital investment. This flexibilityalso enables BRT to be implemented in a wide range of environments. However,flexibility, one of BRT’s main advantages, is also one of its weaknesses (Rodríguezand Targa, 2004). A bus service is generally perceived as being less permanentthan a rail service. Local decision-makers and transport planners may question itsability to stimulate land development. Polzin and Baltes (2002) indicated that themost critical consideration in evaluating a BRT proposal would be perception asto the ability to influence land-use. A review of the US GAO (Hecker, 2003)showed that decision-makers perceived that the ability of BRT to stimulate landdevelopment might be limited when compared with other forms urban masstransit. Some experts have questioned the extent to which BRT has an impact onland-use. However, in a Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report(Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, 1996), it was argued that the perspectivethat bus systems could not stimulate land development was ‘wrong’ whenconsidering the success of bus only systems in Ottawa, Curitiba and Houston,Texas, USA. Like other forms of high-capacity, high-quality transit, BRT can addcapacity to the existing transport corridor which could enhance its accessibility.BRT systems can run at a faster speed than conventional buses which enablesusers to travel further at a given commute time. Household and business gener-ally choose where to locate by weighing costs and benefits of alternative sites.Considering the saving of the cost of transport, residential and commercial prop-erties near transport facilities tend to become more attractive. BRT is cheaper toimplement than a rail system, but it still represents a capital-intensive system. Arecent literature review on ‘bus transit oriented development’ (TOD) by Currie(2006b) indicated that the argument that a rail system has more magnitude andpermanence than BRT is weak and suggests that modern BRT systems have a



strong capability to lead bus-based TOD. (Currie, 2006b) further argued thatfinancing and risk assessment were the main factors affecting TOD policy, ratherthan the relative features of rail versus bus. In a recent working paper, Cerveroand Kang (2009) argued that the quality of transport service, specifically traveltime savings, was a far more important reason to influence land-use change,rather than the type of transit system (steel-wheel trains or rubber-tyre buses).

It is arguable that BRT systems are considered as a potential catalyst for landdevelopment in some cities, such as Curitiba, Ottawa, Brisbane, and in other areasof urban development such as Kent Thameside. In Curitiba, BRT systems operateon five main arteries leading into the city centre. Land use along transit corridorsis zoned for mixed use and high-density development, promoting a linear urbangrowth. This land-use policy supports bus TOD for growth around majorstations. High-density residential and commercial development also generatesmore potential ridership to sustain a BRT system. In the UK, Kent Thameside’sBRT system, Fastrack, has been playing a significant role in the regeneration anddevelopment of Kent Thameside. Fastrack is a practical demonstration of inte-grating land-use and transport planning (DFT, 2008). It is designed to influencetravel behaviour from the outset, and help transform brown field sites into newcommunities. The planning agreement required the high-quality Fastrack serviceto be fully operational before the developer made any major new development.Since a high concentration of population along corridors can support high levelsof transit service, integrating transport planning with land-use development isobviously crucial for the success of BRT systems.

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests BRT systems have a positiveimpact on land value uplift. In some cases, a BRT system successfully promoteshigh-density residential, office and commercial land-use. Table 5 shows someexamples of land development impact resulting from BRT.

Land development effects were quantified for several BRT systems. Evidencefrom Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Brisbane and Curitiba showed BRT could have similarland-use benefits to those resulting from rail transit (Levinson et al., 2002). A studyconducted by Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al. (2003) andLevinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Gast, et al. (2003) found the construction ofOttawa‘s Transitway brought on over $675 million investment around bus stationsfrom the time of its launch in 1983 to the mid-1990s. As for Brisbane, eight monthsafter the busway opened, residential values within walking distance of South EastBusway had grown two to three times faster than the values of property located innon-busway suburbs. In their TCRP report, Kittelson & Associates and Levinson(2007) indicated that Boston’s Silver Line had generated about $700 million ofdevelopment adjacent to transit stations along the Washington Street corridor.

A detailed analysis on the impact of BRT on residential rents showed theevidence that accessibility to BRT stations is associated with high value of resi-dential properties (Rodríguez and Targa, 2004). Rodríguez and Targa examinedthe asking price for multi-family residential properties in a 1.5-km area aroundtwo TransMilenio corridors in Bogotá and suggested rental prices of propertiesincreased between 6.8% and 9.3% for every 5-min walking time closer to BRTstations, while controlling for property attributes and proximity related externali-ties. Although the study was conducted only two years after completion of theBRT system, it showed obvious positive impact of BRT on property value uplift.One explanation was that local residents really appreciate the improvement ofaccessibility near BRT stations.



Table 5. Impact on land development of selected bus rapid transit systems

Authors City BRT system Land Development Impact

Rabinovitch and Hoehn (1995)

Curitiba Surface Metro

High density residential and commercial development occurred along BRT corridors.

Rodríguez and Targa (2004)

Bogotá TransMilenio After only two years of operation of BRT, residential rental costs increased between 6.8% and 9.3% for every 5-min walking time to BRT stations.

Diaz et al. (2009) Boston Silver Line Development has accelerated along the Washington Street corridor. Silver Line Phase 1 has generated at least US$93 million in new development, involving a mix of retail, housing and institutional uses.

Diaz et al. (2009) Los Angeles

Orange Line The transit agency is considering joint development with large multi-unit developers to construct over two million square feet of development at several stations.

Diaz et al. (2009) Las Vegas MAX One casino operator has already invested in pedestrian facilities and an additional station.

Diaz et al. (2009) Orlando LYMMO The local authority has used the BRT as a tool to promote development. Five new office buildings with about one million square feet per building and six new apartment communities have been developed in downtown, possibly resulting from BRT.

Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al. (2003) and Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Gast, et al. (2003)

Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within a 1 500-ft radius of station. $302 million in land development benefits, of which $275 million was new construction.


Ottawa Transitway The construction of the Transitway has led to up to US$675 million in new construction around transit stations


Adelaide Guided Busway

Tea Tree Gully area is becoming an urban village.


Brisbane SoutheastBusway

Property value near BRT stations grew two–three times faster than those located in non-busway suburbs.

DFT (2008) Kent Fastrack The second Fastrack route was fully funded by the developer (ProLogis), as part of the first major mixed-use regeneration project in the Thames Gateway.

Cervero and Kang (2009) Seoul BRT Land use along BRT corridors was intensified. Within 300 m of BRT stations, residential land values gained premiums ranging from 5% to 10%; within 150 m of BRT stations, non-residential land values gained premiums varying between 3% and 26%.



In a recent working paper, Cervero and Kang (2009) analysed the impact ofSeoul’s dedicated median-lane BRT on land-use changes and property valueuplift. The increased accessibility was capitalized on the land market. The studyfound that land uses along BRT corridors were intensified. Within 300 m of BRTstations, residential land values gained premiums ranging from 5% to 10%;within 150 m of BRT stations, non-residential land values gained premiums vary-ing between 3% and 26%. It was further argued that the quality of transportservice, specifically the travel time savings, influenced land development, andBRT-induced land appreciation could help the BRT investment.

Network effects from an enhanced BRT network are also found. Rodríguez andMojica (2009) investigated the property value uplift caused by BRT extension inthe area already served by Bogotá’s BRT system, using a before and after hedonicmodel. The price changes between 2001 and 2006 of residential properties (single-family and units in multi-family apartments), which were located within 1 km ofthe BRT system, were examined after the TransMilenio system was expanded.The asking price of properties in the BRT catchment area was found between 13%and 14% higher than that in the control area. The anticipation effects were alsoidentified before the extension of BRT. The findings suggested that BRT networkinvestments could increase property values in an area already served by BRT andimprove the attractiveness of land parcels for dense development.

Nevertheless, BRT has a disappointing response to land development in somecase studies. In a report on the land-value impact of high-performance transitservices, Cervero and Duncan (2002) carried out research on heavy rail,commuter rail, light rail and BRT in Los Angeles County. In the BRT case, resi-dential property value near stops was not positively affected. It indicated thatresidential properties in the proximity of BRT were generally sold for less,whereas commercial properties generally sold for more. However, it should benoted that the BRT system was implemented only one year before. The studyconcluded that the absence of dedicated right-of-way and the newness of theservice (only one year) accounted for lower property value. Furthermore,compared with BRT systems in Curitiba and Bogotá, Los Angeles County’s MetroRapid BRT system does not have fixed guideways. It runs in mixed traffic usingconventional buses and thus residents doubt BRT routes will be modified infuture years. Another possible explanation was that residential areas near manyof the County’s BRT stops lie in the distressed inner-city, which substantiallyreduced property values despite the presence of BRT.

Although accessibility enhancement could be a catalyst for potential develop-ment, accessibility advantage near transit stations is one of the major factorsinfluencing land development. Regional economic conditions, available vacantland, adjacent economic activities and land-use policy may combine to magnifyor mitigate transit impacts. Polzin and Baltes (2002) argued that the extent BRThas land-use impacts will be significantly dependent on professionals’ anddecision-makers’ perceptions toward leveraging the investment. Levinson,Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, et al. (2003) and Levinson, Zimmerman,Clinger, Gast, et al. (2003) suggested that major BRT investment should be rein-forced by transit supportive land-development policy and that achievingeconomic development benefits requires close working relationship with majordevelopments such as regional shopping centres from the beginning. FTA (2002)argued that BRT could be most effective, when integrated with land-use policiesand economic and community plans.



Many public transport planners believe that fixed guideway systems have apositive impact on land development (Cervero and Duncan, 2002; FTA, 2002).FTA (2002) believed that a BRT system (including busways and enhanced busstations) could be regarded as being as significant as other fixed guideway facili-ties and is expected to have similar land-use impacts as those of rail systems.Operating on a dedicated busway, BRT can provide a high-speed and high-frequency service, which greatly improves accessibility.

Despite some successful BRT systems in operation, empirical studies on landdevelopment impact resulting from BRT are still limited. Many existing stud-ies suggested that the appreciable accessibility benefits, especially travel timesavings, conferred by BRT were already recognized by many decision-makers.Some well-established BRT systems in Latin America, North America andAustralia indicate that a full-featured BRT system has a positive impact onland development. Like other forms of mass transit, BRT could provide accessi-bility advantages to communities along its corridor. These benefits could bemore easily observed in the congested and land-constrained city, where publictransport has played a major role in determining accessibility change.

Concluding Discussion

Rapidly worsening traffic congestion has prompted decision-makers to look forhigh-capacity and high-quality transport modes to mitigate traffic problems. Formany years, rail-based transport systems, such as Metro and LRT, have been thepreferred transport improvement options. However, the high capital cost andconsequently high operating cost associated with these modes have limited theirdevelopment in many budget-constrained cities. Furthermore, since rail transitgenerally requires a long implementation time, it could result in large financialand economic risks; this is something that decision-makers should be highlyconcerned about. (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003, 2004). A statistically significant study onthe cost performance of 111 transport infrastructure projects (rail, fixed link androad) conducted by Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) suggested that a longer implementationphase was very likely to result in a larger cost escalation. They concluded that themajority of rail transit projects have significantly underestimated their construc-tion costs. For 58 rail projects examined, average cost escalation was as high as45%. Subsequently, Flyvbjerg et al. (2006) conducted a statistically significantstudy of traffic forecasts in transportation infrastructure projects. It was foundthat passenger forecasts in an overwhelming number of rail projects were overes-timated due to the prevailing political bias in favour of rail transit investments.Flyvbjerg et al. (2006, p. 22) concluded that passenger forecasts used in rail devel-opment were “highly, systematically and significantly misleading”, while thepotential large financial risks of such projects were normally ignored or under-played in the decision-making process.

When transport investment decisions are made, great attention should be givento the efficiency of transport investments. In order to improve sustainable mobil-ity with less expenditure, many cities across the world have launched ambitiousprogrammes of BRT system implementation due to its cost-effectiveness advan-tage. BRT systems are increasingly viewed by many policy-makers as comple-mentary or substitute to a rail system. The literature confirms that the BRT systemhas taken advantage of characteristics of rail systems in a cost-efficient way,which has increasingly gained interest to policy-makers. From the experiences of



BRT across the globe, it is concluded that an appropriately designed BRT systemoffers a high-quality transport service, comparable to a rail service but at a rela-tively low cost and short implementation time.

The literature review reveals that as a relatively new rapid transit mode, the fullimpact of BRT remains largely unexplored. While rail transit investments havebeen widely supported for their perceived land development benefits, there is ageneral lack of understanding about what BRT can do for land development,except for a few places, such as Curitiba, where BRT is used as a tool to shapeurban growth. The main attraction of BRT to policy-makers is that it could be acost-effective approach to moving a large number of people. A BRT system ischeaper to implement than a rail system, but it still represents a capital-intensivemass transit system. Like other forms of mass transit, such as Metro and LRT,BRT can add capacity to the existing transport corridor and significantly reducethe commuting time; thus, locations near BRT stations which generally have ahigh level of accessibility tend to be desirable for new development or redevelop-ment. It is increasingly accepted that a full-featured BRT has the potential to offerpositive impact on land development. Some existing studies have suggested thatthe appreciable accessibility benefits, especially travel time savings, conferred byBRT have caused property value uplift.

Despite many successful BRT systems in operation in the world, the impact ofBRT on land development is not well documented, and thus its image is still notvery clear. Bus services are conventionally perceived as slow, polluting and unre-liable by the public, which in turn causes stakeholders to hesitate to considerinvesting in BRT. Recently, many cities continue to consider launching a BRT lineor expanding a BRT network. Understanding the full impacts of BRT is becomingincreasingly important, especially as property value uplift conferred by BRTcould be an incentive to encourage private financing in BRT projects. This paperdemonstrates that in the case of land development while current studies are frommainly North America and Latin America, more evidence from Asia and Europeshould be gathered to enhance the understanding of the full impact of BRT.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Brendan Finn (ETTS Ltd. and the University ofAberdeen) for valuable suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper and threeanonymous reviewers for their significant and constructive comments forimproving the manuscript. The authors also acknowledge the financial supportprovided by the China Scholarship Council in conducting this research. Anymistakes and omissions in this paper remain our responsibility.

Notes

1. In the USA, the National BRT Institute is hosted by the University of South Florida, http://www.nbrti.org/.

2. In Europe, the EC-funded COST Action Buses with a high level of service (TU0603) has beenestablished to better understand sustainable mobility in urban areas and to promote a useful wayto enhance the bus image, http://www.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=1099. In the UK, BRTuk seeksto raise the profile of, and develop a centre of excellence in, BRT; see http://www.brtuk.org/.

3. In some cities, BRT systems were built at a very low cost due to simplified implementation of BRTfeatures. For example, the Kunming busway network has six corridors. The infrastructure costsranged from US$0.5 to US$0.8 million per mile (excluding vehicles) (Darido, 2006).

4. Cost per thousand place miles: places account for total number of seats and permitted standings.



References

Al-Mosaind, M. A., Kenneth J. D. and James, G. S. (1993) Light-rail transit stations and propertyvalues: a hedonic price approach, Transportation Research Record, 1400, pp. 90–94.

Cain, A., Darido, G. B., Baltes, M. R., Rodriguez, P. and Barrios, J. (2007) Applicability of TransMileniobus rapid transit system of Bogota, Colombia, to the United States, Transportation Research Record,2034, pp. 45–54.

Cain, A., Flynn, J., McCourt, M. and Reyes, T. (2009) Quantifying the Importance of Image and Percep-tion to Bus Rapid Transit (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation—TRI).

Callaghan, L. and Vincent, W. (2007) Preliminary evaluation of Metro Orange Line bus rapid transitproject, Transportation Research Record, 2034, pp. 37–44.

Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) (2004) Bus Rapid Transit: A Canadian Perspective. Researchreport: McCormick Rankin Corporation for CUTA, Toronto. Available at: www.cutaactu.ca/en/note/1630.

Center for Science and Environment, Delhi Greens and the Indian Youth Climate Network (2008) Theperception survey: bus rapid transit system (BRT). Available at: www.cseindia.org/pdf/brt.pdf(accessed November 2008).

Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. (2002) Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in Los Angeles County.Report prepared for the National Association of Realtors and the Urban Land Institute.

Cervero, R. and Kang, C. D. (2009) Bus Rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul,South Korea. Working Paper UCB-ITS-VWP-2009-4, University of California, Berkeley.

Currie, G. (2006a) Bus rapid transit in Australasia: performance, lessons learned and futures, Journal ofPublic Transportation, BRT Special Edition, pp. 1–22.

Currie, G. (2006b) Bus transit oriented development—strengths and challenges relative to rail, Journalof Public Transportation, 9(4), pp. 1–21.

Darido, G. (2006) Bus Rapid Transit Developments in China: Perspectives from Research, Meetings, andSite Visits in April 2006 (Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation).

Deng, T. T. and Nelson, J. D. (2009) Analysis of an efficient urban transport system: lessons learnedfrom Beijing Southern Axis Bus Rapid Transit Line 1, Proceedings of the 14th HKSTS InternationalConference, 2, pp. 719–727.

Deng, T. T. and Nelson, J. D. (2010) The perception of bus rapid transit: a passenger survey fromBeijing Southern Axis Line 1. Paper presented at the 42nd annual conference of the Universities’Transport Studies Group, Plymouth, January, CD ROM.

DFT (Department for Transport) (2005) Study of high quality buses in Leeds: final report. Available at:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/ (accessed November 2008).

DFT (2008) Building sustainable transport into new developments: a menu of options for growthpoints and eco-towns. Available at: www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable (accessed December 2008).

Du, H. B. and Mulley, C. (2007) The short-term land value impacts of urban rail transit: Quantitativeevidence from Sunderland, UK. Land-Use Policy, 24, pp. 223–233.

Fastrack Delivery Executive (2006) Could not improve any more—what more could want? Passen-ger comment, October 2006 surveys. Available at: www.go-fastrack.co.uk (accessed November2008).

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S. and Buhl, S. L. (2003) How common and how large are cost overruns intransport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23(1), pp. 71–88.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S. and Buhl, S. L. (2004) What causes cost overrun in transport infrastruc-ture projects? Transport Reviews, 24(1), pp. 3–18.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S. and Buhl, S. L. (2006) Inaccuracy in traffic forecasts, Transport Reviews,26(1), pp. 1–24.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration) (2002) Evaluation Guidelines for Bus Rapid Transit DemonstrationProjects (Washington, DC: FTA).

Gilbert, A. (2008) Bus rapid transit: is Transmilenio a miracle cure? Transport Reviews, 28(4), pp. 439–467.Grava, S. (2003) Urban Transportation System: Choices for Communities (New York: McGraw-Hill).Hecker, J. E. (2003) Bus Rapid Transit Offers Communities a Flexible Mass Transit Option. Report for the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, US Senate (Washington, DC: GeneralAccounting Office).

Hensher, D. A. (2007) Sustainable public transport systems: moving towards a value for money andnetwork-based approach and away from blind commitment, Transport Policy, 14, pp. 98–102.



Hensher, D. A. and Golob, T. F. (2008) Bus Rapid Transit systems: a comparative assessment,Transportation, 34(4), pp. 501–518.

Hess, D. B. and Almeida, T. M. (2007) Impact of proximity to light rail rapid transit on station-areaproperty values in Buffalo, New York, Urban Studies, 44(5/6), pp. 1041–1068.

Hidalgo, D. and Graftieaux, P. (2008) Bus rapid transit systems in Latin America and Asia results anddifficulties in 11 cities, Transportation Research Record, 2072, pp. 77–88.

Hoffman, A. (2008) Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The ‘Quickway’ Model as a ModalAlternative to ‘Light Rail Lite’ (Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation).

Hossain, M. (2006) The issues and realities of BRT planning initiatives in developing Asian cities,Journal of Public Transportation, BRT Special Edition, pp. 69–87.

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2002) Bus Systems for the Future: Achieving Sustainable TransportWorldwide (Paris: IEA).

ITDP (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy) (2005) Making TransJakarta a world classBRT system: Final recommendations of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.Available at: www.itdp.org/documents/TransJakarta%20Final%20Report%205.pdf (accessedNovbember 2008).

ITDP (2007) Rea Vaya operational design: executive summary. Available at: www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/johannesburg brt/ (accessed November 2008).

ITDP (2009). Janmarg, the people’s way. Serial: Sustainable Transport (21). Available at: http://www.itdp.org/documents/st_magazine/itdp-sustran-20100101.pdf (accessed June 2010).

Jarzab, J. T., Lightbody, J. and Maeda, E. (2002) Characteristics of bus rapid transit projects: an over-view, Journal of Public Transportation, 5(2), pp. 31–46.

Kim, E. J., Darido, G. and Schneck, D. (2005) Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) BRTDemonstration Project Evaluation (Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Departmentof Transportation).

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Levinson, H. S. (2007) Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. TCRPReport 118 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board).

Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Gast, J., Rutherford, S. and Bruhn, E. (2003) Bus RapidTransit: Implementation Guidelines, Vol 2, TCRP Report 90 (Washington, DC: Transportation ResearchBoard of the National Academies).

Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J. and Rutherford, S. (2002) Bus rapid transit: an overview,Journal of Public Transportation, 5(2), pp. 1–30.

Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Rutherford, S., Smith, R. L., Cracknell, J. et al. (2003)Bus Rapid Transit: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Vol 1, TCRP Report 90 (Washington, DC:Transportation Research Board of the National Academies).

Lewis-Workman, S. and Brod, D. (1997) Measuring the neighborhood benefits of rail transit accessibil-ity, Transportation Research Record, 1576, pp. 147–153.

McDonald, J. and Osuji, C. (1995) The effect of anticipated transportation improvement on residentialland values, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 25, pp. 261–278.

Menckhoff, G. (2005) Latin American experience with bus rapid transit. Paper presented atthe World Bank Annual Meeting—Institute of Transportation Engineers, Melbourne. Availableat: http://www.gobrt.org/Latin_American_Experience_with_Bus_Rapid_Transit.pdf (accessedJune 2010).

Midgley, P. (1994) Urban Transport in Asia: An Operational Agenda for the 1990s. World Bank TechnicalPaper Number 224, Asia Technical Department Series (Washington, DC: World Bank).

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas (1996) Transit and Urban Form, Vol 1, TCRP Report 16(Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Phillips, D. (2006) An update on curb guided bus technology and deployment trends, Journal of PublicTransportation, BRT Special Edition, pp. 163–180.

Polzin, S. E. and Baltes, M. R. (2002) Bus rapid transit: a viable alternative? Journal of Public Transportation,5(2), pp. 47–69.

Pucher, J., Korattyswaropam, N., Mittal, N. and Ittyerah, N. (2005) Urban transport crisis in India,Transport Policy, 12, pp. 185–198.

Rabinovitch, J. and Hoehn, J. (1995) A Sustainable Urban Transportation System: The “Surface Metro” inCuritiba, Brazil, Working Paper No. 19 (New York: United Nations Development Programme—UNDP).

Rambaud, F. and Babilotte, C. (2005) Buses with a High Level of Service: concept and recommenda-tions, Centre on Transport and Urbanism (Certu). Available at: http://www.certu.fr (accessedNovember 2008).



Rambaud, F., Rabuel, S. and Crest, T. D. (2008) BHLS: the French BRT approach. Presentation in Dublin,COST Action TU0603, ‘Buses with a High Level of Service,’ February. Available at: http://www.bhls.eu/IMG/pdf/CERTU_RATP_BHLS_concept_trends_fevrier_2008.pdf (accessed June2010).

Rathwell, S. and Schijns, S. (2002) Ottawa and Brisbane: comparing a mature busway system with itsstate-of-the-art progeny, Journal of Public Transportation, 5(2), pp. 163–189.

RICS Policy Unit (2002) Land value and public transport: Stage 1—Summary of findings, Office of theDeputy Prime Minister, Department for Transport.

Rodríguez, D. A. and Mojica, C. H. (2009) Capitalization of BRT network expansions effects into pricesof non-expansion areas, Transportation Research Part A, 43, 560–571.

Rodríguez, D. A. and Targa, F. (2004) Value of accessibility to Bogota’s bus rapid transit system,Transport Reviews, 24(5), 587–610.

Smith, H. and Raemaekers, J. (1998) Land-use pattern and transport in Curitiba, Land-use Policy, 15(3),pp. 233–251.

Takeshita, H., Kato, H., Hayashi, Y. and Shimizu, K. (2009) Evaluating bus rapid transit system inNagoya City. Paper submitted to TRB 89th Annual Meeting Washington, DC, January.

Thomas, E. (2001) Bus rapid transit. Presentation at the Institute of Transportation Engineers, AnnualMeeting, Chicago, August.

US GAO (2001) Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, GAO-01-984 (Washington, DC: United StatesGeneral Accounting Office). Available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf (accessedNovember 2008).

Vuchic, V. (2005) Urban Transit: Systems and Technology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley).Walters, J. (2008) Overview of public transport policy developments in South Africa, Research in

Transport Economics, 22, pp. 98–108.Weinberger, R. (2000) Commercial property values and proximity to light rail: calculating benefits

with a Hedonic Price Model. Paper presented at the 79th annual meeting of the TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC, January.

Wöhrnschimmel, H., Zuk, M., Martínez-Villa, G., Cerón, J., Cárdenas, B., Rojas-Bracho, L., et al. (2008)The impact of a bus rapid transit system on commuters’ exposure to benzene, CO, PM2.5 and PM10in Mexico City, Atmospheric Environment, 42, pp. 8194–8203.

Wright, L. and Hook, W. (2007) Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (New York: Institute for Transportationand Development Policy).

Zhang, M. (2009) Bus versus rail meta-analysis of cost characteristics: carrying capacities, and land useimpacts, Transportation Research Record, 2110, 87–95.


Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit a Review of the Literature

Documents

Transcript of Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit a Review of the Literature