DOCSLIB.ORG

24% 41% 1 in 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
24% 41% 1 in 5 ART ALBUQUERQUE RAPID TRANSIT BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) Bus Rapid Transit has shown that it can facilitate development and Improving transportation options is vital to Albuquerque’s future quality community growth, creating places where people want to live, work and of life and economic development. Albuquerque Rapid Transit (ART) offers play with a neighborly focus, mix of uses, and pedestrian priority. quick, simple, and safe first-class travel along with economic benefits. Transit-oriented development has proven to be a catalyst for new investment and businesses and supportive of existing corridor businesses, including restaurants, retail, and entertainment. ART would also provide opportunities for improved streetscape and walkability, attracting more people to live along the corridor. ELEMENTS OF BRT • Dedicated road, lane or • Pre-boarding ticketing mixed traffic route • Level boarding • Frequent service • Stops from ¼ to ½ mile or • Priority signals at more apart intersections Conceptual Design VISUALIZATION PURPOSE ONLY PROJECT BENEFITS Faster and more reliable service WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF CENTRAL AVENUE: • 15% improvement in travel time • 20-25% improved on-time performance 24% 41% 1 in 5 • Improved safety and security of all employment of all ABQ Ride households have Demand ridership income below • 5.3 million riders in 2014 — nearly 15,000 per day and 41% of the poverty level total number of ABQ RIDE passengers • 50% estimated growth of ridership in next 5 years (based on preliminary FTA STOPS model output) • ART would connect with 32 of the 37 ABQ RIDE bus routes not operating on Central Avenue within the Albuquerque Increased Opportunities Metropolitan Area • Connections with the numerous employment and activity centers and 25% of all affordable housing along the Central Avenue Corridor project units within Bernalillo County • Millions of dollars in potential economic development (based on Institute for Transportation Development Policy [ITDP] statistics) • Improved land value • Increased Gross Receipts Tax revenue “A SUBWAY WITH A VIEW” QUICK • EFFICIENT • SAFE ALBUQUERQUE RAPID TRANSIT ART Rio Grande UTC INTERSTATE 40 Atrisco Dr North AmericanNORTH AMERICAN BRT, LRT, StreetcareBRT, LRT, STREETCAR and Bus Scores AND per 6th St University Blvd Carlisle Blvd Coors Blvd Girard Blvd Washington St Washington San Mateo Blvd BUS SCORESThe BRT PER STANDARD THE BRT STANDARD 2013 2013 INTERSTATE 25 12th St Unser Blvd Broadway Blvd INTERSTATE 40 Louisiana Juan Tabo Albuquerque ART Line POTENTIAL Wyoming Tramway 98th St Eubank Cleveland Healthline Mexico City, Mexico - Insurgentes Yale Blvd Yale Portland MAX Blue Line Old Coors Dr Ottawa Transitway Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Las Vegas Strip & Downtown Express (SDX) Pittsburgh “The T” Denver Central Corridor WEST CENTRAL BIO PARK OLD TOWN DOWNTOWN EDO SYCAMORE UNIVERSITY NOB HILL DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL EAST CENTRAL Phoenix Metro MIXED FLOW Denver Southwest Corridor MEDIAN GUIDEWAY Ottawa O-Train REVERSIBLE GUIDEWAY Charlotte Lynx BI-DIRECTIONAL GUIDEWAY Los Angeles Orange Line FUTURE BRT EXPANSION 5,000’ 10,000’ Eugene Emerald Express Green Line (EmX) PROPOSED STATION Pittsburgh West Busway Pittsburgh South Busway Albuquerque Rapid Transit Project Project Alignment and Stations November 2014 Boston Waterfront Silver Line PROJECT TIMELINE Las Vegas Metropolitian Area Express (MAX) Boston Washington Street Silver Line Kansas City Metro Area Express (MAX) NOV 2014 MARCH 2015 MAY 2015 NOV 2015 FEB 2016 MAY 2016 SEPT 2017 Seattle South Lake Union (SLU) Streetcar Portland Streetcar Conceptual Build Preliminary Sell ABQ GRT Early Final Design Construction In-Service Alternative Design (30 %) Bonds Construction Begins Date Selected NEPA Clearance Begins Gold Silver Bronze Basic Below Basic ≥85 pts 70 - 84 pts 55 - 69 pts 54-38 pts <38 pts POTENTIAL FUNDING PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for $100 million 3% 4% 13% 80% world-class BRT based on international OTHER STATE CITY FEDERAL best practices. It is also the centerpiece of a CITY MATCHING FUNDS global effort by leaders in bus rapid transit • Sidewalk design to establish a common definition improvement of BRT and ensure that BRT systems more • Bus procurement uniformly deliver world-class passenger experiences, significant economic benefit, and positive environmental impacts (Institute for “Government support for TOD is the strongest predictor for success” Transportation Development Policy 2013). - More Development for Your Transit Dollar, Institute for Transportation Development Policy 2013 TO LEARN MORE VISIT WWW.BRTABQ.COM.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States
    BRTOD – State of the Practice in the United States By: Andrew Degerstrom September 2018 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report .............................................................................1 Economic Development and Transit-Oriented Development ...................2 Definition of Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................2 Literature Review ..................................................................................3 BRT Economic Development Outcomes ...................................................3 Factors that Affect the Success of BRTOD Implementation .....................5 Case Studies ...........................................................................................7 Cleveland HealthLine ................................................................................7 Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway East Liberty Station ..... 11 Pittsburgh Uptown-Oakland BRT and the EcoInnovation District .......... 16 BRTOD at home, the rapid bus A Line and the METRO Gold Line .........20 Conclusion .............................................................................................23 References .............................................................................................24 Artist rendering of Pittsburgh's East Liberty neighborhood and the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Introduction Purpose of this Report If Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese - General Manager RTA Ridership by Mode ! 500 Buses - 75 % ! 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles - 10% ! 24 RTV’s (BRT) - 8% ! 48 Light Rail Vehicles - 6% ! Paratransit - 100 vehicles - 1% RTA Fleet GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History Alternatives Analysis - late 1990’s ! Subway ! Light Rail ! Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) ! Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mode Selection Criteria ! Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) ! Connectivity ! Funding possibilities (FTA) ! Cost - capital and operating ! Economic development potential " Renew Aging Infrastructure Vision for the “Silver Line” BRT ! “Rail Like” Image ! Fast ! Simple ! Safe ! First Class ! Help Revitalize Corridor Euclid Corridor Project ! 9.38 miles long ! 36 stations (from 100 bus stops) ! Travel time from 40 to 28 minutes ! Building face to building face ! Pedestrian and bicycle friendly ! Landscape/hardscape treatment ! Pubic Art - Integrated/stand-alone Exclusive Right of Way Funding Pie Charts FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Ground Breaking October 2004 “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction (3.5 years) “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Silver Line” Construction “Rail Like” Image ! Reduced Travel Time " Multi-Door Boarding " Exclusive Right-of-Way " Traffic Signal Prioritization " Higher Travel Speeds " Level Boarding " Precision Docking " Rear Facing Wheel Chair Restraints " Off-Board Fare Collection “Rail Like” Image ! Hi-Frequency
    [Show full text]
  • BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session
    Housing Financing Tools and Equitable, Location-Efficient Development in California BUS STATIONS AS TOD ANCHORS REPORT Prepared in Accordance with California Senate Bill 961, 2017-2018 Regular Session Prepared for: Governor's Office of Planning and Research December 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 5 Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 5 II. BACKGROUND ON THE SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL FINANCE AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ACT ................................................................................................................ 7 Definition of Bus Transit ......................................................................................................... 7 Extent of Use ........................................................................................................................... 7 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9 Literature Overview ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput-Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, and Wei-Bin Zhang UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 California PATH University of California Berkeley March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 54 ADA Notice Individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. For information call (916) 654-6410, or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Records and forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS- 89, Sacramento, CA 95814 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER CA 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE December 2014 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Toolbox: BRT Person Throughput- 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Vehicle Congestion Tradeoffs 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Jingquan Li, Jacob Tsao, Ching-yao Chan, Kun Zhou, UCB-ITS-PRR-2015-02 and Wei-Bin Zhang 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER California PATH Program, University of California at Berkeley 1357 46th St., Richmond, CA 94804 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Bldg., Irvine, CA 92697 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE P.O. Box 942873, MS 83 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT This report documents a research effort to understand the current practice and issues associated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) planning and deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Llght Rall Translt Statlon Deslgn Guldellnes
    PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT V.4.0 7/20/18 STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) provides public transportation throughout Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The Authority’s 2,600 employees operate, maintain, and support bus, light rail, incline, and paratransit services for approximately 200,000 daily riders. Port Authority is currently focused on enacting several improvements to make service more efficient and easier to use. Numerous projects are either underway or in the planning stages, including implementation of smart card technology, real-time vehicle tracking, and on-street bus rapid transit. Port Authority is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors – unpaid volunteers who are appointed by the Allegheny County Executive, leaders from both parties in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate, and the Governor of Pennsylvania. The Board holds monthly public meetings. Port Authority’s budget is funded by fare and advertising revenue, along with money from county, state, and federal sources. The Authority’s finances and operations are audited on a regular basis, both internally and by external agencies. Port Authority began serving the community in March 1964. The Authority was created in 1959 when the Pennsylvania Legislature authorized the consolidation of 33 private transit carriers, many of which were failing financially. The consolidation included the Pittsburgh Railways Company, along with 32 independent bus and inclined plane companies. By combining fare structures and centralizing operations, Port Authority established the first unified transit system in Allegheny County. Participants Port Authority of Allegheny County would like to thank agency partners for supporting the Light Rail Transportation Station Guidelines, as well as those who participated by dedicating their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Ctfastrak Existing Condition
    Hartford Line TOD Action Plan Desire & Readiness Workshop: Town of Windsor Locks October 20, 2016 State Project No. 170-3396 1 Task 8 Agenda 1. Project Background and Overview 2. TOD Principles and Precedents 3. CTrail Hartford Line Station Area Assessment • TOD Desire & Readiness Criteria • Initial Observations from the Project Team 4. Interactive Workshop • Preliminary Areas of Focus • Instructions 2 Project Background Establishing a Point of Departure in Windsor Locks • Hartford Line TOD Action Plan • Town of Windsor Locks POCD Update • Main Street Property Acquisition and • Windsor Locks TOD Study Pre-Development (OPM) • Making it Happen • CRCOG Regional Complete Streets Policy and Action Plan (OPM) • Historic Train Station Reuse Study Windsor Locks Downtown • Capitol Region Master Plan Transportation Plan 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ongoing/Forthcoming • Incentive Housing Downtown TIF Zone Study District Master Plan • Capital Region POCD Town of Windsor Locks EA/EIE for NHHS Rail Program POCD 3 Project Background Initial Thoughts from the Project Team: Key Issues to Advance TOD in Windsor Locks Reinvigorate downtown/Main Street Activate and maximize development as a destination potential of catalytic sites in the station area . Address lasting impacts of urban . Target sites and recommended sequencing renewal, and change the mindset of Main have been identified, but there are Street as a pass through outstanding questions: . Find a balance between maintaining • What can be done to make sites more traffic flow and creating a pedestrian- attractive to potential developers? and bicycle-friendly downtown • Are there opportunities to assemble a critical mass of sites to enable a larger . Consider developing a downtown development proposition? parking strategy 4 Source: Windsor Locks TOD Study Project Background Funding through FTA Pilot Program for TOD Planning .
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Joe Calabrese – General Manager Greater Cleveland RTA Overview . Service Area 59 municipalities 500 square miles Population of 1.5 million . Customers Served 200,000 on a typical weekday 1 RTA Overview . Services Modes 500 Buses 100 Paratransit Vans 20 Job Access Vans 60 Heavy Rail Vehicles 48 Light Rail Vehicles 24 RTV’s - (HealthLine BRT) 2 RTA Fleet 3 GCRTA HealthLine Euclid Avenue Transformation Euclid Avenue History 4 Euclid Avenue History Euclid Avenue History . Streetcars disappeared in 1954 . # 6 Bus Route put in service Great Service with Low Image . Alternative Analysis Subway or Light Rail Do Nothing (keep the #6 bus) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 5 Mode Selection Criteria . Capacity (30,000 + daily customers) . Connectivity . Funding possibilities (FTA) . Cost Capital Operating . Economic development potential Vision for the “Silver Line” . “Rail-Like” Image . Fast . Simple . Safe . First Class . Promote Economic Development 6 Euclid Corridor Project – 9.38 Miles . 36 stations . Travel time from 28 to 40 minutes . Building face to building face . Pedestrian friendly with bike lanes . Landscape/hardscape treatment 1,500 trees with irrigation . Integrated/stand-alone public art 7 Ground Breaking October 2004 8 Funding Pie Charts - $200 Million FTA 80% ODOT 20% 2000 ODOT FTA 25% 50% City MPO RTA 2004 Exclusive Right of Way 9 10 11 “Rail-Like” Characteristics . Quicker Travel Times Exclusive Right-of-Way Higher Travel Speed Limit Traffic Signal Prioritization Precision Docking Level Boarding “Stations” Off Board Fare Collection 12 “Rail-Like” Service and Image . Hi-Frequency Service 24x7 Peak every 5 minutes Off-Peak every 8 to 15 minutes .
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book
    2013 Public Transportation Fact Book 2013 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK 64th Edition October 2013 PUBLISHED BY American Public Transportation Association Fact book historical tables and additional data are available at: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/transitstats.aspx American Public Transportation Association 1666 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 TELEPHONE: (202) 496-4800 E-MAIL: [email protected] www.apta.com APTA’s Vision Statement Be the leading force in advancing public transportation. APTA’s Mission Statement APTA serves and leads its diverse membership through advocacy, innovation, and information sharing to strengthen and expand public transportation. prepared by John Neff, Senior Policy Researcher (202) 496-4812 [email protected] Matthew Dickens, Policy Analyst (202) 496-4817 [email protected] PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK American Public Transportation Association Washington, DC October 2013 Material from the 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book may be quoted or reproduced without obtaining the permission of the American Public Transportation Association. Suggested Identification: American Public Transportation Association: 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, Washington, DC, October, 2013. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents APTA AND THE FACT BOOK ......................................... 5 Figure 11: Percent of Systems with Arrival Time Formats .................................................................. 15 NATIONAL DATA SUMMARY ......................................... 6 VEHICLES .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRT Arlington
    Reconsider the Curb MAITE Conference Curb Space is Limited & in High Demand Transit Delivery Ride Hailing (Uber/Lyft) Bicycle Access Curb Space is Limited & in High Demand Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block 2,000 1,800 1,750 What Does a Curb Space Represent? 1,500 1 car = ~1.1 people / hr. 1,250 1,000 OR 750 500 30 drop-offs = 33+ people / hr. 250 2 minutes per drop-off / pick-up (avg.) Uber, Lyft, Taxi, Micro-Transit, Robot Taxis Reconsider the Curb Chicago, IL ATLANTA DOWNTOWN ATLANTA DOWNTOWN Reconsider the Curb Huntington, NY McKinney, TX Somerville, MA New York, NY (NACTO) Boston, MA Reconsider the Curb: 1 City Block BostonBRT & Local Bus Pilots 2018 Julia Wallerce, Boston Program Manager Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) September 26th, 2019 ITDP’s Mission: To promote sustainable and equitable transport to create inclusive, people‐oriented cities Our Focus on BRT…. Bus Rapid Transit: • High capacity • High speed • Customer oriented Not an old bus running in a bus lane! Defining BRT Dedicated bus lanes at least 1.9 miles long Use Keywords The BRT Standard online 5 BRT Basics Dar es Salaam Busway Alignment: Bus lanes separated from traffic with a median alignment Eugene, Oregon: Emerald Express (EmX) Off‐board Fare Collection Mexico City, Mexico: Metrobus Platform Level Boarding Ahmedabad, India: Janmarg High‐quality stations: Wide, weather protected, safe, well‐lit Yichang, China Buses with multiple, very wide doors Bogota, Colombia: TransMilenio BRT in the US: 11 cities, 12 corridors U.S.
    [Show full text]