Iru research

A Comparative Analysis of Bus Rapid

Transit Systems in the World

Analyzing Cost and Time Efficiency

Research Outline and Introduction, 1st version

March 2014

University of Groningen

Research Group Coordinator:

Ayanga Edubio

Researchers:

Jordi Nahumury, BA International Relations and International Organization

Yan Hai, MA International Relations and International Organization

Eleni Toulkaridou, MA International Political Economy

Marlieke de Vries, BA International Relations and International Organization

Table of Contents

1. Introduction What is a BRT? ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Historical Development .......................................................................................................................... 5

BRT Standards and Goals ........................................................................................................................ 6

Why opt for a BRT System? ................................................................................................................... 10

Purpose of the Research and Research Sample ...................................................................................... 12

2. Time Efficiency Service Planning ................................................................................................................................... 13

Routes and Duration of journey ....................................................................................................................... 14

Passengers ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Frequency ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Ticket Purchase ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Infrastructure

Types of Buses ................................................................................................................................................ 18

Center Stations

...............................................................................................................................................?

Connectivity + Access to stations ...................................................................................................................... ?

Passing Lanes and Corridors ............................................................................................................................... ?

Area Mobility and Urban Planning .................................................................................................................... ?

3. Cost Efficiency Operation............................................................................................................................................. 43

Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 44

Growth Rates and Passenger Use .......................................................................................................... 44

Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 45

CO2 Emissions.................................................................................................................................................... 47

5. Conclusions

6. Recommendations

Introduction

What is a BRT?

In the ever-changing and fast-paced Global Village we inhabit, people‘s needs are becoming

increasingly more demanding with regards to more efficient systems of transportation,

catering not only to the consumers but also to environmental sustainability. Advocates of the

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system state that it can potentially meet these demands. What,

exactly though, is a BRT?

There are several definitions of what a Bus Rapid Transit system is. A recurring

concept in these definitions is that it is a bus-based transit system. This system combines the

high-performance, high-capacity, high speed and reliability of rail and the lower price and

flexibility of a conventional bus. The system aspires to optimize the mobility of citizens by

setting up a fast-paced bus service with a high quality and a high rotation/frequency, using

special buses and specially assigned infrastructure at reasonable prices for the customers as

well as the general community.1 The Transit Cooperative Research Programme (TCRP) report

90 provides a very detailed description of this means of transportation: “BRT is a flexible,

rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways,

and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong identity. BRT applications are

designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they

can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments (from rights-of-way totally

dedicated to transit—surface, elevated, underground—to mixed with traffic on streets and

highways).”2

BRT systems can be distinguished from one another by looking at whether the system

has a segregated right-of-way infrastructure. A segregated right-of-way infrastructure

indicates that there are lanes which are exclusively used by the buses operating in the BRT

system. Within high-end BRT systems this exclusive right-of-way infrastructure for

operational buses is present whereas low-end BRT systems, or BRT-Lite, do not have this

infrastructure. Furthermore, high-end BRT systems have a more considerable station

platforms and boarding areas whereas low-end BRT systems have simpler bus shelters. Also,

the high-end BRT is characterized by a higher technological level than the low-end BRT since

1BRT article smart move –

2Herbert S. Levinson et al., “Bus Rapid Transit: Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines,” TCRP Report 90

(2003): 23.

it possesses Automated Vehicle Location (AVL). This makes it possible to manage the whole

operation more efficiently by for example influencing signals at signalized intersections in a

favorable way for the buses in the BRT system. Nonetheless, there exist also some similarities

between both systems. Examples are that the buses are quiet and have a high capacity and that

platforms are raised so that there is same-level boarding. High-end BRT systems can be found

in Bogotá, Colombia, and Guangzhou, China.3 Low-end BRT systems can be found in North

America, for example in Chicago.4

In Europe the term Buses with High Level of Service (BHLS) is frequently used to

distinguish the European bus-based systems from the BRT systems in the rest of the world.5 A

short definition of BHLS is “The Bus with High Level of Service is a bus-based system,

clearly identified, that is an element of the primary public transport network. It offers to the

passenger a very good performance and comfort level, as a rail-based system, from terminus

to terminus at station, into vehicle and during the trip. The “system” approach across

infrastructure, vehicles and operating tools have coherent and permanent objectives in

accordance with the mobility network and city context.”6 BHLS systems focus on service

instead of focusing on all characteristics of a BRT system. They provide some components of

BRT systems in order to improve passenger experience.7 In order to improve passenger

experience, the BHLS focuses on punctuality/regularity, frequency and speed.8 The reason

why only components of the BRT systems are implemented in European cities is that the

urban context is different in the sense that the cities have narrower streets and most activities

and residence are mixed.9 BHLS systems thus are bus-based transit systems which have

features of BRT systems. For the further duration of this research paper, the terminology BRT

will be employed for both BHLS and BRT systems.

3Robert Cervero, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport,” ACEA 20

(december 2013): 3. 4Brendan Finn et al., Buses with High Level of Service: Fundamental Characteristics and Recommendations for

Decision-making and Research,(European Cooperation in Science and Technology, 2011), 16. 5Darío Hidalgo and Luis Gutiérrez, “BRT and BHLS around the world: Explosive growth, large positive impacts

and many issues outstanding,” Research in Transportation Economics 39, no. 1 (2013): 1. 6Finn et al., 20.

7Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 1.

8Finn et al., 20.

9Ibid., 17.

The subsequent pages will look into the historical development of BRT systems till date, as

well as distinguish between the different standards, gold, silver and bronze, of this

transportation system. The concluding part of the introduction will present a brief collection

of justifications, why it is advisable to opt for the BRT system.

Historical development

In the 1930s, there were already suggestions and plans for the application of elements of the

current BRT systems, but the first application of the full idea of the BRT system emerged

merely four decades ago in Curitiba, Brazil. There, in 1974, the Rede Integrada de Transporte

(RIT) was implemented. Initially, the system comprised only dedicated lanes for the buses,

but during the decades that followed further developments and innovations were implemented

to improve the system. Despite, the existence of the RIT for almost 40 years, it was not until

the turn of the century that the popularity of the BRT systems increased. Figure 1 shows a

remarkable growth in cities that introduced the BRT system since the beginning of the 21st

century. During the last decade, the success of some BRT systems, particularly the

TransMilenio in Bogotá that was introduced in 2000, induced this large increase of BRT

systems around the world.10 Nowadays, there are already 168 cities worldwide with a BRT

system and this amount is likely to grow in the upcoming years. More specifically, amongst

these cities there are 56 Latin American cities, 43 European cities, 35 Asian cities, 24

Northern American cities, 7 Oceania cities and 3 African cities.11 The total of existing

systems carries almost 31 million passengers per day and has a combined route length of over

4,4 million kilometers.12

10

Elvira Maeso-González and Pablo Pérez-Cerón, “State of art of bus rapid transit transportation,” European

Transport Research Review (September, 2013): 2. 11

“Global BRT Data,” Embarq and ALC-BRT, last modified November 28, 2013, accessed March 1, 2014,

http://www.brtdata.org/#/info/about. 12

Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.”

Fig. 1. Cities with BRT/bus corridors 1970-2011. Source: EMBARQ BRT/Bus Corridors Database, (EMBARQ,

2011).

In Europe, the infrastructure and organization of the traditional bus systems started to develop

already from the 1970s onwards, but this development halted in the 1990s when tramways

became the focus. Due to the financial costs of these tramways, the modern Light Rail Transit

(LRT), BHLS became a suitable and financially attractive alternative for LRT and found its

way to the European public transport system.13

The growth of the BRT systems worldwide is accompanied by recent institutional and

academic developments. There have been several initiatives to bundle efforts and knowledge

that have led to the creation and organization of non-profit associations, conferences and

research centers.14 Some examples of these initiatives are the BRT-ALC Centre of Excellence

and the Buses with High Level of Service in Europe. Another important development is the

growing interest and support of national governments, private investors and vehicle and

technology manufacturers.15 This increases the likelihood of transformed institutional

arrangements and new national programs to implement BRT and stimulates new

developments in production and technology of buses.

BRT Standards and Goals

BRT systems, albeit not very popular in European countries, have been in usage in the United

States and Brazil since the late 1970' s. These systems are a vital element for the urban

development of cities and facilitating the journeys of commuters at a low cost on the one

hand, yet, in a greener, faster and safer manner on the other hand. The designation of a BRT

system is a multifaceted and highly unique process, therefore, it is crucial to properly define it

so that it can be distinguished from traditional bus systems that often carry a misleading label

of BRT.

The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) sought to give a common

framework of the BRT systems, in a way that it efficiently specifies their respective qualities

13

Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 8. 14

Ibid., 11. 15

Ibid., 12.

and design planning. Therefore, the implicit definition, contributes to system-designers and

policy-makers' awareness, as well as to more efficient and sustainable designing of BRT

systems. Hence, these BRT standards serve as guidelines for implementation of BRT systems,

incorporating a set of rating measures and best practices. According to ITDP, the standards

assist BRT systems to offer “world-class passenger experiences” and attribute positive

economic and environmental benefits.

Thus, the ultimate goal is to spread the know-how of BRT systems, while specifying the costs

and benefits of a prospective implementation. Furthermore, the dynamics of each market are

not to be ignored, on the contrary, understanding the needs of each city and designing a

market-driven type BRT is the way to a successful transportation system.16

Prior to proceeding with an explanation of the certification system, we should point out that

the scoring concerns corridors which can be defined as follows: “A section of a road or

contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes that have dedicated lanes with a

minimum length of 4 kilometers.”.17 Accordingly, there is a “Demand Profile” for these

corridors, which are given 3 points by the BRT Standard Technical Committee in case they

serve high passenger demand sections.

The certification scheme ranges between gold, silver, bronze score and basic BRT. This

scoring distinction falls under an international hierarchical system, which enables BRT

systems around the world to share best practices, hence, to deliver an exquisite output.

16

Cost Action TU0603:BHLS Some European examples, 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Meeting

Brussels, 10 September 2013, 3. 17

BRT Standards 2013, ITDP, GIZ, ClimateWorks Foundation, ICCT, Rockefeller Foundation

, 6.

The criteria examined to award the BRT corridors, refer to:

top customer service quality;

BRT experts' unanimity on best practices;

politically-challenging decisions on behalf of the designing team, resulting in superior

performance;

the variety of corridors according to size and passenger volume (“high-low

ridership”);

transparency and easy access to the scoring system.

The Point System:

Gold standard BRT (85 – 100 points): The gold standard represents the best practice

internationally, with regards to performance, efficiency and customer service. As for

the financial aspect, it might be costly, but it can easily attract capital, since it can be

applied to any corridor with adequate demand of passengers.

Silver standard BRT (70-84 points): The silver standard incorporates the majority of

the best international practices qualities and it holds a high possibility of corridor

applicability and

hence, it is most likely to attract investment.

Bronze standard BRT (55-69 points): Bronze standard satisfies some of the

internationally defined best practices features. It presents in any case, higher

performance and customer service qualities than the basic BRT systems.

Basic BRT (18-54 points): This standard signifies the minimum features that a BRT

should have to be labeled as such, according to the common defined framework of

BRT systems. The basic BRT renders reward with the three aforementioned rankings

possible.

The Basic BRT is composed by:

7 points:

Bus way alignment: the best possible location where the risk of intersecting

with other means of transport is averted;

Dedicated right-off way: dedicated lines eliminating the possibility of

congestion;

Off-bus fare collection: time-saving and maximizing customer satisfaction

when purchased off board.

6 points:

Intersection treatments: this feature includes traffic-light prioritizing of BRT

systems, in order to increase speed level to destination;

Platform-level boarding: it concerns the less possible boarding time, facilitated

by the same level of platform and bus floor.

In particular, the most critical elements determining the distinction from other types of

transportation available, are the bus way alignment and the dedicated right-of way, in which

the corridors should score at least 4 points to qualify for BRT systems.

In total, the points that a BRT system can be credited with amount to 100. The performance of

the corridors is under inspection throughout a year and at the end of the respective year the

Technical Committee certifies them accordingly. The results of the evaluation process are

publicly disclosed during the first months of the following year.18 The scorecard below is

indicative of the elements and the score that BRT systems need to achieve.

Source: ITDP Website

18

BRT Standards 2013, ITDP, GIZ, ClimateWorks Foundation, ICCT, Rockefeller Foundation, 7-21.

Among the existing BRT systems currently in function, three of the most successful examples

awarded with a gold standard are Guangzhou' s GBRT in China, Bogota' s TransMilenio in

Colombia, and Curitiba' s Linha Verde in Brazil, which are subjected to scrutiny in this study.

To sum up, defining BRT systems and adopting a common framework of standards, enables

all the stages - from designing to implementation - to achieve a superior level of performance.

The concept of the BRT systems is essential to be clarified by decision makers and the

industry community, so that the prospective benefits can be acknowledged and disseminated.

It should be clear, that the ultimate purpose of BRT systems is to present the best possible

performance, to achieve the maximum customer service satisfaction, to operate in a flexible

and low cost way. Planning is the harbinger of a successful BRT system, which assisted by the

standards can be time saver and more effective. Moreover, integral part is the matching of the

BRT needs to the market about to operate and cooperation between industry and private

actors.19

Why opt for a BRT system?

When considering investment in a relatively novel means of transportation, it is imperative to

look at all beneficial elements, that can be attributed a BRT. First and foremost, the BRT

system is cost-effective: lower capital cost for construction, lower operating cost and higher

speed. Compared to the capital cost of constructing a heavy rail system, the numbers of

building a bus system, are really astonishing. Looking, for example, at the data provided by

the Honolulu government – this showed that a rail would cost as much as $300 million per

mile, whereas you can improve a lane for buses on arterial streets for $1 million per mile, or

you could build a new lane for buses -- the bus way would cost about $14 million per mile,

again compared to the Honolulu rail system at $300 million per mile. While Hawaii remains a

geographically individualized case in the subsequent chapters, the message it attempts to

convey is, a bus lane can be built much more quickly and much more cheaply than a rail line

and they can be easily repaired.20

19

Levinson et al., 23. 20

Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18926-Costs-amp-

Advantages-of-Bus-Rapid-Transit

Furthermore, the construction cost as well as the operating cost for bus rapid transit systems

are significantly lower than those for rail based transportation systems. This is partly due to

the former's greater pool of customers and their greater flexibility: buses must not remain

operational when they charter no customers, as opposed to the way trains must remain in

rotation, even in the non-peak hours. Additionally to the low cost of construction, operation

and repair, BRT vehicles can operate in a wide range of environments without forcing

transfers or requiring expensive running way construction over the entire range of their

operation. It will help to deal with the severe traffic congestion. It helps to save the money

and improve the citizens’ travel efficacy. Practically, it is beneficial for the government and

the citizens to opt BRT system.

Secondly, BRT systems can highly improve the transportation efficiency of the travelers. BRT

systems can be deployed more quickly, and in greater quantities, than rail based systems. For

example, the Guangzhou BRT system is connected to the subway, which saves the travel time.

More importantly, with the exclusive bus lane, BRT systems do not face the problem of traffic

congestion which have a high potential of reducing the accident rates. This increases

opportunities to attract people out of their cars, increasing the share of public transit trips. It

has more social effect in some countries for example in China BRT is regarded as a way to

improve social equity.21

Thirdly, BRT also contributes to the sustainable urban development. The exclusive lane for

the BRT will carry more passengers, which can also highly improve the efficient in terms of

intensive land use. Invoking the second reason discussed before, BRT will contribute to the

decrease of private-vehicles and traffic congestion as well as the adoption of clean energy,

which will surely reduce the emission of motor vehicles. In that sense, BRT is the best transit

strategy for most cities to reduce transportation-related CO² emissions. That’s why BRT was

the first, and so far the only, mass transit technology certified under the Kyoto Protocol.

Finally, beyond the benefits that BRT can bring to the human life, there is a big potential for a

more effective BRT system. According to the BRTdata.org, the overall utilization in not fully

developed. Specifically, 5.91% of the German passengers are making use of BRT systems

while the percentages of BRT passengers per day is 22.15%, 9.42% and 6.26% in France, UK

21

He Dongquan and Liu Daizong, “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Developments in China,” Bejing, August 2007,

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/029efdeb81c758f5f61f6748.html.

and Netherlands respectively.22 To take full advantage of BRT system, we need to involve the

public attention to transfer private-vehicles to BRT system.

Purpose of the Research and Research Sample

The purpose of this research is to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of BRT systems in

terms of time- and cost efficiency. In particular, this research aims at providing a framework

for EU policy makers and private entrepreneurs to reach a well-considered decision on

whether or not to invest in BRT systems in Europe. Both parties can benefit from an

economically, financially and politically viable BRT system. The following chapters will look

at those elements that can contribute to answering whether BRT systems are time- and cost

efficient. In these chapters a comparison will be drawn between EU and non-EU countries to

benchmark a sample of existing BRT systems in the EU to a sample of relatively successful

systems in the rest of the world. This makes it possible to look at the potential time- and cost

efficiency of a BRT system and gives an indication of the status of the European systems

when looking at efficiency.

The research sample of EU and non-EU cities is:

BRT systems in EU cities:

Madrid, Spain (BUS-VAO)

Nantes, France (Busway)

Kent, UK (Fastrack)

Amsterdam, Netherlands (Zuidtangent)

Helsinki, Finland (Bussi Jokeri)

Stockholm, Sweden (Blabussar)

BRT system in Non-EU cities:

Guangzhou, China (GBRT)

Bogota, Colombia (Transmilenio)

Curitiba, Brazil (Linka Verde)

Brisbane, Australia (South East Busway)

Cleveland, OH, USA (Healthline)

Johannesburg, South Africa (Rea Vaya Phase)

22

Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.”

The EU cities are chosen according to their size and region within Europe to create a diverse

sample that gives a good representation of the EU systems. The non-EU cities are chosen

according to their geographical diversion, size and BRT rankings. More specifically, the non-

EU cities have a gold or silver rating to be better suited for benchmarking the different

systems.

2. Time Efficiency

This chapter will analyse several elements relating to the time efficiency of the different BRT

systems. Three broad categories of elements will be discussed: service planning, delays and

traffic jams, and infrastructure. The first category of service planning will analyse routes,

amount of passengers, peak frequency and peak load of a system, and the presence of pre-

board fare collection. The second category will analyse the delays and amount of traffic jams

experienced or caused by the BRT systems. Infrastructure, the final category, will analyse the

types of buses used, the placement of the bus stations or bus stops, connectivity and access to

stations, passing lanes and corridors, and area mobility and urban planning. The statistics and

performances of the elements incorporated in this research of all the cities will be analysed

and then a comparison will be drawn between the EU cities and most of the non-EU cities.

The non-EU cities used for this comparison are Ahmedabad, Johannesburg, York Region, and

Montevideo. Bogotá and Curitiba are used for benchmarking with the EU-cities, because

these cities have BRT systems that are among the top-performing systems, which were

awarded with a Gold Standard BRT System.23 Before making an analysis of the data and

compare and benchmark the different elements, the relation of each element to the time

efficiency of a BRT system will be discussed.

2.1 Service Planning

Service planning covers the routes, time schedules, passengers, and fare collection system of

the various BRT systems. First, the length of the systems and the type of network design will

be discussed. Second, the amount of passengers and the relativity to the total population will

be analysed. The third element that will be discussed is the peak frequency of the buses in the

23

system together with the related peak load. Finally, presence or absence of pre-board fare

collection will be discussed.

2.1.1 Routes

The length of the BRT system has no direct influence on the time efficiency of the system, but

it does give an impression of the scope and reach of the particular BRT systems. The scope of

the system is related to the area and its inhabitants. These inhabitants are potential users of a

BRT system. Therefore, the length of a system could relate to its reach in terms of users. So,

the relation to time efficiency can be merely a quantitative one in terms of potential users of a

system that fall within the reach of the route. But, the contribution of this factor is unknown

and remains speculative, also because route length and the potential scope depends heavily on

the type of network design of the particular system.24 For instance, an urban system is often

relatively short compared to a peripheral system, but in the scope of an urban route are

relatively more potential users.

More directly affected by route length are the number of locations a passenger can reach

without transfers.25 Whereas, longer routes minimize the necessity for transfers by

passengers, a shorter route can provide more time travel reliability, but may require a

passenger to transfer more often.26

Table 2.1 Route length and Duration per BRT System

Route length (km)

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm 40

Madrid 8,32

Nantes 6

Kent 15

Non-EU cities

24

Robert Cervero, “Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): And Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport,” 20th

ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report (December 2013): 14. 25

Roderick B. Diaz, ed., Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (Washington: Federal Transit

Administration, 2004), 2-68. 26

Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-68.

Brisbane

Johannesburg 43

York Regional Municipality 59

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá 106

Curitiba 81

Source: brtdata.org, Finn et al., and Cervero. 1An urban route operates within the core urban

area, a local or distributor route operates locally in the inner or outer suburbs, including feeder routes, and cross-city route connects different parts of the urban and suburban areas via the main city centre. (Cervero, p. 14) with the other systems in the sample and do not fit into one of the categories.

Furthermore, table 2.1 shows that the systems of Bogotá and Curitiba have the longest

systems. Both systems are more mature than the other systems, so this may indicate that a

more mature system is consequently more extensive and intensive system and therefore

longer. Related to this maturity is that the systems of Bogotá and Curitiba go beyond the

traditional types of network design and combine several types.

Two EU cities, Madrid and Nantes, have an urban network design. Compared to Montevideo,

the only non-EU city in this sample with an urban system, the route length is quite similar. All

three systems are under ten kilometres and much shorter compared to all the other systems in

the sample. The EU cities with an peripheral or tangential network design are Stockholm,

Amsterdam, and Helsinki and the non-EU cities are Ahmedabad and Johannesburg. The

routes in Johannesburg, Stockholm and Ahmedabad are around forty kilometres. Amsterdam

is a bit longer with 56 kilometres, and Helsinki is shorter with a route length of 27,5

kilometres. On average, the EU and non-EU cities don’t differ much and all these peripheral

systems are significantly longer than the urban designs. Kent is the only EU city in this

sample with a local or distributor network design. Compared to York Region, a non-EU local

or distributor system, Kent is significantly shorter. While the York Region system is longer

than the other peripheral routes, Kent falls between the urban and peripheral systems.

2.1.2 Passengers

The amount of passengers or other data related to passengers has no influence on time

efficiency, but gives an impression of the performance of the BRT system in terms of

passengers transported. If it becomes clear that a particular system is relatively time efficient

or inefficient then this data shows how many people are profiting or suffering from this time

efficiency performance. To take into account the potential users of each individual system,

table 2.2 also shows a percentage of the amount of passengers relative to the total population

in the area of the particular system. Note that passengers are not defined as unique passengers,

so the percentage does not show the exact percentage of the population using the BRT system

daily. But, it gives an impression how widespread the usage is within the population relative

to other BRT systems.

Table 2.2 shows that Bogotá and Curitiba have the highest amount of passengers per day and

the highest percentage of passengers relative to the population with almost thirty per cent.

These numbers are far above those of the other cities in the sample in both the EU and non-

EU category. The highest percentage after these two top-countries is the urban system of

Nantes with almost nine per cent. Compared to the other urban systems of Madrid and

Montevideo, respectively 1,4 and 1,9 per cent, Nantes has a higher amount of passengers

relative to the population. Of the cities with a peripheral system, Stockholm has the highest

percentage, 6,4 per cent, followed by Amsterdam, 5,0 per cent, and then Helsinki, 4,9 per

cent. The non-EU cities have lower amount of passengers relative to the population.

Johannesburg is just behind the European cities, but Ahmedabad is well behind with 0,9 per

cent. Furthermore, table 2.2 shows that the two regional systems of Kent and York Regional

don’t differ much from each other with percentages of, respectively, 2,9 and 3,5.

Table 2.2 Percentage of Passengers per BRT System Relative to the Total Population

Passengers (p/day) Population

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm 57.000 889.501

Madrid 43.900 3.215.633

Nantes 25.000 284.970

Kent 5.725 199.370

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg 42.000 957.441

York Regional Municipality 35.300 1.032.524

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá 1.980.000 7.363.782

Curitiba 508.000 1.776.761

Sources: brtdata.org, Finn et al., and vrk.fi. 1Passengers are not defined as unique

passengers per day, but as daily passenger boardings in the system. So, this percentage does not represent an exact percentage of the population that uses the system daily, but merely serves to give an impression of the use per city in relation to the total population.

2.1.3 Peak Frequency and Peak Load

The peak frequency and peak load of a BRT system have a direct impact on the time

efficiency. The peak frequency is defined by EMBARQ, the World Resource Institute (WRI)

signature initiative for sustainable transport and urban development, as “the average number

of buses per hour serving the segment with the highest passenger boardings during peak hour

and in the peak direction”.27 So, if the peak frequency of a BRT system is higher, it has a

larger amount of buses available and, consequently, the system is able to transport more

passengers during those hours, reduces waiting time and has an overall positive effect on the

time efficiency.28 Peak load is defined by EMBARQ as “the maximum number of passengers

aboard buses per hour per direction along the most heavily loaded segment”. A higher peak

load shows that the passenger capacity of the system is higher. So, the system is capable of

transporting more passengers at a certain moment and this has a positive effect on the

system’s time efficiency. Note that peak frequency and peak load both refer to situations,

hours and specific segments of the route, when the BRT system has to perform at its best and

as time efficient as possible.

Table 2.3 Peak Frequency and Peak Load per BRT System

Peak frequency (buses/hour)

EU cities

27

“Global BRT Data,” Embarq and ALC-BRT, last modified November 28, 2013, accessed April 10, 2014,

http://www.brtdata.org/#/info/about. 28

Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-73.

Hamburg

Stockholm 15

Madrid

Nantes 17

Kent 14

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg 64

York Regional Municipality

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá 320

Curitiba 67

Source: brtdata.org, go-fastrack.co.uk, and chinabrt.org

Table 2.3 shows that Bogotá has an immense peak frequency and peak load, that extends far

above the other systems. Its peak frequency is 320 buses per hour and the peak load is 43.000.

Curitiba has the second largest frequency and peak load with 67 buses per hour and 11.000.

(………DATA GAP..…….)

2.1.4 Pre-board Fare Collection

Pre- or off-board fare collection means that passengers pay or validate their fare before getting

on board of the bus.29 The completion of the fare payment or validation before boarding

ensures that this process does not have to be done anymore by the bus driver during the

boarding of the passengers. In this manner, the bus can reduce its dwell time spent at the

boarding platforms of bus stops and stations and increases its reliability.30 Pre-board fare

collection reduces the duration of a bus ride by making the boarding process more efficient

and less time-consuming. So, the presence of pre-board fare collection has a direct and

positive effect on the time efficiency and reliability of a BRT system.

Table 2.4 Pre-board Fare Collection per BRT System

Pre-board fare

29

Embarq and ALC-BRT, “Global BRT Data.” 30

Roderick B. Diaz, ed., 2-45.

collection

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm

Madrid All

Nantes None

Kent Mixed1

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg All

York Regional Municipality All

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá All

Curitiba All

Sources: brtdata.org, go-fastrack.co.uk, chinabrt.org, and yorkregiontransit.com. 1”Due to uneconomic levels of use, ticket machines at Route B stops have

been withdrawn from use.” (go-fastrack.co.uk/service-information.html) So, although there was pre-board fare collection at the stops, this has been partly withdrawn. No exact numbers available.

Table 2.4 shows that almost all non-EU cities in this sample, including top-performers Bogotá

and Curitiba, have a pre-board fare collection. The only exception is Montevideo that has no

form of pre-board fare collection. When comparing this non-EU group with the EU systems,

the latter group shows a much more mixed result. Only Madrid has a system with a totally

integrated pre-board fare collection. Both Amsterdam and Nantes do not have an off-board

type of fare collection. When Kent implemented their BRT system, it had installed pre-board

fare collection at every stop and station, but due to uneconomic use of a lot of these machines

they uninstalled some of them. So, Kent now has a mix of stations with and without pre-board

fare collection. Also, Helsinki has a mixed implementation with about a third of the stops and

stations featured with pre-board fare collection.

(………DATA GAP..…….)

2.1.5 Conclusion

2.2 Infrastructure

2.2.1 Definitions of Stations

Like rail systems, stations are the link between the community and the system. They are

designed to integrate into the community, promote economic development, enhance travel

time, and encourage intermodal connectivity. They also minimize boarding and "dwell" times,

thus helping people reach their destination more quickly. In addition, center stations facilitate

transfers between buses however often at the expense of disruptions to customer access.31

There are several types of stations of which 3 are relevant to this research:

a. A center platform station, which is a potential station configuration with BRT boarding on

both sides;

Center Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)

b. side platform station, which is a potential station configuration with BRT boarding on one

side only;

31

http://www.gobrt.org/whatis.html

Side Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)

c. curb-side platform station, which is a potential station configuration that also functions as

part of the continuous sidewalk.

Curb-Side Platform Station, (Source: West Eugene EmX Extension Project, Alternatives Analysis Report, October 2010)

The stations constructed for the BHLS system, are permanent structures which can not be

displaced at any time for reasons like underground works. The stations should in general be at

least 400-500 m distant from each other, so as to enable buses to develop high speeds. In

order to reduce dwell times, high quality docking should be installed at all the bus doors, so

that accessibility is rapid for all the social groups.

The criteria of the best practices of BRT stations and vehicles can be seen below:

Low Level BRT High Level BRT

As far as the types of the vehicles is concerned, the common BHLS trend is a fleet of 18

meters long articulated buses. Dwell time can be determined by vehicle size, number of doors

and door arrangement .The combination of opening and closing the doors, as well as pulling

in and out of a bus stops lasts about 10 seconds on average. This time however, can be

prolonged per meter in case the vehicle is larger. Furthermore, most BHLS buses have a low

floor, allowing limited boarding time by 20% in comparison to high floors. 32 The picture

below illustrates level boarding between the bus floor and the platform.

Accessibility is a means of social inclusion, thus, every station and vehicle should be easily

accessible to every social group. Therefore, infrastructural adjustment of public spaces plays

a key role in order to facilitate the whole process.33 Otherwise no matter how well organized

32

Finn- Rapport, Final COST BHLS 2011, p. 52

33

the vehicles are, the BRT system is not going to work, hampered by infrastructure

discrepancies.

Another fact that should be noticed, is that according to the number of the doors, a better

passenger circulation can be allowed and thus, diminished dwell time combined with comfort

is accomplished. Last but not least, integral part of the BHLS systems is the installation of

Intelligent Transportation Systems, which enable on-board passenger information containing

next stops, schedules and delays.

2.2.2 Nantes

The BRT system in Nantes was implemented to solve the problem of low demand of

traditional public transportation in 2006. Though 70 bus lines and 4 tram lines were serving

the routes from suburbs to the city center, the inadequate passenger capacity did not

compensate for their cost. Once the BRT system was implemented, it provided the city not

only with lower financial cost, but also with shorter travel times. Within a little matter of time,

passengers increased surprisingly, owing mostly to time saving. More specifically, the

difference between time travel from terminus to terminus by BRT instead of car is more than

20 minutes during the rush hour. 34

BRT line 4, which operates under the name Busway, is comprised of 15 stations. The stations

are located on the side of the street and are equipped with information systems that indicate

real time next stop/terminus, disturbances, waiting time of the next connected services of the

network, arrival of the bus and accessibility. The stations are barrier-free so that they can

facilitate access on the bus, and what is more, there is a retractable ramp to cover the gap

between the platform and the bus. All the stations are placed outside intersections, so that

people do not have to wait for the traffic lights to cross the streets, thus saving time. It some

parts of the city, stations accommodate pedestrian access straight from the residential areas,

such as the Mauvoisin station in Boulevard de Vendée, which is located on the east side to be

easily accessible from residential street Fromenteaux. 35 In addition, the stations can be easily

34

http://www.mercedes-

benz.fi/content/finland/mpc/mpc_finland_website/fi/home_mpc/bus/home/consulting/brt/systems_brt/nantes.

0004.html

35

Linternaute.com website, http://www.linternaute.com/nantes/magazine/urbanisme/dossier/busway/en-savoir-

plus.shtml

recognized by their distinctive design, colour and brand, so that passengers can quickly locate

them. Finally, stations can be easily accessed by cycling lanes.

Mauvoisin station

The buses are equipped with CNG engines, as well as small ramps to enable quick entrance.

As far as the connectivity is concerned, there are several bus stations which facilitate

intermodality, such as the the Grèneraie station which is connected to 6 different lines of

public transport, such as the Nantes Tramway.

2.2.3 Kent

The stations in Kent are located on the side of the streets and access is facilitated by walking

and cycling routes. The platform level at the stations is adjusted to the bus floor so that the

passengers can walk straight to the bus without slowing down the departure. All stations

feature hard-standing and raised kerbs, so that easy access to them can be achieved. Real time

information about bus schedules is also available at each stop. According to a survey

conducted in October 2006 in Kent, the 40% of the passengers use the bus to go to work or

college, while another 30% commute by bus to go shopping.36 Both facts indicate, that the

location of certain bus stops such as the one directly connected to Bluewater shopping mall, is

really important for making the BRT preferable medium of transport, as it enables fast access

to destinations. Furthermore, stations connected to public interest infrastructure, such as the

36

http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/downloads/72-six-month-report-1/file.html

one outside Darent Valley Hospital, encouraging ridership for health reasons due to fast

accessibility.

Interchange with other means of transport is possible from the whole bus stop network.

Fastrack A and B serve connections between the national rail network and bus hubs.

Furthermore, taxi ranks are nearby the bus stops, thus, time to destination using different

means of transport is reduced.

Fully-accessible vehicles with a low entrance and no steps inside the front half. The entrance

can be lowered to the level of low pavements if necessary, however, this is a rare case, as each

vehicle is fitted with an extending variable height ramp to enable access. The ramp at the

entrance allows wheelchairs, pushchairs and buggies as well to be easily wheeled on or off.

Kent' s BRT buses are constructed with a low emission technology, as they satisfy Euro 4 and

Euro 3 standard on routes A and B respectively.

2.2.4 Bogotá

Bogota's BRT system, which is among the most successful ones, is often used to benchmark

other BRT systems-as it is also the case in this research. However, Bogota was not always

distinguished for its exquisite transportation system. On the contrary, the BRT system was

developed to cure the chaotic situation caused by an unsuccessful creation of subway. The

infrastructure construction lasted for a year and its network is comprised by exclusive bus

lanes, accessible by all types of social communities.37 Paths for bicycles and pedestrians

facilitate time efficiency, while the tremendous volume of passengers encourages investment.

Interestingly enough, an increase on private fuel consumption tax contributed to BRT funding

(half of the 25% gasoline tax levied in Bogotá is used for the continued expansion of

TransMilenio).

Bogota's BRT system is comprised of 2 types of service, the first one being express (specific

stops in the route) and the other one being standard (stops all throughout the route). The

station platforms enable fast boarding by adjusting to the bus floor. The same level of

platform and bus floor also accommodates effortless accessibility for the elderly and people

37

http://www.mercedes-

benz.fi/content/finland/mpc/mpc_finland_website/fi/home_mpc/bus/home/consulting/brt/systems_brt/nantes.

0004.html

with disabilities. What is more, the stations are equipped with transponders recording

information about bus schedules and routes.38

The articulated buses use diesel fuel and technology which complies to Euro 2 environmental

standards. The buses are able to reach high commercial speeds of 27 km/h and they are

equipped with 4 doors in order to enable the littlest possible delay upon the stop.

2.2.5 Curitiba

Special stops called "tube stations" (70 passengers) which allow for a faster passenger

boarding of passengers with anticipated payment.

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/course/11/11.951/oldstuff/albacete/Other_Documents/Europe%

20Transport%20Conference/european_transport_pol/public_transport_p1783.pdf

2.2.6 Madrid

Radio frequency system (WiFi network, etc.) to ensure underground vehicle location. Travel

planner, web site and information phone number to inform passengers and to help them to

connect to other public transport services.

http://www.ebsf.eu/images/stories/documents/usecases-web%202012.pdf

Madrid, Moncloa Station / BusVao-Metro interchange

38

http://www.esc-pau.fr/ppp/documents/featured_projects/colombia_bogota.pdf , p.8-9

Table 2.5 Stations

Stations away from intersections Station spacing (m) Platform level

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm 500

Madrid

Nantes Yes 470

Kent Yes

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg

York Region

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá Yes 500

Curitiba Yes 600

Sources:

ITDP calls for a minimum of three doors for articulated buses and two for regular buses.

(… LACK OF DATA …)

Table 2.6 Types of Buses

Number of doors

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm

Madrid

Nantes Right side/4

Kent 1

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg

York Regional Municipality

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá Left side/4

Curitiba Left side/5

Sources:

Table 2.7 Connectivity and Access to Stations

Pedestrians

People with reduced mobility

Taxi

Bicycle lanes

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm yes

Madrid

Nantes Accessible for wheelchairs and children’s pushchairs

yes

Kent

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg yes no

York Region

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá

Crosswalks & traffic lights/sidewalks near terminals

Adapted platforms/access to terminals non-existent/4 terminals only with special facilities

No taxi stands at terminals

eight out of the thirteen terminals can be reached by bicycle paths.

Curitiba 55% of absence of disability 64% of the 6 of the 22 terminals

terminals/poor quality of the sidewalks

terminals directly

Sources:

2.2.6 Running Way Components39

Running ways, along with stations and vehicles, are essential parts of any BRT system. How

well they perform has an important bearing on BRT speed, reliability, identity, and passenger

attraction.40 This is mainly because BRT systems provide “Priorities” for buses over other

vehicles, which helps to reduce the travel time for BRT buses.

The Priorities, for instance, in the perspective of infrastructures includes: dedicated

(exclusive) lanes for the buses; the signal priority with regard to traffic lights at intersections;

BRT-only bridges and tunnels. There are some BRT systems require the other vehicles to give

way to buses when the buses need to go back to the main road from the stations. Those

priorities accompanied with the well-organized schedule of the routines will definitely save

the time for BRT buses. Besides the priorities, most BRT lanes have passing lanes for buses,

which also save the time for buses from waiting in queue. Moreover, BRT lanes also have

segregated bike lanes along main corridors, which will increase the mobility and attract bike

users. So the “priorities” and above mentioned “passing lanes in stations” and “segregated

bike lanes in main corridors “demonstrate the effectiveness of BRT with regard to “time

efficiency”.

2.2.6 Priorities: Dedicated Bus Lanes, Bus Only Tunnels or Bridges and Signal Priorities

Invoking the discussion in the Introduction, dedicated lanes is one of the most significant

characters of BRT systems: “In particular, the most critical elements determining the

distinction from other types of transportation available, are the bus way alignment and the

dedicated right-of way.” “Running ways are the key element of BRT systems around which

the other components revolve since running ways serve as the infrastructural foundation

around which the other elements function. “41 As is shown in the table, all the BRT systems

39

TCRP,Page4-1 40

TCRP, Page4-2 41

http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PWP/2009/PWP-2009-01.pdf

in EU and non-EU cities have dedicated or at least semi-dedicated lanes for the buses. While

the low level BRT buses are running in mixed Traffic operations with basic bus lanes, high-

level BRT buses are running in Median Busway on Arterial or at grade (separated) bus way.

Here is a difference between bus lanes or bus-street bus-ways: while a lane on an urban

arterial or city street is reserved for the exclusive or near-exclusive use of buses, A bus street

or transit mall can be created in an urban center by dedicating all lanes of a city street to the

exclusive use of buses. The types of running ways for BRT service can range between mixed

traffic operation and fully grade-separated bus-ways. Most Arterial BRT systems operating in

mixed-traffic rely on Transit Signal Priority and “Queue Jumpers” to minimize delay at

signalized intersections.

Table 2.8 BRT Components： Running Ways

Source: Adapted from TCRP 90 – Volume 2, 2003

Note: The traffic Engineering also lays on the running ways. For the sake of

Figure 2.1 BRT Transit Way

A BRT transit way is made of concrete lanes or concrete tracks with a grass-strip divider that

is used exclusively by BRT vehicles. In general, the BRT transit way is separated from

adjacent genera-purpose lanes by a concrete curb and/or median and general-purpose vehicles

only at signalized intersections traverse the transit way.42

Figure 2.2 BAT (Business Access and Transit) Lane

In general, a BAT lane is a concrete lane, separated from general-purpose lanes by a paint

stripe and signage. A BAT lane provides BRT priority operations, but general-purpose traffic

is allowed to travel within the lane to make a turn into or out of a driveway or at an

intersecting street.

Figure 2.3 BRT-Only Lane

42

http://jwneugene.org/documents/WestEugeneEmXExtensionAlternativesAnalysisReport.pdf

In general, a BRT-Only lane is a concrete lane, separated from general-purpose lanes by a

paint strip and signage. Operationally, the BRT-only lane is for the exclusive use of BRT

vehicles. In general, right-or-left-turning or crossing general-purpose traffic is allowed to

traverse (cross) the BRT-only lane at intersections and/or driveway entrances. BRT-only lane

is proposed in locations where buses would travel in reverse flow to general-purpose traffic or

where buses would have to travel in mixed traffic.

Table 2.8 Typology of Right of Ways

Source: professor Vukan R. Vuchic, – “Urban Transit systems and technology” – version 2007.

Table 2.9 Generalized effects of BRT Running way Elements.

Source: TCRP EXHIBIT 4-2

2.2.7 Madrid43

The BUS-HOV system in Madrid consists of a physically segregated corridor that uses rigid

barriers to separate the buses and HOV vehicles from other traffic lanes. It has both semi-

dedicated lanes and dedicated lanes.44

The Bus-HOV lane on the A-6 corridor in Madrid remains a unique scheme in Europe despite

the fact that it was opened almost ten years ago. Other European cities have implemented high

occupancy vehicle systems but so far have made far less impression than the Madrid scheme.

The Madrid system has the twin aim of improving public transport in the form of the bus

routes using this metropolitan corridor and of promoting car pooling. An analysis of the

mobility development along the A-6 corridor confirms that the bus HOV system is attracting

corridor users to high occupancy modes as the 63.3% increase in the number of travellers

carried on it over the 1991 to 2001 period was much higher than the corresponding 40.5% rise

in vehicles. The scheme has had a spectacular impact on interurban buses. While in 1994 a

total of 1,260 buses operated along the corridor, the figure has now reached almost 4,000,

implying an increase in bus patronage of 220% as compared to a 40% increase in population

along the corridor. Furthermore, one of the key elements to the successful increase in

carpooling is the good supply of public transport along the corridor, guaranteeing a

convenient means of return journey for those who cannot go back with the person who

brought them in. The result is a complementary more than a competitive interaction between

carpooling and public transport, taking efficient advantage of the surplus capacity of the

restricted access lane. The bus success is having a knock-on effect on two elements of the

system, one is its interchange which has reached saturation levels making extension inevitable

and the other is the bus lane, which also needs to be widened to solve the growth of

incidences occurring in it. Both of these operations will enhance the quality of service of the

buses operating on the bus-HOV lane.45

43

http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/transport/madrid-changing-behaviour-towards-

sustainable-transportation/ 44

http://www.gobrt.org/db/project.php?id=222 45

http://www.aecarretera.com/en/servicios/publicaciones/revista-carreteras/articulos-publicados/170-revista-

carreteras-n-133/1155-la-calzada-bus-vao-de-madrid-optimizacion-del-uso-de-las-infraestructuras-en-el-

corredor-de-la-carretera-a-6

2.2.8 Nantes46

The southern 2km section, around 1/3 of the line, has only 1 BRT lane. (Jul-11)

2.2.8 Kent Mixed traffic and dedicated lanes

46

http://www.uitp-bhls.eu/IMG/pdf/Abstract_Nantes_Busway2008.pdf

Source 47

2.2.9 Amsterdam48

Zuidtangent has segregated bus-ways and bus-only roadways running in mixed traffic. Since

the traffic congestion has negatively impacted bus travel in the mixed traffic lanes, buses have

an absolute right-of-way at traffic lights.

2.2.10 Helsinki semi-dedicatted and dedicated

47

https://www.flickr.com/photos/46341292@N05/11277970773/in/photostream/ 48

http://www.gobrt.org/db/project.php?id=126

2.2.11 Stockholm

2.2.12 Non-EU Cities

1. Bogotá(2000)

2. Curitiba

3. Johannesburg (Rea Vaya)

Source:49

4. Montevideo

49

http://www.reavaya.org.za/consumer-information/smartcard-information

Source50

2.2.13 Dedicated lanes

5. Ahmedabad

50

http://dominicanoshoy.com/index.php?id=58&tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=12

&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=82409&cHash=4ee995060cb288c751ca39f6701a712c

Source:51

2.2.14 Bus Signal Preference and Pre-emption52

Preferential treatment of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or

actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon detection of an approaching bus.

Intersection priority can be particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus

lanes or streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene between buses and traffic

signals.

Priority treatment of buses at intersections holds the potential to reduce a significant source of

delay in bus operations. Today’s traffic signal control systems are tightly interconnected,

however, in order to provide progression of general traffic through urban grid networks.

Therefore, bus signal priority treatments would have to be constrained to modest variations

within the context of maintenance of progression. Bus operating speeds may also improve if

traffic signal cycles are coordinated to the time required for passenger service, i.e., the red

phase occurs during the time needed for passenger boarding and fare collection.53

2.2.15 Level Boarding

Changes in bus or platform design that could provide for level boarding through the use of

low-floor buses, raised platforms, or some combination thereof could make boarding both

faster and easier for all passengers.54

2.2.15 Ridership: The Impacts of BRT

Busways and bus lanes enhance ridership by saving time in conjunction with expanded

service.

This part will perform a before and after type of analysis to quantify the impacts of

implementing BRT in this setting consisting of traffic and ridership impacts.

51

http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:Ahmedabad_BRTS.jpg 52

file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 2 53

file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 4 54

file:///Users/haihao/Desktop/FTA_BRT_ISSUES.pdf page 2

3. Cost Efficiency

The purpose of this chapter is to discover the strengths and weaknesses of BRT systems in

terms of cost efficiency. The chapter will look at those elements that can contribute to

answering whether BRT systems are cost efficient. It will therefore look at operation costs,

infrastructure costs, growth rate and passenger use, and environmental costs. Operation costs

consist of costs for buses and their maintenance, gas costs, and employment costs.

Environmental costs consist of costs regarding greenhouse gases such as CO2. We will start

this chapter with operational costs.

However, before we start with the operational costs, we provide a table with the information

per country. Not all information is available. Therefore, the chapter is written in more general

terms rather than providing all the country specific information.

Table 3.1

Buses and maintenance costs

Gas costs

Employment costs

Infrastructure costs (USD/km)

Growth rate and passenger use (p/day)

EU cities

Hamburg

Stockholm

Madrid

Nantes Rolling stock: 9,2 M€ HT

50 M€ HT for 7 km 25,000

Kent

Fuel in use by BRT: Diesel

Between 37,000 and 40,000 weekly

Non-EU cities

Brisbane

Johannesburg

York Region 31555296 2926267 35,300

Bangkok

Gold Standard Cities

Bogotá Around 9 1,980,000

Curitiba Around 4 508,000

Sources:

3.1 Operation

As already mentioned in the introduction, a BRT system is cost-effective. It has significantly

lower operating costs compared to other means of public transport. Typically, a BRT system

will cost ten to hundred times less than a metro system and four to twenty times less than a

light rail transit (LRT) system.1 BRT systems have lower costs because the faster average

speed reduces operation costs and BRT facilities cost less to build than light rail since they do

not need specialized electrical infrastructure, track infrastructure, vehicle maintenance

infrastructure or storage infrastructure.2

The vehicle size is the main link between the transportation service and the performance of

the infrastructure. The vehicle size strongly affects the maintenance and replacement costs.

Therefore, operation costs are immediately related to the frequency of the vehicles and the

number of passengers transported.3 Operational costs increase when the frequency increases

and when the number of lines increases.4

BRT systems have lower operating costs. The economic advantage of BRT systems in

comparison with rail-based systems with the same transport capacity shows that operating

costs per passenger seat and annual operating costs are lower. The ongoing operating costs,

including maintenance, interest rates, fixed and variable costs declare the overall financial

sustainability of a public transport project. BRT systems have a clear advantage when looking

at operation costs and when comparing the BRT system with LRT/tram systems. The

11David A. Hensher, “Sustainable Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network-

based Approach and away from Blind Commitment.” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 100.

22Idem: 101.

33Bernardo Caicedo, Manuel Ocampo and Mauricio Sanchez-Silva, “An Integrated Method to Optimise the

Infrastructure Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems,” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11 (November

2012): 1019, accessed March 25, 2014, doi: 10.1080/15732479.2010.499951.

44Alejandro Tirachini, David A. Hensher and Sergio R. Jara-Díaz, “Comparing Operator and User Costs of Light

Rail, Heavy Rail and Bus Rapid Transit over a Radial Public Transport Network,” Research in

Transportation Economics 29 (2010): 233.

advantage is mainly based on the high maintenance costs for infrastructure that rail-based

systems require.30

3.2 Infastructure

In the introduction it was mentioned that a BRT system has lower capital cost for construction

than other means of public transport.

BRT systems generally have lower investment costs. Investment costs for systems of

transportation usually consist of costs for land and property acquisition, construction costs of

infrastructure (bus lanes, stations, depots, etc.) and costs for vehicles. With BRT systems

investment costs are much lower if they are directly compared to rail-based systems which

offer the same efficiency and service quality. The exact investment level of will surely depend

on local conditions and can vary remarkably between systems in developing nations and

systems in industrialised countries. However, a BRT system investment will generally be less

than LRT/ tram and far less than an underground investment.31

The infrastructural construction costs of a BRT system range from $1 to $12 million per km.

That is up to five times cheaper than LRT systems and ten times cheaper than metro systems.

The variation of the costs is linked with the specific characteristics of each system and,

particularly, the level of segregation and integration with other modes.32

3.3 Growth Rates and Passenger Use

Around the world there is growing support for the delivery of service capacity through BRT

as a legitimate alternative to heavy and light rail. Typically 1 billion US Dollar buys 400 km

of dedicated BRT in contrast to 15 km of elevated rail or 7 km of underground rail. This is

important since this can not only deliver greater network coverage but this can also falsifies

the traditional view of the capacity of specific public modes of transport. The traditional view

30

brt.mercedes-

benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad

van/cost.html 31

brt.mercedes-

benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad

van/cost.html 32

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F

%2Fbic.asn.au%2FLiteratureRetrieve.aspx%3FID%3D94243&ei=EWtMU4f4NMG1PPPSgKAC&usg=AFQ

jCNHiD83gQvUsp68xP86d1KSnmOC3zA&bvm=bv.64542518,d.ZWU

is that buses can move up to 6000 passengers per hour in one direction in comparison to up to

15,000 for light rail/tram and over 15,000 for heavy rail/metro. Nowadays, advanced BRT

systems such as the TransMilenio in Bogotá can move 38,000 passengers per hour in each

direction. The most important should thus not be the capacity of vehicles but the capacity of

the service.33

In Latin America BRT systems have shown to be capable of moving passengers at a fraction

of the cost of other modes of transport of high capacity. The most important is that they have

helped to reshape the less than desirable image of road-based public transport.34

A small comparison of selected BRT, light rail, elevated rail, and subway systems suggests the

appeal of BRT in terms of passenger flows and costs. At relatively high commercial speeds,

that is 15–32 km/h, Curitiba is carrying peak volumes in excess of 14,000

passengers/h/direction This can increase to over 20,000 passengers/h/direction where at bus

stops extra passing lanes are provided. The doublewidth busway of the TransMilenio in

Bogotá accommodates 35,000 passengers/h/direction with a mixture of all-stop and express

bus services. Thus, high-capacity vehicles, frequent service, and flexible routing structures

allow BRT to match or exceed the passenger volumes of the busiest light rail systems.35

3.4 Environment

BRT systems also contributes to sustainable urban development, as was mentioned in the

introduction of this research. BRT systems can modify in a positive way the use of private

vehicles, traffic congestion, and the adoption of clean energy, which will surely reduce the

emissions of motor vehicles. Therefore, BRT systems are a good transit strategy for most

cities to reduce emissions of greenhouses gasses, such as CO2, related to transportation.

BRT systems reduce the emission of greenhouse gas through mode shift, reducing congestion,

and influencing long term land use patterns. Mode shift means that it gets people out of their

cars and onto buses of the BRT system. Congestion reduction means that the number of

vehicles on the road is reduced and that the flow of traffic is smoothened. Land use impacts

33

David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -

based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 99. 34

David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -

based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 100. 35

David A. Hensher, “Sustainbale Public Transport Systems: Moving Towards a Value for Money and Network -

based Approach and Away from Blind Commitment,” Transport Policy 14 (2007): 101.

means that over time the BRT system's stations and other major transit hubs attract denser,

pedestrian-friendly development patterns to their immediate vicinities. These development

patterns allow people that live and work in the area to travel shorter distances and to walk and

bike more, even if they do not use the BRT system. However, system expansion also increases

emissions when new transit vehicles enter service, using additional electricity and fuel each

day. The greenhouse gas impact of the system expansion is the combination of emissions

reduced and emissions produced.36

A good example is that there are less ilnesses through improved air quality through the

implementation of the TransMilenio in Bogotá.37

Since there are high levels of air pollutants found in transportation modes and there are often

long commuting times between transportation modes, an important place to reduce air

pollution concentrations are transport microenvironments. By reducing air pollution in these

environments it is possible to minimize overall population exposure. There exist many

transportation measures that might lead to significant improvements in commuters’ air

pollutants exposure by reducing both in-vehicle air pollution and commuting times. An

example of these measures is that BRT systems are implemented in cities around the world as

an efficient, sustainable, and low-cost alternative to conventional public transport. What BRT

systems provide is a more rapid, metro-like service to commuters by the inclusion of such

features as separated bus ways, high capacity vehicles, fixed stations and offbus fare

collection. These improvements to the bus systems in city's potentially can lead to significant

environmental benefits because they can reduce the number of vehicles on the road, control

the number of starts and stops which are highly polluting and replacing old buses with cleaner

new generation public transport vehicles with improved technologies. Especially in the

rapidly growing cities of developing countries such as Bogotá in Colombia, BRT systems

have been recognized and used as a low cost solution to increasing traffic problems.38

People's exposure to air pollutants during travelling thus can be effectively reduced by BRT

systems, mainly by reducing the penetration of emissions from surrounding traffic. From a

36

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Cost Effectiveness

Study,” (June 2010): 22. 37

Darío Hidalgo, Liliana Pereira, Nicolás Estupiñán and Pedro Luis Jiménez, “TransMilenio BRT System in

Bogota, High Performance and Positive Impact – Main Results of an Ex-post Evaluation.” Research in

Transportation Economics 39 (2013): 137. 38

Henry Wöhrnschimmel, Miriam Zuk, Gerardo Martínez-Villa, Julia Cerón, Beatriz Cárdenas, Leonora Rojas-

Bracho and Adrián Fernández-Bremauntz, “The Impact of a Bus Rapid Transit System on Commuters’

Exposure to Benzene, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 in Mexico City,” Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 8195.

health point of view, BRT systems should thus be considered as a cleaner and less hazardous

alternative to conventional public transport systems, especially in the quickly growing cities

of developing countries. However, a proper maintenance of conventional transport modes

should still be ensured in order to reduce people's exposure to a air pollutants.39

3.4.1 CO2 Emissions

As explained above, BRT systems have positive effects on the environment since it causes

that there are fewer cars on the streets, there is optimal driving, better technologies used, there

is no stop-and-go through exclusive lanes and there is lower fuel consumption. All of this

combined with a high capacity utilisation, leads to lower emissions compared to any other

mode of public transport. Therefore, CO2 emissions are also reduced. In comparison to other

modes of transport, the CO2 emissions can be 72% lower.40

39

Henry Wöhrnschimmel, Miriam Zuk, Gerardo Martínez-Villa, Julia Cerón, Beatriz Cárdenas, Leonora Rojas-

Bracho and Adrián Fernández-Bremauntz, “The Impact of a Bus Rapid Transit System on Commuters’

Exposure to Benzene, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 in Mexico City,” Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008): 8201. 40

http://brt.mercedes-

benz.com/content/brt/mpc/mpc_brt_website/en/home_mpc/brt/home/about_brt/more_about_BRT/all_fact/ad

van/Environmental.html

References

Thread: Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/18926-Costs-amp-Advantages-of-Bus-Rapid-

Transit

He Dongquan, Liu Daizong, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Developments in China August

3, 2007, Beijing http://wenku.baidu.com/view/029efdeb81c758f5f61f6748.html

Global BRT data. http://www.brtdata.org/#/location

三峡日报社：快速交通将这样改变宜昌http://www.yichanginvest.gov.cn/art/2014/2/24/

art_37194_494975.html

Alameda-Contra Costa: Why BRT? http://www.actransit.org/planning-focus/your-guide-to-

bus-rapid-transit/why-brt/

Heshuang Zeng: Bus Rapid Transit in China-On the Way, TheCityFix.com. May 9, 2013

http://thecityfix.com/blog/bus-rapid-transit-brt-china-transportation-briefing-series-

guangzhou-beijing-heshuang-zeng/

ACEA

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=1377342132526640&eid=ASsTT3xSaIa

NS-

DG0OShoojWMCCIwZVGrIuaCZpsJUEXKre_ZiNiiGCMRh96yXxHUBM&inline=1&ext=

1393858076&hash=ASuwzMfwut8QPTvN

But what is BRT? (From: BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) – the mobility hit of the decade

https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.co

m%2Fdownload%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D430060347127127%26time%3D139385799

2%26metadata&access_token=100002020446739%3AAVIlNrgTdlJAI0OHv-

G40mSiC9EsPx26kESLO1CSNFGFtA&title=BRT_article_Smart_Move.docx)

COST (BHLS)

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=265229363638936&eid=AStiZXSdJUk

mjyLc30UZkwuEYmnoh-

0CA6uoC8usPpla8ZasXwUzkEh4wIBsDDp2Wr8&inline=1&ext=1393857761&hash=ASuU

PtTVC9IcQSTM

Elsevier (Research in transportation economics)

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=728896913801407&eid=ASsmN9McRF

FRKs4ogwrbUlBNPMQIXXJ5R1b_fmWvMWMtr8ETkDIeL1zUqTYBdjzaXvM&inline=1

&ext=1393858004&hash=ASvuU4uPWVRxpo5Q

TCRP report 90

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v2.pdf