-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 1
BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE US: WHAT DO THEY DO? WHAT CAN WE
LEARN?
Graham James
Parsons Brinckerhoff
1. INTRODUCTION Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) eludes simple definition
perhaps the first clue to the diversity of this mode. In the US it
is generally described as having a range of enhanced attributes
compared to conventional bus service, aimed at increasing
ridership. One such definition is:
coordinated improvements in a transit systems infrastructure,
equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential
treatment to buses on fixed guideways and urban roadways. The
intention of Bus Rapid Transit is to reduce bus travel time,
improve service reliability, increase the convenience of users, and
ultimately, increase bus ridership.
(US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 611)
It may also be seen as aiming for rail-like service but with
greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital costs
(see, for example, definitions in GAO (2012) and TCRP (2007b)).
This paper provides an overview of what is a diverse field. Three
contrasting case studies from Nevada, Oregon and California are
presented. Data are provided in imperial units, reflecting US
practice, with approximate metric equivalents. 2. ORGANISATIONAL
AND POLICY CONTEXT This section describes the organisational,
planning and policy context for BRT as part of US urban local
public transport. As a federal nation, arrangements can vary from
state to state, so it should be seen as a general description that
will broadly apply to most locations. 2.1. Buses as a municipal
function
Urban local bus and subway/metro services (transit in US
terminology) are typically municipally owned. In conurbations there
may be individual city bus operations, a regional transit
authority, or a combination of both. Day-to-day operation is
sometimes contracted to a private sector operator. Transit is
therefore principally a public service, and in smaller cities the
lifeline function can be its most significant role.
Service-planning criteria are locally defined but tend to be a
combination of coverage and ridership goals. This approach, along
with wider land-use patterns, explains the hub and spoke model seen
in many systems: routes pulse together at a central transfer centre
for interchange.
-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 2
2.2 Local and regional transport planning BRT schemes generally
emerge through the planning process operated by Metropolitan
Planning Organisations (MPOs). Despite the name, these are
essentially transport policy-making bodies established by federal
law (Duff et al, 2010). Their key functions are to prepare a
Metropolitan Transport Plan (also known as a long-range
transportation plan) covering at least 20 years, and a short-range
Transportation Improvement Plan. Individual schemes, however, are
generally developed and managed by municipalities or transit
agencies rather than by the MPO. MPO boards are appointed by
municipalities and there is usually a close relationship (although
not necessarily political agreement) between municipalities and
MPOs. Larger MPOs have their own technical staff; in smaller areas
municipal staff also act as MPO staff. 2.3 US transport policy
context
The practical and symbolic importance of car travel in the US
can obscure the continuing role of public transport. Around 6% of
American households have no car, and these households account for
around half of the nations transit ridership. However, around 19%
of Americans use transit at least once in a typical month (Chu,
2012). In the largest cities, public transport is central to city
life in a way that would be familiar to Londoners or Parisians. And
in large and small cities alike, politicians and transport planners
can be conscious of the needs of transit dependent riders: those
who have no effective choice but to use transit. Current themes in
national transport policy include:
the asserted role of infrastructure investment in maintaining
national economic competitiveness;
increasing urban and suburban traffic congestion;
fluctuations in gasoline (petrol) prices, and concerns over the
resulting cost of motoring; and
the sustainability and livable cities movements, feeding into
the concepts of smart growth and transit oriented development (TOD)
(see Calthorpe (1993), for example, and much subsequent
literature).
2.4 Public transport funding Transit is funded through a
combination of farebox revenue and local, state and federal
support. The federal role is particularly significant for capital
investments, providing around 40% of capital funds (APTA, 2011).
Through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the federal
government provides dedicated funding streams for public transport,
covering both routine capital/operating costs and specific
projects. These may be competitive or allocated by formula. The New
Starts programme, described in section 8 below, is particularly
important for BRT projects. Multimodal funds, allocated by formula
and passed down through the state and MPO level, are also
available. These were historically highway funds but
-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 3
now they can be spent on transit (flexed) if the decision-makers
prefer. In practice they are still mainly used as highway funds. 3.
SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT BRT PRACTICE
3.1 Overview
Until recently, BRT in the US context tended to mean:
The intensive systems in foreign cities such as Bogota,
Columbia, or Curitiba, Brazil. These can resemble a road-based
version of an urban metro, with substantial stations and
corresponding ridership levels.
Existing North American busways, often on ex-railroad corridors,
in cities such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In aspects other than
the busway and limited-stop operation, these tended to share the
look and feel of the wider city bus system.
Recent US BRT systems generally take a different approach. Most
often using existing or reconfigured streets (with or without
busways), there is an emphasis on raising service quality and
distinguishing the BRT from the rest of the bus network. These
contemporary projects cover a wide spectrum. Promoters often aim to
replicate the look and feel of light rail seen, for example, in
vehicle styling, station design, rail-inspired route diagrams, or
off-bus ticket purchase. However, this depends on the level of
funding available or considered justifiable. A less-intensive
approach, with fewer nods to light rail, is therefore also common.
Often described as BRT-lite, some commentators suggest this
approach does not qualify to be BRT at all (eg Wood, 2008; Bowen,
2009). Reflecting the spectrum, one organisation has recently
suggested a scoring system to assess BRT schemes against best
practice, with Gold, Silver and Bronze standards (ITDP, 2012). As
the Las Vegas case study will show, an individual system may have
both heavy and light characteristics. Meanwhile some BRT-lite
elements such as low-floor buses and real-time information are
spreading to non-BRT routes (Kantor et al, 2008). Table 1 (at the
end of this section) gives some examples of recently-opened and
planned BRT schemes. It is not a full list. 3.2 Corridor selection
and service concept
BRT schemes generally emerge out of a focus on a specific
corridors problems or goals. Typical scenarios are:
a congested arterial corridor, with a goal of providing an
attractive and reliable alternative to car travel;
a corridor with existing high bus ridership, with a goal of
improving service to existing riders and attracting new riders;
a corridor with a strongly transit-dependent population that is
not well served by existing routes;
a corridor with a focus on economic development, either by
supporting existing growth poles or by regeneration;
-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 4
a desire for park-and-ride service; or
a combination of these factors. The corridor may be narrowly
defined as an arterial route, or may be a sector of the city where
several street or railroad corridor options are evaluated. BRT
might be selected for its flexibility in its own right, or as an
effective but lower-cost alternative to light rail (Schlosser,
2012); in the latter case the route may or may not be designed for
later conversion to light rail. The BRT projects route structure
(its service concept in US terminology) can also vary (see, for
example, Falbel et al, 2006). Most common is a single end-to-end
route along the corridor. This may replace an existing route, or
alternatively the BRT may be treated as an express overlay with the
existing route retained. Either way, radial BRT routes typically
serve transfer centres in downtowns and sometimes at the suburban
end, where riders can transfer to/from other routes. 3.3 Running
ways, guidance and priority Running-ways vary widely; this is one
of the key areas in which high-end BRT differs from BRT-lite. Note
that the term fixed guideways, often seen in legal language about
BRT, is potentially misleading as it can include busways or bus
lanes with no physical guidance. At the high end, there may be a
segregated busway along the edge or centre (median strip) of an
arterial corridor, or along a separate corridor such as a former
railroad. BRT-lite may be in general traffic or in bus lanes. There
are no kerb-guided busways, although there is awareness of this
option (see, for example, Phillips (2006) and Special Transit
Advisory Commission (2008)). However, kerb-guidance is used in
Eugene, Oregon and Cleveland, Ohio for docking at stops. Optical
guidance, as used in Rouen, France, was tried in Las Vegas. 3.4
Stops / stations Again, practice varies widely. At the high end,
they are described as stations, with a spacing closer to that of
light rail stations than of traditional bus routes. They may be
given place names, rather than the conventional approach of naming
stops after intersecting streets. A bespoke design may be used,
such as in Kansas City where it includes a 17-foot (5m) pillar
topped by the BRT route logo. In some corridors, stations in median
strips have centre island platforms, again similar to rail
practice, requiring vehicles with doors on both sides. The BRT-lite
approach is much closer to what British transport planners would
recognise as a Quality Corridor. Stops are less likely to be
described as stations. Shelters may be higher-quality than the
authoritys norm, but still recognisably bus shelters with less
attempt to replicate the feel of light rail.
-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 5
3.5 Vehicles The US bus industry talks of BRT vehicles. In
reality, these range from stylised versions of conventional buses
to vehicles that are specifically designed for BRT applications.
Notable examples include:
The Irisbus Civis and Wright Streetcar, as used in Las Vegas;
and The New Flyer vehicles used in Eugene and Cleveland, which
have
doors on both sides to serve both nearside and offside stops.
Even taking the bespoke designs into account, there are still
strong commonalities with non-BRT practice. BRT vehicles are
normally either rigid 40-foot (12m) or articulated 60-foot (18m)
types. This is no different from busy non-BRT routes, and
articulated buses are relatively common in major urban areas.
Propulsion systems are also in line with non-BRT equivalents. In
some areas, compressed natural gas (CNG) is used for air quality
reasons. Otherwise diesel is nearly always used. Hybrid buses (both
diesel-electric and CNG-electric) are very common on BRT services
but also increasingly so for conventional routes. Trolleybuses only
appear to feature in BRT planning in cities with existing
trolleybus systems. This is in contrast to some European efforts
where trolleybuses or proprietary systems such as Translohr are
used or have been proposed for standalone schemes (see for example
Carr, 2009, 2010). In Boston, Massachusetts (which indeed has
trolleybuses) the Silver Line BRT uses dual-mode vehicles: they run
as trolleybuses in a bus-only tunnel under the waterfront but
switch to diesel power along city streets. 3.6 Vehicle-stop
interface Across the spectrum there is a goal of close and level
docking between bus and kerb. Kerb-guidance is used in Eugene,
Oregon and Cleveland, Ohio for docking at stops. These systems also
use vehicle-borne bridge plates to eliminate the gap altogether. In
Las Vegas, optical guidance was installed but was superseded by
manual docking. Apart from these, the vehicle-stop interface
generally relies on low-floor buses (increasingly the norm on
non-BRT routes, too) and sometimes raised kerbs at stops. Tactile
paving may be used in the same manner as a light rail platform.
There is awareness of other technological options (Kantor et al,
2006) but without adoption to date. 3.7 Service span and
frequency
Generally BRT systems operate at turn-up-and-go frequencies, at
least at peak times. This may be an improvement over the existing
service level, particularly in smaller cities. The service span may
also be improved. A common profile is 10-minute headways at peak
times and 15-minute headways off-peak and at weekends. In some
systems, weekend service levels are lower and occasionally there is
no Sunday service. On the busiest routes, the frequency may already
be high for capacity reasons and the BRT service would offer no
improvement on this measure. 3.8 Ticketing
Off-vehicle fare collection (with ticket machines at stops) is
often used, particularly for high-end schemes, in an attempt to
reduce dwell times.
-
Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 6
However, on-board fare collection remains common (Schlosser,
2012). Generally an off-vehicle-only ticketing policy will apply to
the whole route, even if it is only partly on a busway. 3.9
Intelligent Transportation Systems Two Intelligent Transport
Systems (ITS) applications are very common:
transit signal priority, to advance or extend a green phase for
an approaching bus (see, for example, Wong (2008); and
real-time information, through at-stop displays and/or mobile
applications.
3.10 Branding
Branding is a final area of distinction between the ends of the
BRT spectrum. High-end BRT tends to adopt a brand quite distinct
from that of the transit agencys existing bus service. The name Max
is used in more than one city. In contrast, BRT-lite tends to have
some relationship to the agencys existing brand. Metro is
unsurprisingly a common agency brand, which has spawned Metro
Express BRT in Stockton, California and Metro Rapid in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles, which has both high-end and BRT-lite routes, is an
interesting example. The high-end Metro Orange Line BRT is
deliberately positioned as part of the rail system. Unlike standard
or BRT-lite routes, it is given a colour designation similar to
rail lines and is included on the rail system map (Cain et al,
2009). 3.11 Sources for more detailed description of current
practice Weinstock et al (2011) provide some case studies and a
synopsis of current US BRT operating and branding practice.
Detailed descriptions of planning and operating practice can be
found in TCRP (2007) and Diaz (2004). Falbel et al (2006) provide a
useful case study of the planning process. A survey of agencies
intending to procure BRT (Kantor et al, 2008) gave an interesting
snapshot of the level of interest in each element, particularly in
relation to vehicles.
-
7
Table 1. Selected examples of recent and contemporary US BRT
schemes
Opened / due open
State City Route / System Name
Notes
1997 Florida Miami Miami-Dade South Busway
8.5 miles exclusive at-grade busway in former rail right-of-way
alongside US Highway 1. Several routes including express buses.
1997 Florida Orlando Lymmo Free downtown circulator. Continuous
loop through downtown Orlando. 3 miles of bus lane / bus-only route
with distinctive paving. Stations and running way designed as part
of the streetscape.
2000 + California Los Angeles Metro Rapid Regional network of
routes along high-ridership corridors. Introduced in several
phases. Reduced number of stops compared to standard routes.
Wilshire Boulevard (the first Metro Rapid corridor) was recently
enhanced with 9.6 miles of peak-hour bus lanes (converted from
general lanes).
2004 Massachusetts
Boston Silver Line Two separate segments: city streets
(Washington Street) and a busway tunnel in the city centre
waterfront area (South Boston Piers Transitway). Articulated
dual-mode diesel / trolleybuses.
2004 Nevada Las Vegas Max Arterial street BRT with substantial
stations, from downtown northwards to Nellis Air Force Base. Length
7.5 miles (3 miles in mixed traffic, 4.5 miles bus lanes). Civis
vehicle by Irisbus, with optical guidance system (not used). See
case study in this paper.
2005 California Los Angeles Orange Line Arterial corridor in
South San Fernando Valley. 14-mile dedicated busway directly
alongside road (ex- railroad corridor) or in central reservation.
Substantial, light-rail inspired stations. Branded as equivalent to
a rail route: included on rail maps and same livery as rail
vehicles. Stylised articulated vehicles with interior cycle racks.
Includes pedestrian/cycle trail alongside.
2005 Missouri Kansas City Max Six-mile route (including 3.75
miles of bus lanes) runs across city from River Market, through
downtown to Plaza (all as express service), then on to Waldo (as
local service). Distinctive stations with 17-foot high information
markers. Replaces one existing route on corridor; another retained
to serve local stops omitted by Max. See Jandt (2007)
2007 + California Stockton Metro Express Three arterial
corridors:
Route 40, opened in 2007, runs from residential areas, past two
major shopping malls and university, then through more residential
areas to the downtown transfer centre. See case study in this
paper.
Route 44 (Airport Way corridor) runs from downtown to
airport.
Route 43 (Hammer Lane corridor) opened in 2012, is radial and
connects to route 44.
Total 16.1 miles, on-street in mixed traffic, with 20 hybrid
vehicles.
-
8
Opened / due open
State City Route / System Name
Notes
2007 + Oregon Eugene EmX (Emerald Express)
Franklin EmX, opened 2007, connects downtowns of Eugene and
Springfield. See Harmack (2007). 4 miles, of which 2.4 miles are in
central reservation (median) of arterial road. Some centre island
stations.
Gateway EmX, opened 2011, extends Franklin corridor service from
downtown Springfield to Gateway area. Six miles (10 km) including
sections on-street in one-way pair, on busway in median strip, and
on-street in arterial mixed traffic. Some centre island
stations.
West Eugene EmX extension, due open 2017, extends 8.9 miles (5.8
miles bus lane, 3.1 miles mixed traffic) from downtown Eugene
westwards, serving designated mixed-use activity centres as part of
city growth / livability efforts..
Buses have doors on both sides (3 on kerb side, 2 on island
side), and bridge plates to eliminate gap from platform. See case
study in this paper.
2008 Ohio Cleveland Healthline (previously known as Euclid
corridor)
Arterial street BRT with substantial stations, running for 9.4
miles from downtown Cleveland through an area with a high
concentration of hospitals and medical research facilities. Part of
a comprehensive multi-agency effort to redevelop Euclid Avenue and
attract new jobs and residents to the corridor. Some centre island
stations. Buses have doors on both sides. Naming rights sold.
2010 + Washington King County (Seattle area)
RapidRide A growing network of street-running BRT lines.
Articulated buses with free Wi-Fi. System includes downtown transit
tunnel used by both BRT and conventional bus routes.
Route A: Seattle Pacific Highway South BRT. Runs for 10.9 miles
from Tukwila to Federal Way. Connects with light rail.
Route B: Bellevue-Redmond BRT, 9.5 miles connecting downtown
Bellevue to Downtown Redmond.
Routes C and D due to open in 2012. Routes E and F due to open
in 2013.
2011 Arizona Flagstaff Mountain Link (Route 10)
From downtown, through campus of Northern Arizona University on
busway, then on-street to residential and retail area. Route acts
partly as a campus shuttle. Route is 5.8 miles, of which 1.3 miles
is busway through campus and the remainder in mixed traffic on
campus and city streets. Eight hybrid vehicles.
2011 Missouri Kansas City Troost MAX Nine-mile on-street
corridor along Troost Avenue to downtown Kansas City. Approximately
one mile west of, and parallel to, Max
-
9
Opened / due open
State City Route / System Name
Notes
2012 California Monterey Jazz line (Monterey Bay Rapid
Transit)
Connects the transit-dependent community of Seaside to the
employment and tourist centres in Monterey. Length 6.7 miles. Uses
existing buses, which will be re-branded.
2013 Colorado Glenwood Springs and Aspen
VelociRFTA (Roaring Fork Valley BRT)
Unusual BRT as it is a semi-rural corridor between towns.
Connects several communities along Highway 82 in a valley corridor
between Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Length 38.8 miles, including
some existing HOV lanes. Project includes 300 park and ride
spaces.
2013 Florida Jacksonville JTA BRT North Corridor
Downtown Jacksonville to Interstate Highway 295. Heavily
transit-dependent corridor. Project is 9.3 miles and connects to
Downtown Phase I project currently under way.
2014 California Fresno Fresno Area Express Blackstone / Kings
Canyon BRT
Links North Fresno, Downtown and the Southeast Growth area.
High-ridership commercial corridor. 13.8 miles of street running,
20% of which is in bus lanes.
2014 California San Bernardino
E Street Corridor sbX BRT
Through San Bernardino and Loma Linda, including California
State University and Loma Linda University Medial Center. 16 miles
on-street with bus lanes. Both nearside and centre-island stations.
14 new CNG articulated buses.
2014 Colorado Fort Collins Max (Mason Corridor BRT)
From downtown south to Colorado State University, then to new
South Transit Center (built as part of project). Combination of
mixed traffic and dedicated busway alongside railroad line. Length
5 miles (1.2 miles in mixed traffic, 3.8 miles exclusive busway.
Centre island platforms on busway; visualisations suggest buses
will cross to opposite side to give nearside boarding. Parallel
bicycle / pedestrian trail. Aims to encourage infill and economic
development along the corridor, with new development oriented
towards the BRT corridor rather than the existing parallel street
corridor. Dropped out of Small Starts pipeline in 2005 when local
ballot initiatives failed; state funding allowed re-entry in
2007.
2014 Florida Jacksonville JTA BRT Southeast Corridor
South-east from Downtown. Project is 11.1 miles and connects to
BRT Phase 1 currently under way. Transit-dependent corridor but
currently no direct service to downtown.
2014 Michican Grand Rapids
Silver Line 9.6 miles along radial arterial from downtown.
Operating costs to be covered by hypothecated property tax,
approved in 2011 referendum
-
10
Opened / due open
State City Route / System Name
Notes
2015 Connecticut Hartford CTfastrak (New Britain -Hartford
Busway)
From New Britain to downtown Hartford. Several routes will use
the busway, including expresses and local routes. Parallel to
congested Interstate highway 94. A 9.4-mile exclusive busway on
existing / former railroad corridor.
2015 Texas El Paso Dyer Corridor On-street, downtown to suburban
transfer centre, Army base and another transfer centre. No route
currently serves full length of corridor; transit-dependent areas.
Will save interchange time. Mixed traffic. 12 stations
2016 California Oakland East Bay BRT From downtown Berkeley
through downtown Oakland to San Leandro. Aimed at improving service
to existing transit-dependent riders. 14.4 miles of street running,
of which 75% is bus lanes in median with island stops. Buses will
have doors on both sides.
2016 California San Francisco
Van Ness Avenue BRT
Major city street. Project to improve speed, reliability and
amenities along the core of two existing bus routes. Two miles of
bus lane, and 60 new electric and hybrid vehicles
Table shows a selection of schemes and is not intended to be
comprehensive. Data may be rounded. Sources: FTA New Starts annual
reports and project descriptions from various years
(www.fta.dot.gov.uk); other sources as listed in bibliography;
local publications and websites.
-
11
4. CASE STUDY: MAX (LAS VEGAS, NEVADA) Transit in Las Vegas,
Nevada is operated by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC).
Although internationally known for the Strip and its casinos, it is
a sizeable urban area with a substantial transit-dependent
population. The Max BRT line serves a 7.5-mile (12km) corridor
along an arterial highway from downtown out to Nellis Air Force
base at the edge of the city. A full description of the system is
in Swallow (2005) or Schmiek et al, (2006); the latter includes
early results.
This corridor has strip-development, with largely low-income
residential neighbourhoods close by. Before Max, the corridor was
served by one of the busiest conventional routes (route 113). That
route still exists, but Max is now an express overlay. The two have
separate stops and are scheduled separately.
Max has no exclusive busways simply 4.5 miles (7km) of bus lanes
and 3.0 miles (5km) in general traffic. Although this represents
the light end of the spectrum in traffic engineering terms, some
other aspects of the system are heavy.
Most stations are substantial structures, with a distinctive
design featuring raised kerbs and tactile paving (Figure 1). Fares
are paid at ticket machines, with random on-board checks by armed
security staff.
The vehicles (Figure 2) are the Civis design by Irisbus
(Boucheret, 2004). These are articulated, fully low-floor vehicles
with diesel-electric (not hybrid) propulsion and regenerative
braking, a centre driving position, and four doors. Another unusual
feature is the interior bicycle rack. These vehicles cost around $1
million each; the nearest conventional equivalent (an articulated
hybrid bus) might only have cost around two thirds of that figure.
Irrespective of that, the fact that vehicles made up around half of
the projects capital cost illustrates the importance of vehicles to
the costing in schemes where the physical interventions are
limited.
An optical guidance system was installed, so that the buses
could dock closely at stops. This used a sensor following a white
stripe on the road surface. However, the system was abandoned. The
dry, dusty climate made it difficult to maintain the required
visual contrast without substantial cost. In practice, drivers
found they could follow the stripe themselves and dock the buses
accurately enough (see also Kantor et al, 2006 and Phillips,
2006).
An evaluation two years after opening (Schmiek at al, 2006) came
to broadly positive conclusions:
Passenger satisfaction surveys were overwhelmingly positive, and
more positive than on standard routes.
Corridor ridership had increased by nearly 40% since the start
of Max service. Around 30% of Max riders were new to transit, and
10% previously made their trip by car. The new riders also
represented a change in demographic, being more likely to be
younger and/or in full-time employment.
-
12
Signal priority had not improved travel times significantly a
result attributed to the corridor having relatively little
congestion and therefore already consistent travel times.
The additional training, higher pay scale and extensive
selection process for Max drivers, compared to drivers of regular
routes, was seen as a success, borne out in passenger satisfaction
and safe driving records.
Operating costs per vehicle hour were around 50% higher than
normal routes attributed to greater attention to maintenance, use
of more experienced drivers, and the higher maintenance cost of the
complex, foreign-built vehicle.
Dwell times (time spent at stops) were lower than on standard
routes. This was due partly to the close docking at kerbs but
mainly to the off-bus ticketing regime.
Operating speed was higher due to the shorter dwell times and
the wider spacing of stations compared to conventional stops.
Transit travel time along the corridor reduced by around 30%. This
higher productivity partly offset the higher operating cost per
hour.
The studys authors added that based on this evidence, a BRT
system using more conventional vehicles could reduce operating
costs per mile if it adopted off-bus ticketing and less frequent
stops.
Interestingly, when riders on route 113 were surveyed, a
majority said they preferred Max; most of these reported that they
chose the 113 that day because Max did not stop in just the right
place for them. Schmiek et al (2006) reported anecdotal evidence
that the presence of security staff had reduced crime on what had
previously been seen as a rough corridor. However, police data
suggested this was a perceptual change rather than one reflected in
the crime rates. A second BRT route has been brought into
operation, originally branded Ace but now known as Strip and
Downtown Express (SDX) (New Transit, March 2010; Weinstock et al,
2011). Instead of the Civis, this route uses the Wright StreetCar a
design which will be familiar to UK practitioners as the ftr.
-
13
Figure 1: Las Vegas, Nevada: Max station. Bus lane. Raised kerb
with tactile paving; marking showing where to board with cycles,
corresponding to rear door of vehicle (at end of tactile paving
nearest camera). Bespoke structure and hefty seating. Optical
guidance line (faint dashed double white line on carriageway).
Figure 2: Las Vegas, Nevada: Max vehicle. Four doors; centre
driving position; low-floor throughout with ancillary equipment at
roof level; wheel covers.
-
14
5. CASE STUDY: EMX (EUGENE, OREGON) The Emerald Express or EmX
(pronounced M-X), operated by Lane Transit District, Oregon, is
also at the heavy end of the spectrum, but has some distinctive
features of its own (Hemmer, 2009; Harnack, 2007).
The first section of the EmX Green Line opened in 2007,
connecting the downtowns of Eugene and Springfield. The project
cost $24 million including vehicles. The four-mile (6km) route
included 2.4 miles (4km) of busway along arterial roads. An
extension north from downtown Springfield opened in 2011, and a
further extension, from downtown Eugene westwards to the edge of
the city, is currently in development. EmX uses a variety of
running way configurations, including:
Median (central reservation) busway (Figure 3) on an arterial
divided highway (dual carriageway), with stations having centre
island platforms.
Two-way bus lane, threaded through an urban street (Figure
4)
Conventional nearside stations on an arterial street (Figure
5)
Offside bus lanes and stations, on a one-way pair of streets
(Figure 6) Some constrained sections of busway and bus lane are
single-lane between stations, requiring the use of rail-style
signalling principles to prevent conflicts. The stations are
substantial bespoke designs, with canopies, raised kerbs and a
particular focus on public art (Figures 5 and 6).
The buses have doors on both sides, to accommodate the centre
island and offside stations. Stylised articulated vehicles are
used. They are fitted with guidewheels for docking at stations,
although these are not used for guidance along the route. Internal
bicycle racks allow three cycles to be carried. The buses for the
initial section, built by New Flyer and costing $960,000 each, were
ordered jointly with the Euclid Avenue corridor Healthline BRT
service in Cleveland, Ohio, which also uses guidewheels in this
way.
-
15
Figure 3: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Start of busway in median strip
(central reservation). Bus is at an island platform station in the
background. Photo: Nathaniel Grier
Figure 4: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Island platform station in urban
street. Note offside doors on bus. Camera is pointing west in
direction of general traffic flow. Westbound traffic lanes on
right. Bus lane in centre (concrete surface). Eastbound bus
pictured will move onto bus lane, which becomes a two-way single
lane behind camera. Photo: Nathaniel Grier
-
16
Figure 5: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Station design. Points to note:
bespoke shelter design; rail-like name boards; raised kerb that
accommodates guidewheels; bespoke art design for railings. Station
is in a conventional nearside location on a typical five-lane
arterial street. guidewheels. Interestingly Tebb (1993) had
envisaged this use of kerb-guidance at on-highway stops. Photo:
Nathaniel Grier
Figure 6: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Offside with-flow bus lane. On a
one-way street (part of a one-way pair). Camera is pointing in
direction of traffic flow. Offside doors will open at this station.
Photo: Nathaniel Grier
-
17
6. CASE STUDY: METRO EXPRESS (STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA) Stockton, in
the San Joaquin Valley of California, offers a contrast (Starcik
(2007), San Joaquin RTD (2007)). San Joaquin Regional Transit
District has three BRT routes, branded Metro Express. The city bus
network is branded as Metro, so Metro Express represents a step up
rather than an altogether separate brand. The first Metro Express
line, route 40, is a typical example of BRT-lite. The route runs
along an arterial corridor from residential areas, past two major
shopping malls and the University of the Pacific, then through more
residential areas to the downtown transfer centre. The service runs
every 15 minutes Monday-Friday daytime and every 30 minutes in
evenings and weekends. The service started in January 2007, and was
accompanied by a wider restructuring of routes, with some now
feeding into Metro Express. The capital cost was $5.2 million,
funded by a $4 million federal Congestion Management and Air
Quality (CMAQ) grant and a local 0.5% sales tax for transport
projects. Stops include simple shelters (Figure 7) with ticket
machines (Figure 8). The vehicles are stylised versions of
otherwise conventional 40-foot (12m) hybrid buses (Figures 9 and
10). As with most urban buses in the US, bicycles can be carried on
an external rack at the front of the bus (Figure 7).
The agency found that even without the Las Vegas level of
investment, they were attracting new riders, including
collar-and-tie commuters (Kaplan, 2007; Paul Rapp, pers. comm.,
2007). Some people appeared to be using one of the malls as an
informal park-and-ride.
-
18
Figure 7: Stockton, California: Metro Express: Typical stop.
Note conventional kerb.
Figure 8: Stockton, California: Metro Express: Bus stop
furniture. Left: ticket machine. Right: route flash. Note brand
coordination with vehicles.
Figure 9 : Stockton, California: Metro Express vehicle in
downtown. Note silver and red livery, coordinated with the bus stop
furniture. Standard city buses have a much plainer white
livery.
-
19
Figure 10: Stockton, California: Metro Express vehicle at a
suburban stop. Note how the low emission attribute is used as part
of the branding.
7. FUNDING A BRT SCHEME
The capital costs of BRT schemes are most commonly funded
through a mixture of federal grants and local money. This
combination is in fact very typical for US transport investment.
However, some promoters choose not to seek federal funding, in
order to speed up project delivery. The federal contribution is
often through the New Starts capital grant programme, which is
described in more detail below. Other grant programmes can be used,
as shown in Table 2. The local contribution may be from state or
municipal funds, or both, depending on laws and policies in each
state. The municipal contribution may include an element of general
transit funds but typically involves a hypothecated local funding
source such as those in Table 2. A common choice is a 0.25% or 0.5%
local sales tax, often covering operating and/or capital costs for
a package of local transit measures. Usually these funding streams
must be approved by voters in a local referendum. This is not just
a formality, and transit projects can become the subject of highly
political campaigns both for and against. The recent recession
showed how sales tax income is susceptible to economic cycles, with
agencies having to cut back plans to reflect lower-than-forecast
income. The balance between local and federal funding varies
depending on the programme. New Starts projects have an 80% federal
maximum, but many
-
20
promoters aim for a lower federal share as this can score more
highly in evaluation. Net operating costs are, in principle, met by
the transit agency. New Starts grants include a requirement for the
agency to demonstrate that it can meet those costs. In some cases,
a hypothecated local tax is used. Many universities underwrite
free-to-use transit passes (U-pass) for staff and students, and
this may be part of the balance sheet. There are also federal
funding streams for operating and re-capitalisation costs; a full
discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Table 2: Examples of
capital funding mechanisms
Federal
Funding mechanism Example
New Starts (Section 5309) Many schemes
State Transportation Investment Program (general transport
funds)
East Bay
New Britain Hartford
Bus formula funding (Section 5307) New Britain Hartford
Bus discretionary funding (Section 5309) East Bay
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
New Britain Hartford
Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant programme
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
New Britain Hartford
Metro Express, Stockton
Local (municipal or state)
Funding mechanism Example
Bonds / locally-funded debt Fresno Area Express
El Paso
Bridge tolls East Bay
Sales tax East Bay
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
Jacksonville
Developer contributions Van Ness Avenue
Vehicle registration fees Van Ness Avenue
Local gasoline (petrol) tax Jacksonville
State lottery Eugene, Oregon (Pioneer Parkway Extension)
Local payroll tax Eugene, Oregon (Initial section)
Source: FTA (2012a). Table is not intended to be
comprehensive.
8. NEW STARTS FUNDING 8.1 Overview of New Starts The most common
federal funding stream for a BRT scheme is New Starts, one of
several funding programmes operated by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). New Starts is a competitive capital grant
programme for new or extended fixed guideway transit systems. The
term fixed guideway is potentially confusing: it means a system
where transit has exclusive use of its
-
21
own right-of-way for the majority of the route length a
definition which covers bus lanes even if there is no guidance (GAO
2012). The process and evaluation criteria change from time to
time. Duff et al (2002) provide a full description of the New
Starts process from a legal point of view. TCRP (2007) tackles it
from the planning point of view, and GAO (2009) critically reviews
some issues regarding the process. The remainder of this section
provides an overview of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts
elements of New Starts, which are most applicable to BRT. 8.2 Small
Starts In 2005, legislation established a Small Starts category
within the New Starts programme. This provides a simplified
evaluation and project-development process for smaller schemes,
defined as meeting all three of the following criteria (FTA,
c.2007a):
requiring less than $75m in New Starts funding;
total capital cost less than $250 million; and
one or both of the requirements below: (a) be a fixed guideway
for at least 50% of the project length in the
peak period, or (b) be a corridor-based bus project with:
substantial transit stations signal priority low-floor /
level-boarding vehicles special branding maximum headways 10 mins
peak, 15 mins off-peak, and service at least 14 hours per day.
BRT projects are therefore generally Small Starts. The new
category of corridor-based bus projects (not previously eligible)
within Small Starts opened the door to BRT-lite projects that did
not have bus lanes or busway for most of their length. FTA
subsequently introduced a further streamlined process, known as
Very Small Starts, for the smallest projects that met each of the
following criteria:
the minimum elements for a corridor-based project as listed
above; existing corridor ridership above 3,000 per day;
cost less than $50m total; and
cost less than $3m per mile, excluding vehicles. These criteria
mean Very Small Starts can be regarded as simple, low-risk projects
with characteristics that can be assumed to be inherently
beneficial. The inclusion of corridor-based bus projects and the
development of Small Starts and Very Small Starts explains why some
relatively small and low-impact schemes appear within a funding
stream that was originally the province only of much larger
schemes. The Very Small Starts criteria also explain why some of
the smallest projects share a distinct family resemblance for
example in their peak frequency.
-
22
8.3 Small Starts / Very Small Starts Process
Figure 11 summarises the Small Starts / Very Small Starts
process. It begins with a local planning effort, including an
Alternatives Analysis, that identifies the project as the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA is significant: once this is
set, the federal government does not normally ask project sponsors
to re-evaluate against alternative modes in order to reduce costs.
With Alternatives Analysis complete, the project is assessed for
the first time against the New Starts rating criteria (see below).
If successful, the project is approved to enter Project
Development, which involves preliminary and final engineering and
the environmental assessment process (NEPA, named after the
relevant legislation). The project must continue to receive
acceptable ratings each year if it is to remain in the Small Starts
pipeline. The budget process is separate from the rating process,
so projects with acceptable ratings are not guaranteed to receive
any funding. Ultimately, however, if successful a grant agreement
is signed. As with much US legislation, the New Starts process has
been susceptible to earmarks. These are clauses inserted by
individual lawmakers into technical legislation or annual budget
bills, stating that certain funding must be directed to particular
projects. In the last few years, earmarks have been a subject of
political opprobrium and few if any earmarks are now used in New
Starts. 8.4 Small Starts / Very Small Starts Rating Criteria
Figure 12 summarises the project rating criteria currently used
for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. In general these
can be seen as a simplified version of the full New Starts
criteria, which includes some such as operating efficiencies that
are not applied to Small / Very Small Starts. The high-level
criteria and some specific requirements are set out in federal law
through primary legislation enacted by Congress. FTA implements
these through secondary legislation (Code of Federal Regulations)
and non-legislative policy documents. On each criterion, a project
is given one of five ratings: high, medium-high, medium, medium-low
or low. Some criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, are assessed
quantitatively. Others, such as the three components of the Land
Use criterion, are assessed qualitatively. For full details see FTA
(2012b). Very Small Starts automatically receive a medium rating
for Project Justification, which in practical terms means the
project is justified. The cost-effectiveness criterion is not an
attempt to perform a full cost-benefit analysis (NARA (2012)). It
is rather an attempt to assess whether certain benefits are in
scale with project costs. There are some simplifying assumptions:
for example, all projects are credited with an allowance for
highway time savings and other benefits (as all projects receive
the same allowance, the competitive position is not affected).
-
23
Figure 11: Small Starts / Very Small Starts Project Development
Process Source: After FTA (c.2007a)
Alternatives Analysis Identifies the project as the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA)
This may include a major modelling exercise, or a smaller-scale
analysis, as appropriate to the scheme
LPA must be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(MTP) in order to progress through Small Starts
Project Development Project undergoes Preliminary Engineering
and Final Design
Environmental process (NEPA) is completed
Project must continue to receive acceptable ratings
Project sponsor can include costs of this stage within project
budget to be covered by Grant Agreement
Project Construction Grant Agreement Negotiated during project
development
Funding is subject to funding availability
Includes various conditions and certifications required by
law
FTA Approves Project to Enter into Project Development This
requires:
Completed Alternatives Analysis
Adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
LPA included within MTP
Completed environmental scoping
Receive an acceptable rating from FTA
Sponsor to have an acceptable Project Management Plan, budget
and schedule.
Construction
-
24
Figure 12: Small Starts / Very Small Starts Project Evaluation
and Rating Process Source: FTA (c.2007a), FTA (c.2007b)
Overall Project Rating
Small Starts: rated based on combination of Project
Justification and Local Financial Commitment
Local Financial Commitment Must demonstrate:
Funding, or a reasonable plan to secure funding, for the local
share of capital costs
Incremental project operating and maintenance costs < 5% of
agencys operating budget
Agency is financially sound
Project Justification Small Starts: rated based on the three
contributory factors below. Very Small Starts: automatic medium
rating
Cost Effectiveness
Small Starts: Incremental cost per hour of transportation system
user benefits. Compared to baseline alternative. Opening year
forecast. Very Small Starts: automatic medium rating
Land Use
Small Starts: rated based on the three contributory factors
below. Very Small Starts: automatic medium rating
Other Factors Small starts: Economic Development benefits and
congestion pricing will be considered. Applicants may provide info.
FTA may raise rating based on these other factors. Very Small
Starts: not used.
Existing land use patterns
Qualitative
assessment against detailed criteria
Transit supportive plans and policies
Qualitative
assessment against detailed criteria
Performance and impact of these
policies
Qualitative assessment against detailed criteria
-
25
8.5 Changes to the New Starts process The New Starts process and
its evaluation criteria have evolved over time (Duff et al (2010))
and continue to do so. At the time of writing, FTAs latest proposed
revisions have themselves been overtaken by new transport
legislation. FTAs January 2012 proposals (NARA, 2012; FTA, 2012c)
aimed to measure a wider range of the benefits that transit
projects provide, and to streamline the project development
process. The latter goal reflected stakeholders concerns over the
cost and timescale for obtaining funds (see GAO, 2009). As an
example, cost-effectiveness is currently measured as the
incremental annualized capital and operating cost per hour of
travel time savings across all transport users. This is proposed to
change to per trip on the project, in order to simplify the
modelling requirements. However, extra weight would be given to
transit dependent users. FTA is also proposing to expand the role
of pre-qualification approaches in which certain project or
corridor characteristics automatically earn a satisfactory rating.
It is planning to develop methods for estimating benefits using
simple approaches, with sponsors being able to undertake more
elaborate analysis if they wish. In particular, it is proposing to
offer an FTA-developed national forecasting model for estimating
ridership, using census data and ridership experience on existing
systems. Detailed analysis of these changes is beyond the scope of
this paper, but FTA has provided a thorough review of consultees
views and a commentary on them (NARA 2012). The federal transport
legislation MAP-21, enacted in July 2012, has made further changes
to the process (FTA, 2012d), and FTA will be required to develop
new policies and procedures to reflect these. 9. OUTCOMES
Early results from recent BRT schemes have been positive. The
successful results in Las Vegas and Stockton have been described
above. Interestingly, both systems produced not just higher
ridership, but a wider clientele than hitherto and some mode shift
from car travel. This is echoed in ridership and passenger
satisfaction results elsewhere (GAO, 2012; Cain et al, 2009; Diaz,
2004). For example, Kansas Citys Max not to be confused with other
systems of that name increased daily corridor ridership from 3,100
to around 5,000, and again with a wider clientele evident for
special events in the city (Jandt, 2007). This pattern is
consistent with wider evidence that packages of improvements do
particularly well in attracting increased ridership (TCRP 2007a).
High-end BRT seems able to replicate both the functionality and
image that riders normally associate with light rail; meanwhile
BRT-lite appears to give
-
26
particularly good results for the relatively low level of
investment involved (Cain et al, 2009). There remains a debate on
whether BRT can have the same transformational effect on
development patterns as is claimed for light rail. Certainly some
BRT corridors, such as Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio, have seen
major investment and economic development. However, it is difficult
to isolate the specific role of BRT from that of other factors such
as local policies, land assembly and wider economic conditions
(GAO, 2012; Currie, 2006; Diaz, 2004). A full discussion is outside
the scope of this paper. 10. CONCLUSIONS
Current US BRT schemes represent a range of designs and physical
features. BRT-lite schemes have involved relatively little physical
intervention, reminiscent of a British Quality Corridor. For the
larger schemes, their diversity is itself a characteristic, such as
the use of bespoke shelter designs and vehicles. Throughout the
spectrum, there is usually an attempt to mark out the route as
something different from the rest of the transit system. Although
formal before-and-after studies are limited, projects have been
reported as successful, with ridership increasing and choice riders
being attracted to the BRT service. It is not yet clear exactly
which elements of the service are the key factors in this. It may
be down to the mix of factors which one UK bus manager has likened
to the ingredients in a cake and local conditions. Certainly both
the functional (hard) factors and the image/branding appear to be
valuable. Table 3 lists some key similarities and differences
between the UK and US in terms of BRT context, planning, funding
and design. Potential questions for European transport planners to
consider include:
Is there a role for centre island platforms, as used in some US
schemes?
Is there a role for kerb-guidance at stops, irrespective of the
merits of guided busways?
Does the move towards simplification of the New Starts process
offer any lessons for European practice e.g. in comparison with the
UK Department for Transports major scheme assessment process?
Are the Very Small Starts criteria a useful way of streamlining
small, conventional schemes? Or do they encourage a box-ticking
approach that does not completely reflect local needs?
Is the Alternatives Analysis / LPA stage beneficial (in avoiding
re-evaluation of different modes) or a constraint (in locking-in a
solution that may no longer be best)?
Is there a role for hypothecated local funding sources, such as
sales taxes? These can be a valuable ongoing funding stream, but
carry political risks and are not necessarily stable in value.
-
27
Table 3: Comparison between BRT in the US and the UK
Planning and funding
Similarities Differences
Context of an ongoing local transport planning process
Little or no private sector involvement in operations. In
particular, operations and assets are publicly accountable and
usually publicly owned.
Municipally-led projects Less risk of Locally Preferred
Alternative being revisited and a change of mode enforced
New Starts and DfT Major Scheme funding are both competitive
grant processes, requiring project assessment against
national-level criteria and including value-for-money
thresholds
New Starts assessment and rating process is more formulaic, and
technically simpler, than DfT Major Scheme funding process
Attention to a broadly similar range of factors (running ways,
vehicles, branding etc)
Local hypothecated funding sources are very common
Physical and soft features
Similarities Differences
Some systems use guidewheels at stops No guided busways
Use of stylised / branded buses Use of bespoke BRT vehicles in
some cases
Off-bus ticketing may be used Off-bus ticketing, if used, tends
to apply to the whole route, not just the busway
Running ways include former railroad alignments, median strips
or reconfigured streets
Use of offside doors in some locations
Use of bus lanes and busways No double-decker BRT vehicles
(double-deckers are rare in the US)
Use of transit signal priority Cycles normally accommodated,
either on external racks (common in the US) or internally
Attention to branding and marketing
Goals and outcomes
Similarities Differences
Increased ridership evident Development/regeneration goals are
often more significant than in UK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Geoff Green, Kenneth Lin and Helen
Murphy for helpful comments during preparation of this paper, to
Nathaniel Grier for helpful comments and photographs, and to
Parsons Brinckerhoff for permission to present the paper. Much of
the background knowledge and material for this paper was gained
while working for Martin/Alexiou/Bryson in North Carolina, to whom
the author is also grateful. All photographs are by the author
except where credited otherwise. All views expressed are those of
the author.
-
28
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Public Transportation Association (2011) 2011 Public
Transportation Fact Book, 62nd Edition, American Public
Transportation Association, Washington DC.
Boucheret, J.-M. (2004) Briefing: The CIVIS optically-guided
urban transport system, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 157 (ME1) 13-15.
Bowen, D. J. (2009) Option or oxymoron?, Railway Age, April
2009, 46-54.
Cain, A., Flynn, J., McCourt, M., and Reyes, T. (2009)
Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid
Transit, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis, Princeton
Architectural Press, New York.
Carr, J. (2009) Lyon and Liverpool: a tale of transport in two
cities, New Transit, December 2009, 44-45.
Carr, J. (2010) Bus rapid transit with a truely [sic] French
flavour, New Transit, March 2010, 40-41.
Chu, X (2012) An Assessment of Public Transportation Markets
Using NHTS Data, National Center for Transit Research, Tampa,
Florida.
Currie, G. (2006) Bus Transit Oriented Development Strengths and
Challenges Relative to Rail, Journal of Public Transportation, 9
(4) 1-21.
Diaz, R. B. (ed.) (2004) Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit
for Decision-Making, Federal Transit Administration, Washington
DC.
Duff, D., Gill, E.J., and Woodman, G.K. (2010) Legal Research
Digest 30: Legal Handbook for the New Starts Process,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington
DC.
Falbel, S., et al (2006) Bus Rapid Transit Plans in New Yorks
Capital District, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (3)
23-48.
Harnack, L. (2007) BRT: Improving the Environment, Mass Transit,
July/August 2007, 8-16.
Hemmer, C. (2009) A Unique Approach to Implementing Bus Rapid
Transit in a Confined Right-of-Way, PB Network, 69 (May 2009),
33-38.
Institute for Transportation Development and Policy (2012), The
BRT Standard, Version 1.0, Institute for Transportation Development
and Policy, New York.
-
29
Jandt, F. (2007) Redefining Max, Mass Transit, April 2007,
8-14.
Kantor, D., et al (2006) Issues and Technologies in Level
Boarding Strategies for BRT, Journal of Public Transportation, 9
(3) 89-101.
Kantor, D., Moscoe, G., and Silver, F. (2008) 2008 Bus Rapid
Transit Vehicle Demand and Systems Analysis Update, CALSTART,
Pasadena, California.
Kaplan, A. (2007) Eco-ficient Metro Express proving popular with
riders, The Record (Stockton, California), 24 August 2007.
New Transit (2010) StreetCar brings a whole new look to Las
Vegas. New Transit, March 2010, p. 50
Phillips, D. (2006) An Update on Curb Guided Bus Technology and
Deployment Trends, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (3)
163-180.
San Joaquin Regional Transit District (2007) San Joaquin RTD
begins Metro Express Service (press release 21 January 2007), San
Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, California.
Schlosser, N. (2012) BRT Survey: Funding Levels Higher, Yet
Still a Concern, Metro Magazine, April 2012, 16-20.
Schmiek. P., et al (2006) Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express
(MAX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project 2006 Evaluation, Washington
Group International and Wilbur Smith Associates for US Federal
Transit Administration, Springfield, Virginia.
Special Transit Advisory Commission to the Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organisation (2008) Regional
Transit Vision Plan: Recommendations for North Carolinas Research
Triangle Region, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Starcic, J. (2007) San Joaquin RTD: Making Strides in
Revitalizing Transit, Metro Magazine, May 2007, 52-56.
Swallow, D.C. (2005) MAX The New Trend in Rubber-Tire Rapid
Transit, ITE Journal, 75 (2) 32-39.
Tebb, R.G.P. (1993) Possible Applications of Guided Bus
technology in Britain Operational Design Implications, Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Transport, 100 (Nov)
203-212.
Transit Cooperative Research Program (2007a) TCRP Report 111:
Elements Needed to Create High Ridership Transit Systems,
TranSystems, et al, for Transportation Research Board, Washington
DC.
-
30
Transit Cooperative Research Program (2007b) TCRP Report 118:
Bus Rapid Transit Practitioners Guide, Kittelson & Associates,
Inc, et al, for Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (c.2007a) Small
Starts Fact Sheet, United States Federal Transit Administration,
Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (c.2007b) Very
Small Starts Fact Sheet, United States Federal Transit
Administration, Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (2008a) The
Predicted and Actual Impacts of New Starts Projects - 2007, United
States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (2012a) Annual
Report on Funding Recommendations: Fiscal year 2013: Capital
Investment and Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Programs, United
States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (2012b) Capital
Investment Program FY 2013 Annual Report Evaluation and Rating
Process, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington
DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (2012c) Proposed
New Starts / Small Starts Policy Guidance, United States Federal
Transit Administration, Washington DC.
United States Federal Transit Administration (2012d) MAP-21 Fact
Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (New Starts)
Section 5309, United States Federal Transit Administration,
Washington DC.
United States Government Accountability Office (2009) Public
Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New Starts
Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development, United
States Government Accountability Office, Washington DC.
United States Government Accountability Office (2012) Bus Rapid
Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to
Economic Development, United States Government Accountability
Office, Washington DC.
United States National Archives and Records Administration
(2011) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49: Transportation,
United States National Archives and Records Administration,
Washington DC.
United States National Archives and Records Administration
(2012) Federal Register, Volume 77, No. 16, Wednesday January 25,
2012: Part II: Department of transportation: Federal Transit
Administration: 49 CFR Part 611: Major Capital Investment Projects:
Proposed Rule, United States National Archives and Records
Administration, Washington DC.
-
31
Weinstock, A., Hook, W., Replogle, M., and Cruz, R. (2011)
Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: A Survey of
Select U.S. Cities, Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy, New York.
Wong, C. (2008) Transit Priority Systems, Is Your Region Ready
for BRT? A Los Angeles/New York ITS Peer-to-Peer Exchange, U.S.
Department of Transportation's ITS Joint Program Office, Research
and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Webinar 16 April
2008, available at
http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/t3/s080416_brt.asp.
Wood, J. (2008) BRT: A Case of Mistaken Identity,
www.planetizen.com/node/36406 (page dated 8 December 2008, accessed
23 August 2012).