Research Paper for BRTuk UK Bus Rapid
Transit - A
Common
Standard?
November 2015
Exceed |Respect |Value |Innovate
BRTuk
Research Paper for BRTuk
UK Bus Rapid Transit – A Common Standard?
November 2015
the transportation consultancy 397 Birmingham Road Bordesley Redditch Worcs B97 6RH Tel: 01527 65318 Email: [email protected] www.ttc-transportplanning.com
Document Control Form
Project Title: UK Bus Rapid Transit - A Common Standard?
Project No: J210051
Document Ref: J210051 Research Paper
Document Status: FINAL REPORT
Document Approval: ______
Project Director Alan Bailes ______
Project Manager George Bailes ______
Technical Review/Audit Alan Bailes ______
Issue Date and History: Final Report – 30th November 2015
Distribution:
External: BRTuk - Steering Group
Internal: File
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of The Transportation Consultancy Ltd being obtained. The Transportation Consultancy Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was commissioned. The Transportation Consultancy Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.
Research Paper for BRTuk November 2015
UK Bus Rapid Transit - A Common Standard?
Contents
1. Background and Introduction 2. Aims and Objectives 3. Bus Rapid Transit 4. Bus Rapid Transit in the UK 5. Classification of Global BRT Systems 6. Comparison of UK BRT Systems Versus World BRT Systems 7. Results of Comparison 8. Developing a UK Standard for BRT 9. Sensitivity Testing of the UK BRT Standards 10. Conclusions 11. Next Steps
Tables
Table 1 Current BRT Schemes in Operation across the UK Table 2 ITPD Scorecard: UK Issues Table 3 New Proposed Scorecard Categories for UK BRT Standard Table 4 Proposed UK Standards: Gold, Silver, Bronze and Basic Table 5 Scoring of systems by new UK BRT Standards
Figures
Figure 1 BRT Passengers per Day across the World in Thousands Figure 2 Location of UK BRT Schemes Operational across the UK Figure 3 Comparison of ‘Gold’ Standard BRT Cities Populations and UK Average Figure 4 Comparison of ‘Gold’ Standard BRT Cities Population Densities and UK Average Figure 5 Comparison of Operating Speeds for BRT Cities Population
Appendices
Appendix A Technical Note No1 – Documentation of Existing and Planned BRT Schemes in the UK. Appendix B ITPD Scoring Card and Standard Categories Appendix C Proposed BRTuk Scoring Card and Standard Categories
1. Background and Introduction
BRTuk is an organisation which aims to promote the benefits of BRT and deliver a greater awareness of the role BRT can play throughout the UK. The overarching objective of BRTuk is to provide a wider dissemination of information and knowledge base regarding BRT throughout the UK.
To fulfil these aims BRTuk is currently developing an ‘Education and Research’ component of the organisation, as part of this commitment, BRTuk has commissioned The Transportation Consultancy Ltd. (ttc) to undertake the first phase of research examining Bus Rapid Transit Systems in the UK.
Guidance as to what constitutes a BRT system at a national level in the UK is lacking and as a consequence BRTuk feels that there is a requirement to develop a common standard which focuses on specifically BRT systems in the UK. A common standard will provide a more uniform approach to BRT in the UK to allow for more focused research and analysis, which will in turn allow for better guidance resulting in appropriate policy guidance on future BRT schemes in the UK. This research paper sets out to start this missing process, whereby the specific aims and objectives of the research are outlined below.
2. Aims and Objectives
The overarching aim of the research paper is to:
‘Examine the need for a more uniform process for quantifying the benefits of the UK BRT Systems’
The main objectives of this research paper are to: 1. Ensure a more uniform delivery to quantifying the benefits of the existing UK BRT schemes. With a view in the future to: 2. Establish a comparable analysis of performance and patronage information in the UK for BRT Schemes; 3. Provide better guidance to inform future UK BRT schemes on how to be successful and inform Government; and 4. Be better placed to secure funding for BRT schemes.
3. Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) can effectively be defined as a ‘high quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable and cost effective services’ (ITPD 2008). Basically BRT is a system which provides the benefit of a rail transit system at a significantly less cost, with the added advantage of providing greater flexibility to meet the growing demands of cities and their populations.
A BRT system can cover many formats and standards of BRT and vary significantly across the world. The majority of BRT systems can be identified as sharing the single requirement of provision for a significant amount of segregated busways or bus lanes to avoid traffic congestion and provide faster, more reliable journeys for bus services.
J210051: UK Bus Rapid Transit - A Common Standard? November 2015 5
Research has shown1 that BRT can act as a catalyst for economic regeneration and the popularity of BRT, as a solution to traffic congestion, has significantly increased over the last ten years, whereby there has been a quadrupling of kilometres of BRT systems installed across the World. The strongest areas of growth in BRT are visible in the rapidly urbanising and development parts of the world such as China, Brazil and Indonesia. The illustrations below display a recently new BRT system which is operational in Yichang, China and the well-established TransMilenio in Bogota, Columbia.
Yichang (China) Bogota (Columbia) In order to gauge an understanding of patronage of BRT systems in the UK compared to systems across the world we have examined the amount of passengers using BRT systems broken down by different parts of the world, the results are displayed in Figure 1. Figure 1 – BRT Passengers per Day across the World in Thousands
Source: Alan Howes Associates (BRT Conference)
It can be seen from Figure 1 that BRT systems in the developing parts of the world such as Latin America, The Far East and China, BRT are more heavily used compared to more development parts such as the UK, North America and Europe.
1 The payback: evidence on land and property value changes from transit development - Zoe Vidion, TfL
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 6
4. Bus Rapid Transit in the UK
As displayed by Figure 1 and when compared to other countries around the world, BRT in the UK is not as well established in terms of substantial numbers of passengers. Within the UK BRT schemes also vary significantly in respect of infrastructure and type of systems used across the UK.
For the purposes of the research paper all the BRT schemes currently in operation within the UK have been compiled. In order to be robust, the search criteria for BRT schemes were identified as:
‘having some form of segregation for buses from normal traffic as opposed to bus priority schemes or bus lanes’.
The comprehensive list of BRT systems operation in the UK is presented below in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. The list has been agreed with members of the BRTuk Steering Group and set out in a technical note2 and contained in Appendix A.
Table 1 – Current BRT Schemes in Operation across the UK
Location/Scheme/Branding Notes – Information
The scheme incorporates a 200m section of the guided busway, which opened in 1995 Ipswich (Kesgrave) between Kesgrave and Grange Farm, and was re-guided in 2005 to allow for larger double-deck buses.
An unguided busway network built as part of the new town extension of Runcorn. The Runcorn busway is 14miles with an elevated section into a shopping area. Phase 1 was complete in 1971, whilst Phase 2 was complete in 1977. Considered to be the first BRT System in the UK.
Redditch An unguided bus network built as part of the new town extension of Redditch. There are only short sections of busway on the network.
London (East London An unguided bus route with sections of segregated running. First stage runs from Illford Transit Scheme) to Dagenham Dock and was completed in February 2010. Phase 2 Barking Riverside to Dagenham Docks opened in 2013.
The Thames Gateway Fastrack is unguided with sections of segregated running. Opened Kent Thameside (Fastrack) in phases: Route A – Dartford – Bluewater opened in June 2007, Route B – Dartford – Gravesend opened in March 2006.
Leeds Leeds superbus corridor has sections of guided busway; A61 Scott Hall Road opened in 1995 and A64 York Road / A63 Selby Road opened in 2001.
Bradford Opened in 2001 the A641 Manchester Road Quality Bus Initiative includes for 1 mile of guided busway.
Crawley (Fastway) The Crawley Fastway is a 15 miles two bus route system with segregated lanes and 1 mile of guided busway.
There are two small BRT schemes operational; an exclusive busway on the south bank of Tyne and Wear the River Tyne and Route 19 in North Tyneside which includes an exclusive busway accessed through guidewheel gates.
2 Technical Note No1 – Documentation of Existing and Planned BRT Schemes in the UK.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 7
The Luton to Dunstable Busway runs between Luton Airport and Houghton Regis . The Luton route runs for 6.1 miles, of which 4.8m is a guided track with a maximum speed of 50mph. The scheme opened in September 2013.
An unguided bus route, from Morriston Hospital to Singleton Hospital via Morriston, Swansea railway station, the Kingsway, Swansea bus station, the Civic Centre and Swansea Swansea University. The branded bendy buses FTR Metro have been withdrawn since Autumn 2015 on the bus routes outlined above, although the routes still remain operational.
The Cambridge Guided Busway opened in 2011. The busway is a total of 16 miles in length over two sections; one between connecting Huntingdon and St Ives with Cambridgeshire (CGB) Cambridge and another connecting Cambridge Railway Station with Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Trumpington P&R. It incorporates over 16 miles of guided busway, using alignments of the former Cambridge and Huntingdon Railway and also of the Varsity Line.
A BRT network connecting Gosport and Fareham. It consists of three miles of a dedicated South East Hampshire unguided bus route along the route of the Gosport to Fareham railway line to reduce congestion on the parallel A32.
Peterborough A system which has a number of short lengths of bus only road, linking estates in the new town.
It can be seen from Table 1 there are vast differences in elements and branding of BRT systems across the UK. Figure 2 displays the 14 locations across the UK where BRT is operational.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 8
Figure 2 – Locations of Operational BRT Schemes across the UK
5. Classifications of Global BRT Systems
The Institute for Transport & Development Policy (ITDP) is a global body which works with cities worldwide, primarily in developing countries, to bring about transport solutions that have the following objectives; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; • Reduce poverty; and • Improve the quality of urban life.
J210051: UK Bus Rapid Transit - A Common Standard? November 2015 9
The ITDP are responsible for providing technical advice on improving transport systems and raising awareness globally of the role sustainable transport plays in tackling greenhouse gas emissions, poverty and social inequality. The ITDP has developed a standard to classify global BRT systems, the standards are used as a common definition to ensure that BRT systems deliver world class passenger experiences, significant economic benefits and positive environmental impacts. The standard has been created as a way of protecting the BRT brand and offering recognition to high quality BRT systems around the world. The standard operates as a scoring system which marks the BRT system against certain criteria and as result of the total marks scored, certifies the BRT corridors as a ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’ or ‘Bronze’ category.
6. Comparison of UK BRT Systems Versus World BRT Systems
Due to the ITPD commitment and focus to helping developing countries; there is a case to argue that the BRT standards set by ITPD are not applicable for developed countries and in particular for UK BRT systems.
In order to examine this opinion in more detail the research paper has undertaken to examine in more detail the UK BRT schemes which are displayed in Figure 2 and Table 1. The results demonstrated that using the scoring criteria used by the ITPD for the BRT standard revealed that the highest scoring the existing UK BRT schemes can expect to achieve is a ‘Bronze’ standard.
Having identified this variance in the ITPD BRT standard when applying them to UK BRT systems, the research goes on to determine the limits to the level which BRT standard UK systems can achieve. One approach was to examine the demographics, as an example, a comparison between the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB) and the BRT system in operation in Bogota, Columbia, which is cited as the ITPD’s best practice was undertaken.
Population, demographics and population densities were compared for both cities. Bogota has an overall population of 8.8 million and a population density of 13,500 people per sq.m, compared to the catchment area for Cambridgeshire BRT which has a population of 440,000 and a population density of 3,015 people per sq.m. This revealed a significant difference of over 10,000 people per square kilometre and over 8million people.
In order to further establish this relationship, a comparison was undertaken of the populations of the cities which achieve a ‘Gold’ standard from the ITPD BRT standard and UK cities where BRT schemes are operational, Figure 3 displays the comparison.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 10
Figure 3 – Comparison of ‘Gold’ Standard BRT Cities Populations and UK Average
Population of Gold Standard BRT Cities Compared to UK Average
UK Average Curitiba Medelin Guadalajara
Cities Lima Bogota Guangzhou Rio de Janerio
0 4,000,000 8,000,000 12,000,000 Population
Source: The Transportation Consultancy It can be seen from Figure 3 that even the ‘Gold’ BRT city with the lowest population is significantly larger than the UK average. The ‘Gold’ BRT cities with the largest population such as Rio de Janerio and Guangzhou are 46 times larger than the UK average. Figure 4 examines the average population densities of the above cities and the UK average.
Figure 4 – Comparison of ‘Gold’ Standard BRT Cities Population Densities and UK Average
Population Density - Gold BRT Average Vs UK BRT Average
UK Ave
Gold Standard Ave
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Population Density
Source: The Transportation Consultancy It can be seen from Figure 4 the large difference in population densities of UK cities compared to cities outside the UK with a “Gold” standard BRT Systems.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 11
As a result of this analysis it can be established that UK cities with BRT systems are significantly different in population and demographic terms to cities in which BRT systems have achieved a ‘Gold’ standard. It should be also noted that all of the cities which achieve a ‘Gold’ standard are located in developing parts of the world. Cities with ‘Gold’ standard BRT systems serve populations much greater and denser than any city in the UK other than London. The infrastructure required for BRT systems to safely serve these levels of populations is a key aspect of achieving the “Gold” standard. For UK BRT systems to implement these types of infrastructure, such as passing lanes at stations and centre stations, would be seen as “over engineering”, for the simple reason that BRT systems which are used to serve less dense populations generally attract lower patronage levels. A key element of BRT systems is the comparable cost of a BRT system to light rail and metro and adding the type of infrastructure required to achieve a “Gold” standard as developed by ITDP would only increase the cost of the BRT system in the UK. In addition it should also be noted that road space is at a premium in most UK cities where BRT is operational compared to developing countries. The infrastructure required to achieve a “Gold” standard often requires a large amount of open space to accommodate the infrastructure. This point is illustrated below, in the difference between Swansea FTR Metro and Quito BRT at the city centre locations.
Swansea FTR Metro Quito BRT
7. Results of Comparison
As a result of the above comparison it would appear that the ITDP standards are not appropriate and provide a hindrance for UK BRT systems achieving an appropriate standard for the following reasons; 1. Significant difference between populations, demographics and characteristics of BRT systems in the UK and BRT systems in the rest of the world; 2. ITPD more focused towards developing countries with higher populations and patronage levels; 3. Infrastructure required for level of patronage for Gold systems not required for UK systems; and 4. BRT UK Schemes do not score higher than a ‘Bronze’ Standard. 5. BRT systems in the UK are designed to provide for lesser populations and densities and as a result and often lack the infrastructure required to score highly on the ITDP standards.
In order to establish a more uniform delivery process for UK BRT Schemes, there is a requirement to develop a common standard to ensure UK systems can be seen to deliver passenger experiences,
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 12
significant economic benefits and positive environmental impacts. This will allow for better guidance and quantification of the benefits from existing BRT systems particular to the UK.
8. Developing a UK Standard for BRT
In order to develop the idea of a separate BRT Standard for UK Systems, a starting point has been to examine the ITPD BRT standard scoring criteria in depth. The ITDP scoring criteria are broken down into 6 categories and 42 sub categories, a score is then provided against the sub category to determine the total number of marks for the scheme. Depending on the number of marks a standard is awarded to the scheme. A full breakdown of the ITPD score card is provided in Appendix B. The category scores and standards are as follows; • Basic BRT: <55 • Bronze: 55 – 65 • Silver: 70 – 84 • Gold: 85 – 100
Using the ITPD scoring for the CGB and the information we have collated for the other UK BRT schemes throughout the research, we have identified the categories and sub categories where the UK systems score poorly and are more applicable to heavily used systems serving densely populated urban areas. These categories are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2 – ITPD Scorecard: UK Issues
Category Sub Category Scoring BRT Basics Off – board fare collection 0-7 Passing lanes at stations 0-4 Infrastructure Centre stations 0-2 Distance between stations 0-2 Station Design and Station-bus Number of doors on bus 0-3 Interface Docking bays and sub-stops 0-1 Sliding doors in BRT stations 0-1
BRTuk recognises that there are varying degrees of BRT type infrastructure in the UK which have been used to upgrade conventional bus services and furthermore there are a number of characteristics which BRT systems should feature a mix of. None of the categories identified in Table 2 feature in the list of characteristics obtained from the list of current UK BRT schemes as part of the research. The findings above demonstrate that ITPD standard puts too much emphasis on Infrastructure, Service Planning, Station Design and Station Bus Interface. Due to the large difference in BRT schemes in the UK compared to the rest of the world it is felt that these elements are not always required when serving the level of patronage identified for UK systems In order to determine what would happen if these categories were removed from ITPD scorecard to create a UK standard for BRT schemes, an adjustment has been made to the scoring to reflect the UK position. Table 3 presents the new scoring categories.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 13
Table 3 – New Proposed Scorecard Categories for UK BRT Standard. Scorecard Category ITPD Proposed UK Difference BRT Basics 33 26 -7 Service Planning 24 24 0 Infrastructure 14 8 -6 Station Design and Station Bus Interface 10 3 -7 Quality of Service & Passenger Information Systems 5 5 0 Integration and Access 14 14 0 TOTAL 100 80 -20
A full breakdown of the score card categories and sub categories for the proposed UK standard is provided in Appendix C. The scorings brackets for the Gold, Silver and Bronze standard have been adjusted as a result of providing specific UK standards and the categories and scoring brackets are outlined below in Table 4.
Table 4 – Proposed UK Standards: Gold, Silver, Bronze and Basic
Scorecard Category ITPD Proposed UK Gold 85 - 100 65 – 80 Silver 70 - 84 54 – 65 Bronze 55 – 69 40 – 53 BRT Basic <55 <40
As a result of the revised categories for the UK systems, to achieve a ‘Gold’ standard, BRT schemes would be required to score between 65 and 80, whilst ‘Silver’ between 54 and 65 marks, ‘Bronze’ 40 and 53. Whilst any schemes scoring below 40 may be classified as a Basic BRT System.
Following the research and discussions with the Steering Group undertaken to determine the criteria for the UK standards, it has been established that operating speed of BRT systems plays a key component in UK BRT systems, something that the ITDP omit from their standards.
Figure 5 – Comparison of Operating Speeds for BRT Cities Population
Source: Alan Howes Associates (BRT Conference)
Figure 5 clearly shows that the operating speed of the CGB is higher when compared to other countries with developing economies. As a result it is recommended that the operating speed of vehicles on BRT schemes should be included within the UK BRT standards.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 14
9. Sensitivity Testing of the UK BRT Standards
In order to test the new UK standards for BRT Systems and for the purpose of the research paper, we have scored BRT systems operational in the UK against the proposed standards as a sense and validation check. Due to the limited data currently available an examination of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB), the Hampshire ‘Eclipse’ and the Crawley “Fastway” BRT Schemes has been undertaken. ITPD awarded a ‘Bronze’ standard for the CGB and the scoring provided by the ITPD adjusted for the new UK BRT Standards has been used. For both the “Eclipse” and “Fastway” Systems information has been gathered from officers at Hampshire County Council West Sussex County Council and scores provide are based on the limited information available. Table 5 provides a summary of the scores and standards awarded for all three systems using the new UK standards. It should be stressed that these scores and standards have been used for test purposes only with the purpose to aid the research paper. Any formal points scoring would be undertaken by an independent body; in this case the project steering group would be the recommended vehicle for points scoring. Table 5 – Scoring of Systems by new UK BRT Standards
CGB “Fastway” “Eclipse” BRT Basics
Busway alignment 5 3 5 Dedicated right-of-way 5 5 7 Intersection treatments 6 5 4 Platform-level boarding 6 6 6 Service Planning
Multiple routes 4 3 1 Peak frequency 3 3 3 Off-peak frequency 2 2 3 Express, limited, and local services 0 1 1 Control Centre 3 0 0 Located In top ten corridors 2 2 2 Demand Profile 3 2 1 Hours of operations 2 2 2 Multi-corridor network 0 1 0 Infrastructure
Minimizing bus emissions 0 3 3 Stations set back from intersections 3 1 1 Pavement quality 2 2 2 Station Design and Station-bus Interface
Safe and comfortable stations 3 3 3 Quality of Service & Passenger Information
Systems Branding 3 3 3 Passenger information 2 3 2 Integration and Access
Universal access 3 2 2 Integration with other public transport 2 3 1 Pedestrian access 3 3 3 Secure bicycle parking 2 0 1
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 15
Bicycle lanes 2 1 2 Bicycle-sharing integration 0 1 2 TOTAL 66 60 60 BRT Standard Gold Silver Silver
As a result of using the new UK standard the CGB would score a ‘gold’ standard, whilst both the “Fastway” and “Eclipse” BRT Systems would score a “Silver’ standard.
10. Conclusions
This research paper has set out, in the first instance to identify all the BRT Systems currently in operation throughout the UK (as at June 2015). A list of 14 schemes has been compiled ranging from new town busways, short dedicated guided busways to complete BRT networks. The list has been agreed by the research study steering group. The paper has also identified, and where possible, collated elements of the characteristics of the UK BRT Schemes.
Following the collation of the UK BRT characteristics a schedule of key elements has been developed which can be considered to form a successful BRT System. The schedule has been based upon a list developed for the World Bank by the Institute for Development and Transport Policy (ITDP) and adapted to meet UK operating characteristics.
The schedule of criteria has been used to score BRT schemes within the UK based upon the available information collated as part of the research paper. As part of the research the UK Standard developed has been seen to react sensibly to its application on selected schemes for which information is available.
Following consultation with the BRTuk research steering group members, and in order to make the UK Standard more suitable and robust, additional criteria have been recommended for inclusion to the Standard, such as; • Examine operating speed of BRT systems; • Fare collection and ticketing, such as off board ticketing and examining fare collection either at ticket machines or through smart ticketing measures; • Passing lanes at stations to allow services to overtake where required to do so to avoid busy sections of corridors; and • Providing a cut-off point between Basic BRT systems and ‘non BRT systems’
As part of the next phase of research these additional criteria will be examined, tested and added into the standard with appropriate scoring to ensure that they are robust and appropriate for the UK standards.
The UK BRT standard as developed as part of the research paper will ensure a more uniform delivery for quantifying the benefits of the existing UK BRT Schemes. In addition it will enable a comparable analysis of performance of BRT Schemes in the UK.
The UK Standard as developed will provide a platform for establishing a comparable analysis of performance and patronage and enable further research to be undertaken to quantify the benefits of BRT an understanding of what works well for systems in the UK.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 16
Finally the UK BRT Standard will help establish, protect and promote the BRT brand within the UK, together with offering recognition to high quality BRT Systems across the UK and developing countries.
11. Next Steps
Having established a common standard for the BRT Systems in the UK it is only fitting to consider the next steps to fulfil the aims and objectives as set out in section 2 of the research paper.
The most important component part of the next steps will be governance and establish a “BRTuk Technical Group” (BRTukTG) to oversee the development of the BRTuk Standard and serve as a consistent source of technical advice. The BRTukTG’s role will initially be to set out the minimum elements which can be defined as forming a basic BRT Scheme. The BRTuk will also be responsible for scoring the BRT schemes to ensure that the goals of the BRTuk Standards are upheld and also promote the standard as a quality check for BRT projects across the UK.
Following the acceptance that a common standard for UK BRT Schemes is achievable and having only tested the standards with three schemes, more research is required to determine if the standard adopted is robust and appropriate. It may also be necessary to examine the available data sets and categories which may still need adjustments with wider testing of schemes across the UK and input from experienced stakeholders in the BRT industry.
Once an acceptance of the common standard has been approved completion of the categorisation of the remaining 9 UK BRT Schemes will need to be undertaken and a final sign off by the Steering Group as to the standard classification allocated to each BRT Scheme. Once sign off has been approved a UK standard document including a scoring system and mechanisms will be produced to act as guidance to scoring BRT schemes in the UK standard, much in the same format as the document produced by the ITPD standard.
The next stage is to collate the up to date available performance and patronage information for the 14 BRT Schemes to which a standard has been agreed. This will include for research undertaken of the CGB and Luton Dunstable Busway together with data from Passenger Focus Surveys. The array of data gathered can be categorised into components for approval by the Steering Group for the research project and used in the performance of the BRT Schemes. The categorisation will provide an instrument to enable detailed analysis of the UK BRT Schemes from which comparisons can be draw against the standard.
Upon completion of the collation of the performance data it is recommended that a gap analysis be undertaken of the missing information to enable further research to obtain the data. The criterion matrix will require testing and approval from the Steering Group.
The completion of Phase 2 will realise the second objective of the research papers intended by BRTuk and goes a long way in achieving its aim to:
‘Examine the need for a more uniform process for quantifying the benefits of the UK BRT Systems’
The second Phase of the research paper will provide a platform which will enable BRTuk to be in a position to deliver the final two objectives of the research to namely:
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 17
3 Provide better guidance to inform future UK BRT schemes on how to be successful and inform Government; and 4 Be better placed to secure funding for BRT schemes.
12 Post Note
The research paper set out above was presented to the BTRTuk Annual conference held on the th 30 November 2015 in Glasgow. Following the presentation there was a discussion period, whereby a number of suggestions were made by the audience. These suggestions are set out below, namely:
• The standard and size of the BRT vehicles should be included within the UK Standard. • Double doors and the numbers of doors on the bus should also be included within the UK Standard. • Information on the bus, including WiFi should be considered for inclusion within the UK Standard. • Journey time consistency should be considered and perhaps bought into the data collection element within the next phase.
It is recommended that all of the above points are taken on-board as additional criteria to be examined, tested and added into the standard with appropriate scoring applied.
J210051: Bus Rapid Transit A Common Standard for the UK? November 2015 18
APPENDIX A Technical Note No1 – Documentation of Existing and Planned BRT Schemes in thhe UK.
Technical Note No 1
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) UK Research Paper No 1: Baseline UK BRT Systems
Title: Documentation of Existing and Planned BRT Schemes
1. Introduction
The Transportation Consultancy Ltd “ttc” have been appointed by BRTuk to provide the first element of research into BRT systems in the United Kingdom (UK), namely Research Paper No 1.
This Technical note documents the first task of Research Paper No 1, which categorises all the BRT systems currently in operation, under construction, planned or have ceased operation. The note then goes onto identify those BRT Systems to be taken forward into the next task of the Research Paper, namely for inclusion in further research.
2. Identification of UK BRT Systems
A comprehensive list of all the BRT Systems in the UK have been identified and based upon the general acceptance that BRT is defined by schemes having some form of segregation for buses from normal traffic as opposed to bus priority schemes or bus lanes. It should be noted however that some schemes are labelled BRT Systems although there is no form of segregation for buses; for example Birmingham which is considered BRT by the virtue of the fact that it is viewed as having bespoke rapid‐transit vehicles. In order to be fully inclusive a number of these types of schemes (termed BRT) have been included within the list of BRT Systems.
The comprehensive list of BRT Systems in the UK is presented in Table 1 and locations displayed in Figure 1.
3. BRT Systems for inclusion in further research
Once a comprehensive list of BRT Systems has been established and approved by the Project Steering Group the next task is to identify and collect elements of characteristics of the UK BRT Systems for the schemes established within section 2 above. Clearly only BRT Systems in the category “currently in Operation” should be considered and only those which are reflective of successful BRT Systems included for further research.
Table 2 indicates those considered appropriate for further research into profiling BRT Systems.
J210051 – BRTuk Research Paper No 1 : Baseline UK BRT Systems 1 October 2014
Table 1 ‐ Bus Rapid Transit Systems across the UK
NAME STATUS COMMENT Ceased Operations
First Guided Busway in the UK, which contained 600-metre section of guide way in Erdington, it Birmingham Closed opened in 1984 and closed in 1987.
A group of bus priority improvements that included a 1 mile section of guided bus way. The guided Edinburgh Closed bus way closed in January 2009. Currently In Operation Bus route operated by First Eastern Counties the scheme incorporates a 200m section of the Ipswich (Kesgrave) In operation guided busway, which opened in 1995 between Kesgrave and Grange Farm, and was regauged in 2005 to allow for larger double-deck buses.
An unguided bus network built as part of the new town extension of Runcorn, the busway is 14miles Runcorn In operation with an elevated section into a shopping area. Phase 1 was complete in 1971, whilst Phase 2 was complete in 1977. Considered to be the first BRT System in the UK.
An unguided bus network built as part of the new town extension of Redditch. There are only short Redditch In operation sections of busway on the network.
An unguided bus route with sections of segregated running; first stage runs from Illford to London (East London In operation Dagenham Dock and was completed in February 2010. Phase 2 Barking Riverside to Dagenham Transit Scheme) Docks was opened in 2013.
The Thames Gateway Fastrack is unguided with sections of segregated running, opening in phases Kent Thameside In operation in concert with planned local development. Route A – Dartford – Bluewater opened in June 2007, (Fastrack) Route B – Dartford – Gravesend which opened in March 2006.
Leeds superbus corridor has sections of guided busway; A61 Scott Hall Road opened in 1995 and Leeds In operation is 1mile. A64 York Road / A63 Selby Road opened in 2001 and is 1 mile.
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 2 October 2014
Opened in 2001 the A641 Manchester Road Quality Bus Initiative includes 1 mile of guided Bradford In operation busway.
The Crawley Fastway is a 15 miles two bus route system with segregated lanes and 1 mile of Crawley (Fastway) In operation guided busway.
There are two small BRT schemes operational; an exclusive busway on the south bank of the River Tyne and Wear In operation Tyne and Route 19 in North Tyneside which includes an exclusive busway accessed through guidewheel gates.
The Luton to Dunstable Busway runs between Luton Airport and Houghton Regis . The route runs Luton In operation for 6.1 miles, of which 4.8 is guided track with a maximum speed of 50mph. The scheme opened in September 2013.
An unguided bendy bus route, from Morriston Hospital to Singleton Hospital via Morriston, Swansea (frtmetro) In operation Swansea railway station, the Kingsway, Swansea bus station, the Civic Centre and Swansea University.
The Cambridge Guided Busway opened in 2011. The busway is a total of 16 miles in length over two sections; one between connecting Huntingdon and St Ives with Cambridge and another Cambridgeshire In operation connecting Cambridge Railway Station with Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Trumpington P&R. It (CGB) incorporates over 16 miles of guided busway, using alignments of the former Cambridge and Huntingdon Railway and also of the Varsity Line.
A BRT network connecting Gosport and Fareham. It consists of three miles of a dedicated South East In operation unguided bus route along the route of the Gosport to Fareham railway line to reduce congestion on Hampshire the parallel A32.
Under Construction or Being Planned A 14 mile BRT scheme running between Leigh and Manchester. The scheme makes partial use of a former railway line to form a 4 miles (7 km) guided busway together with pedestrian, cycle lane Leigh-Salford- Under Construction and bridleway between Leigh, Tyldesley, and Ellenbrook. In addition there will be 9 miles (15 km) Manchester Busway of segregated bus lane. It will form part of the wider Manchester Quality Bus Corridor (Manchester QBC) and Cross City Bus network.
Rotherham & Under Construction Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) North is a high quality and efficient public transport service between the
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 3 October 2014
Sheffield (BRT North) centres of Rotherham and Sheffield. It will provide essential congestion relief for local traffic at junction 34 south of the M1, through the creation of a new highway link under the motorway at Tinsley in Sheffield.
The three rapid transit routes, Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre, North Fringe to Hengrove Package and the South Bristol Link, will form a high quality bus network which will be a higher quality experience, reliable, easy to use and understand, with modern vehicles. The first phase will Bristol Planned Scheme be a partially segregated busway between Ashton Vale and Temple Meads (AVTM MetroBus Scheme) and is scheduled to open in 2016.
The proposals are to construct a bus-based rapid system in Belfast running from the city centre to Belfast Planned Scheme the east and west of the city, and to Titanic Quarter. There are three proposed routes all running on segregated running lanes. The plan is to build three initially and to have them operating by 2017/18.
Clyde Fastlink, is proposed to operate along the north bank of the River Clyde between the City Centre and the new Southern Hospital, with segregation running along the majority of its length Glasgow (Fastlink) Planned Scheme outside the city centre. It has been approved by Scottish ministers and the Glasgow City Centre - Glasgow Harbour infrastructure is built with buses being delivered in 2015. The aim is for completion by 2020.
Following the refusal of funding from the proposed Leeds Supertram, a replacement system has Leeds NGT Planned Scheme been proposed which include a three-line 12 miles (20 km) trolleybus network, 38% would run on guideways or on bus lanes. The scheme is currently going through a public inquiry process.
West London Transit, currently being considered following the abandonment of plans for the West West London Transit Planned Scheme London Tram in August 2007. The scheme for a trolleybus using dedicated bus ways along Uxbridge Road is out to consultation.
An £8m scheme known as SMaRT (Slough Mass Rapid Transit) approved by Slough Borough Slough Planned Scheme Council on 15th September 2014.
Bus-based rapid transit system featuring vehicles that look and operate like a tram. There is no Birmingham (Sprint) Planned Scheme dedicated road space for the bus, however buses have priority, RTI, WiFI and low floors. Being marketed as BRT.
Edinburgh (EOBRT) Planned Scheme A scheme known as the Edinburgh Orbital Bus Rapid Transit Scheme (EOBRT) using the city’s
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 4 October 2014
southern bypass is being considered by the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership, Sestran. The scheme could see buses using the hard shoulder of the bypass to cut journey times.
A BRT scheme to improve public transport along the Accrington – Blackburn – Darwen corridors. It is 21 miles of new bus route between Accrington and Blackburn, with two new terminals at both towns. Whilst not on segregated routes of it is termed a BRT as it is seen as a mix of highway Pennine Reach Planned Scheme improvements, new technology and high quality buses operating along improved routes with greater ticketing choices, smarter ticketing, ITS, Pennine Reach is designed to make public transport more attractive and a real
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 5 October 2014
Figure 1 – Maps of BRT Scheme in UK
KEY
Scheme in Operation
Planned Schemes
Ceased Schemes
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 6 October 2014
Table 2 – BRT Systems for further research and profiling
BRT System Status Selected for Further Research Contact X – too old and insufficient of length, originally build N/A Ipswich (Kesgrave) In operation to avoid a congestion at a busy junction
Runcorn In operation √ - dedicated route and service
X – not considered a conventional BRT System, N/A Redditch In operation build as part of the new town extension to assist buses.
London (East London In operation √ - it will be interesting to see how the addition of Transit Scheme) phase 2 has affected the scheme.
Kent Thameside In operation √ - there should be a lot of information around to (Fastrack) assess the scheme.
- will be interesting to see how early schemes Dave Haskins – West Yorkshire PTE √ Leeds In operation have performed. [email protected]
? - while a guided bus scheme, need to find out if Bradford In operation dedicated bus services run.
- there should be a lot of information around to Crawley (Fastway) In operation √ assess the scheme.
Tyne and Wear In operation √ - Route 19 only is worth considering
- a new comer to the BRT world and interesting to Keith Dove – Luton Borough Council √ Luton In operation see how it is performing. [email protected]
- there should be a lot of information around to Swansea (frtmetro) In operation √ assess the scheme.
√ - there is a lot of information around to assess the Bob Menzizies – Cambridgeshire County Cambridgeshire (CGB) In operation scheme. Council [email protected]
- there should be a lot of information around to South East Hampshire In operation √ assess the scheme.
J210051 – BRT UL Research Paper 7 October 2014
APPENDIX B ITPD Scoring Card and Standard Categories
THE BRT STANDARD
Introduction 1 The BRT Standard 2014 Edition Cover Photo: The TransMilenio system in Bogotá, Colombia inspired a wave of BRT innovation around the world.
Cover Photo Credit: Carlos Felipe Pardo
www.itdp.org www.rockefellerfoundation.org www.barrfoundation.org
www.climateworks.org www.gtz.de www.theicct.org www.unep.org INTRODUCTION 2
SCORING IN DETAIL 12
APPLICATION TO 55 RAIL CORRIDORS
back BRT STANDARD SCORECARD cover The Metroplus BRT, in Medellín, Colombia, provides a critical link in the city's diverse transit network.
Introduction 2 INTRODUCTION
Introduction 3 Introduction The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for world-class bus rapid transit (BRT) based on international best practices. It is also the centerpiece of a global efort by leaders in bus rapid transit design to establish a common deinition of BRT and ensure that BRT systems more uniformly deliver world-class passenger experiences, signiicant economic beneits, and positive environmental impacts.
Despite the increasing prevalence, prominence, and success of BRT, many remain unaware of the characteristics of the best BRT corridors and their ability to provide levels of service more typically associated with metro and subway systems. This lack of awareness frequently results in a preference for rail when BRT is in fact a comparable, more cost-efective, and equally elegant solution. This false impression stems partly from the lack of a common deinition for BRT. Without a deinition, modest improvements to standard bus service are oten inaccurately labeled as BRT.
The BRT Standard functions as a means of achieving a common deinition, as a scoring system, and as a planning tool. By deining the essential elements of BRT, it provides a framework for system designers, decision-makers, and the sustainable-transport community to identify and implement top-quality BRT corridors. The BRT Standard celebrates cities that are leading the way in BRT excellence and ofers best practice-based guidance to those planning a system.
Certifying a BRT corridor as basic BRT, bronze, silver, or gold places it within the hierarchy of international best practice; however, all standard levels represent excellence in BRT. Cities with certiied BRT corridors are beacons of progress that have adopted a cutting- edge form of mass transit, elevating urban transport to a new level of excellence while making communities more livable, competitive, and sustainable. From Guadalajara, Mexico, to Guangzhou, China,
Introduction 4 cities that have built gold-standard BRT have seen signiicant beneits to commuters, increased revitalization of city centers, and better air quality.
As we continue to clarify and elevate the standards to which all BRT systems are built, more people will experience the convenience and comfort of this cutting-edge mode of transport, and more cities will experience the beneits of an eicient and cost-efective mass-transit system. We hope that helping to deine and recognize good-quality BRT will bring about the fundamental change needed to shit people out of their cars through modern and sustainable BRT. The 2014 Standard reinforces the basic elements for bus rapid transit and makes some improvements to the earlier versions to strengthen the BRT brand.
Introduction 5 Why was The BRT Standard Created?
The BRT Standard was developed to create a common deinition of bus rapid transit and recognize high-quality BRT systems around the world. It also functions as a technical tool to guide and encourage municipalities to consider the key features of the best BRT systems as they move through the design process.
Historically, there had been no common understanding of what constitutes BRT, and the lack of a shared deinition has caused confusion about the concept. The absence of an agreement among planners and engineers meant that for every new BRT corridor that is world-class, dozens of bus corridors opened that were incorrectly labeled BRT. The lack of any sort of quality control made it possible for modest bus system improvements to be branded as BRT, leading to some backlash against BRT. Modest incremental improvements, while beneicial, are oten not the most cost- efective solution, and they certainly do not add up to the fundamental change needed to shit the travel paradigm from a dispersed pattern of private automobile travel to bus-based mass transit.
BRT also plays an important role in the global efort to reduce transport-sector emissions. As emissions from private motor vehicle use grow, shiting these trips onto public transit by improving the quality and reach of BRT becomes critical. Establishing a quality standard for BRT ensures not only that better projects are built but that transport sector emissions are reduced.
Certifying a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze, or basic sets an internationally recognized standard for what BRT is and what is best practice in BRT. The elements that receive points in The BRT Standard have been evaluated in a wide variety of contexts. When present, they result in consistently improved system performance and have a positive impact on ridership.
Introduction 6 What’s New in 2014?
The BRT Standard, 2014 Edition is the culmination of a review of The BRT Standard, 2013 Edition by The BRT Standard Technical Committee and practitioners around the world. Revisions were made collectively by the Technical Committee, a group comprising the world’s leading BRT engineers, designers, and planners. Descriptions of the most signiicant changes follow in the sections below.
• Corridor Deinition The deinition of a BRT corridor has been reduced from 4 kilometers (km) (2.5 miles) in length to 3 km (1.9 miles) to allow BRT corridors in downtown areas to qualify as BRT. These downtown corridors can provide valuable connections to the regional transit network, even if they are relatively short in length.
• Frequency Penalties The most signiicant change for 2014 has been the removal of the peak and of-peak frequency design metrics and the addition of penalties for low peak and of-peak frequencies. This was done because the setting of route frequencies was seen as more of an operational rather than a design decision.
• Emphasis on Basics An additional point was added to each of the BRT Basic elements, creating a greater emphasis on the basic elements of BRT. The scoring of the Basics categories has been reconigured alongside the additional points.
Introduction 7 Governance
Two committees govern The BRT Standard: the Technical Committee and the Institutional Endorsers. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) currently convenes both committees.
The Technical Committee of The BRT Standard comprises globally renowned experts on BRT. This committee serves as a consistent source of sound technical advice with respect to BRT and is the basis for establishing the credibility of The BRT Standard. The Technical Committee certiies corridors and recommends revisions to The BRT Standard as needed.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee members include: Manfred Breithaupt, GIZ Wagner Colombini Martins, Logit Consultoria Paulo Custodio, Consultant Walter Hook, ITDP Colleen McCaul, Consultant Gerhard Menckhof, World Bank (retired)* Carlos Felipe Pardo, Slow Research Scott Rutherford, University of Washington* Pedro Szasz, Consultant Lloyd Wright, Asian Development Bank*
Unless indicated by an asterisk (*), each committee member also represents his or her institution.
The emissions scoring detail for buses was recommended by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), an international non-proit specializing in vehicle eiciency and fuel standards.
The Institutional Endorsers are an integrated group of highly respected institutions in the ields of city building, public transport systems, and climate change with decision-making abilities over The BRT Standard certiication process. All have a commitment to high-quality public transport and dedication to its contribution to social and economic development.
They establish the strategic direction of The BRT Standard, ensure that BRT projects ranked by the scoring system uphold the goals of The BRT Standard, and promote The BRT Standard as a quality check for BRT projects globally.
The Institutional Endorsers include: Barr Foundation ClimateWorks Foundation Gesellschat für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (convener) International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) Rockefeller Foundation United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Introduction 8 The BRT Standard Scorecard
The BRT Standard scoring system was created as a way of protecting the BRT brand and ofering recognition to high-quality BRT systems around the world. Certifying a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze, or basic sets an internationally recognized standard for the current best practice for BRT.
Awarding Points Points are awarded for the elements of corridor design that most signiicantly improve operational performance and quality of service. The full point system is shown on page 12 and described in detail throughout the rest of this document. The criteria used to determine the point system are as follows:
• The points should act as proxies for a higher quality of customer service (speed, comfort, capacity, etc.). • The points should be awarded based on a general consensus among BRT experts on what constitutes best practice in system planning and design, and the relative importance of those factors. • The points should reward good, oten politically challenging design decisions made by the project team that will result in superior performance rather than rewarding characteristics that may be innate to the corridor. • The metrics and weightings should be easily and equitably applicable and scalable to a wide range of BRT corridors in diferent contexts—from lower-ridership, smaller corridors to larger, high-volume corridors. • The basis for the score should be reasonably transparent and independently veriiable without recourse to information that cannot readily be obtained.
The maximum number of points a system can earn is 100. On the next page is an overview of the four BRT Standard point categories. Bronze, silver, and gold rankings all reflect well-designed corridors that have achieved excellence. A ranking of Basic BRT means that the corridor meets the minimum criteria to qualify as BRT but has not quite reached the same level of excellence as those that have received awards.
Introduction 9 BRT Standard Rankings
Gold-standard BRT 85 Points or above Gold-standard BRT is consistent in almost all respects with international best practice. These systems achieve the highest level of operational performance and eiciency while providing a high quality of service. It is achievable on any corridor with suicient demand to justify BRT investments, but may cost a little more to achieve. These systems have the greatest ability to inspire the public, as well as other cities.
Silver-standard BRT 70–84 points Silver-standard BRT includes most of the elements of international best practice and is likely to be cost-efective on any corridor with suicient demand to justify BRT investment. These systems achieve high operational performance and quality of service.
Bronze-standard BRT 55–69 points Bronze-standard BRT solidly meets the deinition of BRT and is mostly consistent with international best practice. Bronze-standard BRT has some characteristics that elevate it above the BRT Basics, achieving higher operational eiciencies or quality of service than basic BRT.
Basic BRT Basic BRT refers to a core subset of elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to the deinition of BRT. This minimum qualiication is a precondition to receiving a gold, silver, or bronze ranking, yet a corridor may only qualify as Basic BRT.
Introduction 10 Design versus Performance
The BRT Standard relies on observable design characteristics that are associated with high performance rather than on performance measurements. This is currently the most reliable and equitable mechanism for recognizing quality in diferent corridors. The main reasons for this approach include: • The ability to assess both planned and existing corridors: The BRT Standard intended to help guide planning and design decisions prior to corridor implementation. The scoring tool is usable both for planned and built corridors, whereas performance standards are only applicable when assessing existing corridors. • Good data is rare and expensive: While the efect of the BRT corridor on a passenger’s door- to-door travel time is the ideal performance appraisal metric, this data is extremely diicult, expensive, and time-consuming to collect and nearly impossible to independently corroborate. Other Project Appraisal Tools
The BRT Standard is intended to complement cost-efectiveness measurements and system- performance evaluations. Using only cost-efectiveness appraisal tools without The BRT Standard could lead to underspending on the capital investments that would actually increase operating costs or overspending on measures that cannot really be justiied under certain circumstances. For these reasons, The BRT Standard should be used in tandem with cost-efectiveness or cost-beneit evaluation.
Similarly, The BRT Standard may be a useful element of project appraisal as a way of testing the credibility of claimed speed improvements or other performance claims made as part of a more systematic “performance-based” appraisal, such as the U.S. Federal Transit Administration’s cost- efectiveness analysis or the internal rate-of-return analysis required by the development banks during project appraisal. Process
The BRT Standard is reviewed and updated annually by the Technical Committee. Corridors will be evaluated by individual members of the Technical Committee over the course of the year, and their scores will be submitted to the full committee to certify at the end of each year. Only corridors that have not previously been scored will be eligible for scoring; previously scored corridors, however, may request to be rescored. In addition, the Technical Committee may request that a corridor be rescored if it has experienced signiicant design changes or operational improvements or degradation. When the new score is released, the justiication for rescoring the corridor will also be included.
Scores will be released each year and used as a means to compare and celebrate those cities that have implemented true BRT, making the politically courageous and technically diicult decisions necessary to get there.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee and the Institutional Endorsers look forward to making this an even stronger tool for creating better BRT systems and encouraging better public transport that beneits cities and citizens alike.
For any questions on the scoring process, please contact us at [email protected].
Introduction 11 SCORING IN DETAIL
The 9 de Julio BRT, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, reclaimed multiple lanes of traic for transit use.
Introduction 12 The BRT Standard Scorecard This scorecard shows the criteria and point values that make up The BRT Standard, followed by a detailed description of each.
CATEGORY max score CATEGORY max score BRT Basics (pp. 14 – 23) Communications (pp. 42 – 43)
Dedicated Right-of-Way 8 Branding 3
Busway Alignment 8 Passenger Information 2
Of-board Fare Collection 8 Access and Integration (pp. 44 – 49) Intersection Treatments 7 Universal Access 3 Platform-level Boarding 7 Integration with Other Public Transport 3
Service Planning (pp. 24 – 30) Pedestrian Access 3
Multiple Routes 4 Secure Bicycle Parking 2
Express, Limited, and Local Services 3 Bicycle Lanes 2
Control Center 3 Bicycle-sharing Integration 1
Located in Top Ten Corridors 2
Demand Proile 3 Point Deductions (pp. 50 – 54) Hours of Operations 2 Commercial Speeds -10 Multi-corridor Network 2 Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd) Below 1,000 -5 Infrastructure (pp. 31 – 36) Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way -5 Passing Lanes at Stations 4 Signiicant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform -5 Minimizing Bus Emissions 3 Overcrowding -5 Stations Set Back from Intersections 3 Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations, Center Stations 2 and Technology Systems -10
Pavement Quality 2 Low Peak Frequency -3
Low Of-peak Frequency -2 Stations (pp. 37 – 41)
Distances Between Stations 2
Safe and Comfortable Stations 3
Number of Doors on Bus 3
Docking Bays and Sub-stops 1
Sliding Doors in BRT Stations 1
Introduction 13 Deinition of a BRT Corridor
The BRT Standard is to be applied to speciic BRT corridors rather than to a BRT system as a whole. This is because the quality of BRT in cities with multiple corridors can vary signiicantly. For the purposes of The BRT Standard, a BRT corridor is deined as:
“ A section of road or contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes with a minimum length of 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) that has dedicated bus lanes.”
The primary reason for deining the corridor in this way is that in some cities BRT is not prioritized over automobile traic, an essential element in rapid transit that improves both eiciency and cost. To avoid rewarding systems that don’t make this political choice, the corridor needs to be deined as including dedicated bus lanes.
The BRT Basics
The “BRT Basics” are a set of elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to deining a corridor as BRT. These ive elements most critically contribute to eliminating sources of delay from congestion, conflicts with other vehicles, and passenger boarding and alighting, thus increasing eiciency and lowering operating cost. They are of critical importance in diferentiating BRT from standard bus service. The ive essential elements of BRT are:
Dedicated right-of-way: 8 points* Busway alignment: 8 points* Of-board fare collection: 8 points Intersection treatments: 7 points Platform-level boarding: 7 points
*Of the ive essential elements, a corridor must score at least 4 on both busway alignment and dedicated right-of-way AND must achieve a minimum of 20 points across all ive categories to be identiied as BRT.
Minimum Requirements for a Corridor to be Considered BRT 1. At least 3km length with dedicated lanes 2. Score 4 or more points in dedicated right-of-way element 3. Score 4 or more points in busway alignment element 4. Score 20 or more points across all ive BRT Basics elements
Scoring in Detail 14 Examples of BRT Corridors
Note: To qualify as BRT, a corridor must also meet the BRT Basics
Example 1: A 3km Corridor bus service extends bus service extends 1 km to the west 2 km to the east in mixed traffic in mixed traffic
3 km of dedicated bus lane (any alignment)
Example 2: A 3km Corridor
bus service extends bus service extends 2 km to the west 3 km to the east in mixed traffic in mixed traffic 2 km of dedicated bus lane (any alignment) with 1 km of mixed traffic operations in between
Example 3: NOT A Corridor
bus service extends 5 km bus service extends 4 km to the west in mixed traffic to the west in mixed traffic
2 km of dedicated bus lanes
Scoring in Detail 15
Dedicated Right-of-Way 8 points maximum
A dedicated right-of-way is vital to ensuring that buses can move quickly and unimpeded by congestion. Physical design is critical to the self-enforcement of the right-of-way. Dedicated lanes matter the most in heavily congested areas where it is harder to take a lane away from mixed traic to dedicate it as a busway.
Dedicated lanes can be segregated and enforced in diferent ways and can have varying degrees of permeability (e.g., delineators, electronic bollards, car traps, colorized pavement, and camera enforcement). In some designs the bus stations themselves can act as a barrier. Some permeability is generally advised, as buses occasionally break down and block the busway or otherwise need to leave the corridor.
BRT BASICS BRT While the deinition of a BRT corridor requires at least three kilometers of dedicated bus lanes, this element evaluates the quality of the segregation and enforcement throughout the corridor, including sections without dedicated lanes.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed essential to true BRT corridors. A minimum score of 4 must be achieved on this element for a corridor to be deined as BRT.
Scoring Guidelines: The scoring system is based on the amount of corridor that has dedicated right-of-way for BRT services and the quality of the segregation and enforcement in relation to observed peak-hour congestion. Exceptions are permitted for emergency vehicles.
Type of Dedicated Right-of-Way POINTS
DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied to over 90% 8 of the busway corridor length
Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied to over 75% 7 of the busway corridor length
Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied 5 to over 75% of the busway corridor length
Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied 3 to over 40% of the busway corridor length
Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied 2 to over 20% of the busway corridor length
Camera-enforcement with signs only 1
Scoring in Detail 16 BRT BASICS BRT DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED
Transoeste, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil illustrates full segregation.
Scoring in Detail 17
Busway Alignment 8 points maximum
The busway is best located where conflicts with other traic can be minimized, especially from turning movements from mixed-traic lanes. In most cases, a busway in the central verge of a roadway encounters fewer conflicts with turning vehicles than those closer to the curb due to alleys, parking lots, etc. Additionally, while delivery vehicles and taxis generally require access to the curb, the central verge of the road usually remains free of such obstructions. All of the design coniguration recommendations detailed below are related to minimizing the risk of delays caused by turning conflicts and curbside access.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed essential to true BRT corridors. A minimum score
BRT BASICS BRT of 4 must be achieved on this element for a corridor to be deined as BRT.
Scoring Guidelines: This scoring is weighted using the percentage of the trunk corridor of each particular coniguration multiplied by the points associated with that coniguration and then adding those numbers together.
Trunk Corridor Conigurations POINTS
tier 1 configurations
Two-way median-aligned busways that are in the central verge of a two-way road 8
Bus-only corridors where there is a fully exclusive right-of-way and no parallel mixed traic, such as transit malls (e.g., Bogotá, Curitiba, Quito, and Pereira) and converted rail corridors 8 BUSWAY ALIGNMENT BUSWAY (e.g., Cape Town and Los Angeles)
Busways that run adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront or park where there are few 8 intersections to cause conflicts
Busways that run two-way on the side of a one-way street 6
tier 2 configurations
Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but are centrally aligned in the roadway 5
Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but aligned to the curb 3
tier 3 configurations
Virtual busway that operates bi-directionally in a single median lane that alternates direction 1 by block.
non-scoring configurations
Curb-aligned busway on a two-way road 0
EXAMPLE OF A VIRTUAL BUSWAY 1 POINT
Virtual busways can be utilized in restricted or mixed traffic mixed narrow road widths to provide dedicated right-of- way for BRT. A virtual busway is a single bus lane traffic in the middle of a roadway that is non-reversible bus bus bus bus but is shared between the two directions of travel. The direction of travel within the bus lane depends mixed on the need for queue jumping within the corridor. mixed traffic traffic At the intersections, a separate public-transport- vehicle phase will allow the BRT vehicles to leave busway the virtual lane and access the general traic lane, queue-jump ater which it will proceed in the general traic bus gets green lane until the virtual lane is once again dedicated before other traffic to the BRT vehicles’ direction of travel.
Scoring in Detail 18 A Few Examples of Busway Conigurations These sections are only meant to show an example and are not meant to be inclusive of all possible conigurations.
EXAMPLE OF TWO-WAY MEDIAN-ALIGNED BUSWAY THAT IS IN THE CENTRAL VERGE OF A TWO-WAY ROAD 8 POINTS
Sidewalk Bike Mixed Tra c Lanes Passing Bus Station Bus Passing Mixed Tra c Lanes Bike Sidewalk
Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane BASICS BRT Buer Buer
EXAMPLE OF BUSWAY EXAMPLE OF A BUS- THAT RUNS TWO-WAY ONLY CORRIDOR ON THE SIDE OF A WHERE THERE IS ONE-WAY STREET EXCLUSIVE RIGHT- 6 POINTS OF-WAY AND NO PARALLEL MIXED TRAFFIC 8 POINTS BUSWAY ALIGNMENT BUSWAY
Sidewalk Mixed Tra c Two-way Busway Bike Sidewalk Sidewalk Busway Sidewalk Lane
EXAMPLE OF BUSWAY THAT IS ONE-WAY AND CENTRALLY ALIGNED IN THE ROADWAY 5 POINTS
Sidewalk Bike One Way Station One Way Passing One Way Bike Sidewalk Lane Mixed Bus Lane Lane Mixed Lane Tra c Tra c
EXAMPLE OF BUSWAY THAT IS ONE-WAY AND ALIGNED TO THE CURB 3 POINTS
Sidewalk Parking One Way Parking Bus Lane Sidewalk Lane Mixed Lane Tra c Median
Scoring in Detail 19 BRT BASICS BRT OFF-BOARD FARE COLLECTION FARE OFF-BOARD
top A kiosk sells tickets for the proof-of-payment system used in Las Vegas, USA. bottom Turnstiles control access into TransJakarta's stations in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Scoring in Detail 20
Of-board Fare Collection 8 points maximum
Of-board fare collection is one the most important factors in reducing travel time and improving the customer experience.
There are presently two basic approaches to of-board fare collection: “Turnstile-controlled,” where passengers pass through a gate, turnstile, or checkpoint upon entering the station where their ticket is veriied or fare is deducted, and “proof-of-payment,” where passengers pay at a kiosk and collect a paper ticket that is then checked on board the vehicle by an inspector. Both approaches can signiicantly reduce delay. However, turnstile-controlled is slightly preferred because: • It is easier to accommodate multiple routes using the same BRT infrastructure;
• It minimizes fare evasion, as every passenger must have his/her ticket scanned in order to enter BASICS BRT the system versus proof-of-payment, which requires random checks; • Proof-of-payment can cause anxiety for passengers who may have misplaced tickets; • The data collected by turnstile-controlled systems upon boarding, and sometimes upon alighting, can be useful in future system planning.
On the other hand, proof-of-payment systems on bus routes that extend beyond BRT corridors extend the beneits of time savings to those sections of the bus routes that lie beyond the BRT corridor.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed essential to true BRT corridors.
Scoring Guidelines: To be eligible for scoring, of-board fare collection needs to occur during all operating hours.
Of-Board Fare Collection (During All Operating Hours) POINTS OFF-BOARD FARE COLLECTION FARE OFF-BOARD 100% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 8
100% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection 7
80% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 7
80% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection 6
60% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 6
60% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection 5
40% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 5
40% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection 4
20% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 3
20% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection 2
< 20% of stations on corridor have turnstile-controlled of-board fare collection 0 < 20% of routes that touch the corridor have proof-of-payment fare collection
Scoring in Detail 21
I ntersection Treatments 7 points maximum
There are several ways to increase bus speeds at intersections, all of which are aimed at increasing the green-signal time for the bus lane. Forbidding turns across the bus lane and minimizing the number of traic-signal phases where possible are the most important. Traic-signal priority, when activated by an approaching BRT vehicle, is useful in lower-frequency systems but less efective than turn prohibitions.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed essential to true BRT corridors.
Intersection Treatments POINTS BRT BASICS BRT All turns prohibited across the busway 7
Most turns prohibited across the busway 6
Approximately half of the turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority 5
Some turns prohibited across the busway and signal priority at most intersections 4
Some turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority 3
No turns prohibited across the busway but signal priority at most intersections 2
No turns prohibited across the busway but some intersections have signal priority 1
No intersection treatments 0
INTERSECTION TREATMENTS INTERSECTION
Let turns are not allowed at this intersection along the BRT corridor in Las Vegas, USA.
Scoring in Detail 22 Platform-level boarding speeds boarding and alighting in Ahmedabad, India. BRT BASICS BRT
P latform-level Boarding 7 points maximum
Having the bus-station platform level with the bus floor is one of the most important ways of reducing BOARDING PLATFORM-LEVEL boarding and alighting times per passenger. Passengers climbing even relatively minor steps can mean signiicant delay, particularly for the elderly, disabled, or people with suitcases or strollers. The reduction or elimination of the vehicle-to-platform gap is also key to customer safety and comfort. There are a range of measures to achieve gaps of less than 5 cm (2 in.), including guided busways at stations, alignment markers, Kassel curbs, and boarding bridges. The scoring does not take into account which technique is chosen, just so long as the gap is minimized.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors.
Scoring Guidelines: Station platforms should be at the same height as bus floors, regardless of the height chosen.
Percentage of Buses with At-Level Boarding POINTS
100% of buses are platform level; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place 7
80% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place 6
60% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place 5
100% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place 4
40% of buses 3
20% of buses 2
50% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place 2
10% of buses 1
No platform-level boarding 0
Scoring in Detail 23 Service Planning
M ultiple Routes 4 points maximum
Having multiple routes operate on a single corridor is a good proxy for reduced door-to-door travel times by reducing transfer penalties.
This can include:
SERVICE PLANNING SERVICE • Routes that operate over multiple corridors, as exists with TransMilenio in Bogotá or Metrobús in Mexico City; • Multiple routes operating in a single corridor that go to diferent destinations once they leave the corridor, as exists with the Guangzhou, Cali, and Johannesburg BRT systems.
This flexibility of bus-based systems is one of the primary advantages of BRT that is frequently not well used or understood.
Multiple Routes POINTS MULTIPLE ROUTES MULTIPLE
Two or more routes exist on the corridor, servicing at least two stations 4
No multiple routes 0
BRT Corridor
Scoring in Detail 24 SERVICE PLANNING SERVICE MULTIPLE ROUTES MULTIPLE
Mexico City’s Metrobús added an additional 20,000 daily passengers by adding a direct route connecting Corridor I (Insurgentes) with Corridor II (Eje 4), eliminating the transfer penalty between the two.
Scoring in Detail 25
Express, Limited, and Local Services 3 points maximum
One of the most important ways that mass-transit systems increase operating speeds and reduce passenger travel times is by providing limited and express services. While local services stop at every station, limited services skip lower-demand stations and stop only at major stations that have higher passenger demand. Express services oten collect passengers at stops at one end of the corridor, travel along much of the corridor without stopping, and drop passengers of at the other end.
Infrastructure necessary for the inclusion of express, limited, and local BRT services is captured in other scoring metrics.
Service Types POINTS
Local services and multiple types of limited and/or express services 3 SERVICE PLANNING SERVICE
At least one local and one limited or express service option 2
No limited or express services 0
EXPRESS, LIMITED, AND LOCAL SERVICES LOCAL AND LIMITED, EXPRESS,
Guangzhou has multiple services that run on the same corridor, as seen in the passenger information sign.
Scoring in Detail 26
Control Center 3 points maximum
Control centers for BRT systems are increasingly becoming a requirement for a host of service improvements, such as avoiding bus bunching, monitoring bus operations, identifying problems, and rapidly responding to them.
A full-service control center monitors the locations of all buses with GPS or similar technology and can: PLANNING SERVICE • Respond to incidents in real-time • Control the spacing of buses • Determine and respond to the maintenance status of all buses in the fleet • Record passenger boardings and alightings for future service adjustments • Use Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for bus tracking and performance monitoring
A full-service center should be integrated with a public transport system’s existing control center as well as the traic signal system. CENTER CONTROL
Control Center POINTS
Full-service control center 3
Control center with most services 2
Control center with some services 1
No control center 0
The control center in Medellín, Colombia allows the operator to monitor BRT service across the system.
Scoring in Detail 27
Located In Top Ten Corridors 2 points maximum
If the BRT corridor is located along one of the top ten corridors, in terms of aggregate bus ridership, this will help ensure that a signiicant proportion of passengers beneit from the improvements. Points are awarded to systems that have made a good choice for the BRT corridor, regardless of the level of total demand.
Scoring Guidelines: If all top ten demand corridors have already beneited from public transport infrastructure improvements and the corridor, thus, lies outside the top ten, all points are awarded.
Corridor Location POINTS
Corridor is one of top ten demand corridors 2
Corridor is outside top ten demand corridors 0 SERVICE PLANNING SERVICE
LOCATED IN TOP TEN TEN CORRIDORS TOP IN LOCATED
This map showing the demand from road- based transit highlights that the irst corridor of Johannesburg’s BRT (in red) is one of the top corridors. The higher the demand the wider the green and red lines.
Scoring in Detail 28
Demand Proile 3 points maximum
Building the highest-quality BRT infrastructure in the highest-demand segments of a road ensures that the greatest number of passengers beneit from the improvements. This is most signiicant when the decision is made whether or not to build a corridor through a downtown; however, it can also be an issue outside of a downtown on a road segment that has a variable demand proile.
Scoring Guidelines: The BRT corridor must include the road segment with the highest demand within a 2-kilometer distance of either end of the corridor. This segment should also have the highest quality of busway alignment in that section, and the score thus relates to that. The trunk corridor conigurations deined in the Busway Alignment Section (see page 20) are used here to score the demand proile.
Demand Proile POINTS
Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 1 Trunk Corridor coniguration 3 PLANNING SERVICE
Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 2 Trunk Corridor coniguration 2
Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 3 Trunk Corridor coniguration 1
Corridor does not include highest demand segment 0
DEMAND PROFILE DEMAND Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 1 Example Coniguration Coniguration
Highest Demand Segment
Sidewalk Bike Mixed Tra c Lanes Passing Bus Station Bus Passing Mixed Tra c Lanes Bike Sidewalk Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane = 3 points Bu er Bu er
Tier 1 Tier 2 Coniguration Coniguration Tier 2 Example
Highest Demand Segment = 2 points
Sidewalk Bike One Way Station One Way Passing One Way Bike Sidewalk Lane Mixed Bus Lane Lane Mixed Lane Tra c Tra c Tier 2 Tier 3 Coniguration Coniguration
For more detail about the tiers and more examples, please see page 18, Busway Alignment. Highest Demand Segment = 1 point
Mixed Tier 1 Traic Coniguration
Highest Demand Segment = 0 points
Within 2kms of end of corridor
Scoring in Detail 29
Hours of Operations 2 points maximum
A viable transit service must be available to passengers for as many hours throughout the day and week as possible. Otherwise, passengers could end up stranded or may simply seek another mode.
Scoring Guidelines: Late-night service refers to service until midnight and weekend service refers to both weekend days.
Operating Hours POINTS
Both late-night and weekend service 2
Late-night service, no weekends OR weekend service, no late nights 1
No late-night or weekend service 0
SERVICE PLANNING SERVICE MULTI-CORRIDOR NETWORK MULTI-CORRIDOR |
This map shows all existing and potential BRT corridors in Jakarta, Indonesia. HOURS OF OPERATIONS OPERATIONS OF HOURS Multi-corridor Network 2 points maximum
Ideally, BRT should include multiple corridors that intersect and form a network, as this expands travel options for passengers and makes the system more viable as a whole. When designing a new system, some anticipation of future corridors is useful to ensure the designs will be compatible with later developments. For this reason, a long-term plan is recognized, with an emphasis on near-term connectivity through either BRT services or infrastructure.
Multi-corridor Network POINTS
BRT corridor connects to an existing BRT corridor or to the next one planned in the network 2
BRT corridor connects to a future planned corridor in the BRT network 1
No connected BRT network planned or built 0
Scoring in Detail 30 Infrastructure
Passing Lanes at Stations 4 points maximum
Passing lanes at station stops are critical to allow both express and local services. They also allow stations to accommodate a high volume of buses without getting congested with buses backed up waiting to enter. While more diicult to justify in low-demand systems, passing lanes are a good
investment, yielding considerable passenger travel-time savings and allowing for flexibility as the INFRASTRUCTURE system grows.
Passing Lanes POINTS
Physical, dedicated passing lanes 4
Buses overtake in on-coming dedicated lanes 2
No passing lanes 0
PASSING LANES AT STATIONS AT LANES PASSING
TransMilenio, Bogotá, Colombia was the irst to introduce passing lanes at stations, increasing the system’s capacity.
Scoring in Detail 31 INFRASTRUCTURE MINIMIZING BUS EMISSIONS BUS MINIMIZING
Rea Vaya in Johannesburg introduced Euro IV buses for the irst time to South Africa.
Scoring in Detail 32
Minimizing Bus Emissions 3 points maximum
Bus tailpipe emissions are typically a large source of urban air pollution. Especially at risk are bus passengers and people living or working near roadsides. In general, the pollutant emissions of highest concern from urban buses are particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Minimizing these emissions is critical to the health of both passengers and the general urban population. The primary determinant of tailpipe emission levels is the stringency of governments’ emissions standards. While some fuels, like natural gas, tend to produce lower emissions, new emission controls have enabled even diesel buses to meet extremely clean standards. However, “clean” fuels do not guarantee low emissions of all pollutants. As a result, our scoring is based on certiied emissions standards rather than fuel type. Over the last two decades, the European Union and the United States have adopted a series of INFRASTRUCTURE progressively tighter emissions standards that are being used for this scoring system. Buses must be in compliance with Euro VI and U.S. 2010 emission standards to receive 3 points. These standards result in extremely low emissions of both PM and NOx. For diesel vehicles, these standards require the use of PM traps, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, and selective catalytic reduction. To receive two points, buses need to be certiied to Euro IV or V with PM traps (note: 50 ppm sulfur diesel fuel or lower is required for PM traps to function efectively). Vehicles certiied to the Euro IV and V standards that do not require traps emit twice as much PM as vehicles meeting more recent standards. Therefore, these vehicles are awarded one point. Ideally, buses will include contractually stipulated requirements in the purchase order to control real-world NOx emissions from buses in use, because the actual NOx emissions from urban buses certiied to Euro IV and V have been tested at levels substantially higher than certiied levels. Because that is hard to verify, it is included as a recommendation, but not as a requirement, for receiving the one point. MINIMIZING BUS EMISSIONS BUS MINIMIZING Zero points are awarded for U.S. 2004 and Euro III standards and less stringent standards, because these standards allow ten times as much PM emissions as the U.S. 2010 and Euro VI standards. Buses also generate greenhouse gas emissions. Since no clear regulatory framework exists that requires bus manufacturers to meet speciic greenhouse-gas emission targets or fuel-eiciency standards, there is no obvious way to identify a fuel-eicient bus by vehicle type. For CO2 impacts, we recommend the use of the TEEMP model, which incorporates The BRT Standard into a broader assessment of project-speciic CO2 impacts.
Emissions Standards POINTS
Euro VI or US 2010 3
Euro IV or V with PM traps or US 2007 2
Euro IV or V or Euro III CNG or using veriied PM trap retroit 1
Below Euro IV or V 0
Scoring in Detail 33
Stations Set Back from Intersections 3 points maximum
Stations should be located at minimum 26 meters (85 feet), but ideally 40 meters (130 feet), from intersections to avoid delays. When stations are located just beyond the intersection, delays can be caused when passengers take a long time to board or alight and the docked bus blocks others from pulling through the intersection. If stations are located just before an intersection, the traic signal can delay buses from moving from the station and thus not allow other buses to pull in. The risk of conflict remains acute, particularly as frequency increases. Separating the stations from the intersections is critical to mitigating these problems.
Scoring Guidelines: The distance from the intersection is deined for the near side of the intersection INFRASTRUCTURE as the stop line at the intersection to the front of a bus at the forward-most docking bay and for the far side of the intersection from the far edge of the crosswalk to the back of the bus at the rear-most docking bay.
Station Location POINTS
75% of stations on corridor are set back at least 40 m (130 t.) from intersection or meet at least one of the following exemptions: • Fully exclusive busways with no intersections 3 • Stations located near intersections due to block length (such as downtowns where blocks are relatively short)
75% of stations on corridor are set back 26 m (85 t.) from intersections or meet above exemptions 2
25% of stations on corridor are set back 26 m (85 t.) from intersections or meet above exemptions 1
< 25% of stations on corridor are set back 26m (85 t.) from intersections or meet above exemptions 0
STATIONS SET BACK FROM INTERSECTIONS FROM BACK SET STATIONS
Janmarg, in Ahmedabad, India has stations that are not immediately adjacent to the intersection.
Scoring in Detail 34 A center platform station in Quito, Ecuador allows for convenient transfers. INFRASTRUCTURE CENTER STATIONS CENTER
Center Stations 2 points maximum
Having a single station serving both directions of the BRT system makes transfers between the two directions easier and more convenient—something that becomes more important as the BRT network expands. It also tends to reduce construction costs and minimize the necessary right-of-way. In some cases, stations may be centrally aligned but split into two—called split stations, with each station housing a particular direction of the BRT system. If a physical connection between the two directions is not provided, fewer points are awarded.
Bi-lateral stations (those that, while in the central verge, are curb-aligned) get no points.
Scoring Guidelines: The BRT corridor must include the road segment with the highest demand within a 2 kilometer distance from either end of the corridor. This segment should also have the highest quality of busway alignment in that section and the score thus relates to that. The trunk corridor conigurations deined in the Busway Alignment Section are used here to score the demand proile.
Center Stations POINTS
80% and above of stations on corridor have center platforms serving both directions of service 2
50% of stations on corridor 1
< 20% of stations on corridor 0
Scoring in Detail 35
Pavement Quality 2 points maximum
Good-quality pavement ensures better service and operations for a longer period by minimizing the need for maintenance on the busway. Roadways with poor-quality pavement will need to be shut down more frequently for repairs. Buses will also have to slow down to drive carefully over damaged pavement. No matter what type of pavement, a 30-year life span is recommended. There are several options for the pavement structure to achieve that, with advantages and disadvantages for each. Three examples are described here: 1. Asphalt: Properly designed and constructed, asphalt pavement can last 30-plus years with surface replacement every 10 to 12 years. This can be done without interrupting service, resulting in a smooth, quiet ride. For stations, rigid pavement is important to use to resist the potential pavement damage INFRASTRUCTURE due to braking; 2. Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP): This type of pavement design can have a 30-plus-year life. To ensure this life, the pavement must have round dowel bars at the transverse joints, tied lanes by the use of reinforcing steel, and adequate thickness; and 3. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCR): Continuous slab reinforcement can add additional pavement strength and might be considered under certain design conditions. It is the most expensive option.
PAVEMENT QUALITY PAVEMENT Pavement Materials POINTS
Pavement structure designed for 30-year life over entire corridor 2
Pavement structure designed for 30-year life only at stations 1
Pavement design life less than 30 years 0
Lima, Peru uses reinforced concrete over its entire busway.
Scoring in Detail 36 Stations
Guangzhou, China has well-spaced BRT stations. STATIONS DISTANCE BETWEEN STATIONS DISTANCE
Distances Between Stations 2 points maximum
In a consistently built-up area, the distance between station stops optimizes at around 450 meters (1,476 t.). Beyond this, more time is imposed on customers walking to stations than is saved by higher bus speeds. Below this distance, bus speeds will be reduced by more than the time saved with shorter walking distances. Thus, in keeping reasonably consistent with optimal station spacing, average distance between stations should not be below 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) or exceed 0.8 km (0.5 mi.).
Scoring Guidelines: 2 points should be awarded if stations are spaced, on average, between 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) and 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) apart.
Distance Between Stations POINTS
Stations are spaced, on average, between 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) and 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) apart 2
Scoring in Detail 37
Safe and Comfortable Stations 3 points maximum
One of the main distinguishing features of a BRT system as opposed to standard bus service is a safe and comfortable station environment. Stations should have an internal width of at least 3 meters (10 t.). Stations should be weather-protected, including from wind, rain, snow, heat and/or cold, as appropriate to the conditions in a speciic location. Safe stations that are well-lit, transparent, and have security— whether through security guards or cameras — are essential to maintaining ridership. A clear intention to create attractive stations is also important to the image of the system and creates a sense of permanence and attractiveness that will attract not only riders but developers as well.
Scoring Guidelines: Stations should have at least 3 m (10 t.) of internal width. This is the deinition
STATIONS for “wide” in the scoring chart below.
Stations POINTS
All stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected 3
Most stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected 2
Some stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected 1
No stations on corridor are wide, attractive, weather-protected 0
SAFE AND COMFORTABLE STATIONS COMFORTABLE AND SAFE
Stations in the El Mio BRT system in Cali, Colombia are comfortable and attractive.
Scoring in Detail 38 STATIONS
Articulated BRT buses in Nantes, France have four doors for boarding and alighting quickly.
Number of Doors on Bus BUS ON DOORS OF NUMBER 3 points maximum
The speed of boarding and alighting is partially a function of the number of bus doors. Much like a subway in which a car has multiple wide doors, buses need the same to let higher volumes of people on and of the buses. One door or narrow doorways become bottlenecks that delay the bus.
Scoring Guidelines: Buses need to have three or more doors on the station side of the bus for articulated buses or two wide doors on the station side for regular (non-articulated) buses and allow boarding through all doors to qualify for the below points.
Percentage of Buses with 3+ Doors or 2 Wide Doors on the Station Side POINTS and All-Door Boarding
100% 3
65% 2
35% 1
< 35% 0
Scoring in Detail 39 Docking Bays and Sub-stops 1 point maximum
Multiple docking bays and sub-stops not only increase the capacity of a station, they help stations provide multiple services at the station as well. A station is composed of sub-stops that can connect to one another but should be separated by a walkway long enough to allow buses to pass one sub-stop to dock at another. This reduces the risk of congestion by allowing a bus to pass a full sub-stop where buses can let passengers on and of. They are usually adjacent to each other and allow a second bus to pull up behind another bus already at the station. A station may be composed of only one sub-stop. At minimum, a station needs one sub-stop and two docking bays. It is usually recommended that one STATIONS sub-stop not have more than two docking bays, but at that point another sub-stop should be added. Multiple docking bays and sub-stops are important regardless of the level of ridership.
Docking Bays and Sub-stops POINTS
At least two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations 1
Less than two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations 0
DOCKING BAYS AND SUB-STOPS AND BAYS DOCKING
Example of Sub-stops with Multiple Docking Bays
brt passing lane
docking bay docking bay docking bay docking bay
sub-stop walkway sub-stop
docking bay docking bay docking bay docking bay
brt passing lane
Scoring in Detail 40 STATIONS
Lima, Peru has sliding doors where the bus docks at the station.
Sliding Doors in BRT Stations 1 point maximum
Sliding doors where passengers get on and of the buses inside the stations improve the quality of the STATIONS BRT IN DOORS SLIDING station environment, reduce the risk of accidents, protect passengers from the weather, and prevent pedestrians from entering the station in unauthorized locations.
Sliding Doors POINTS
All stations have sliding doors 1
Otherwise 0
Guangzhou, China’s BRT has sliding doors at the gates.
Scoring in Detail 41 Communications COMMUNICATIONS BRANDING
Las Vegas, USA has a good brand Las Vegas, USA, used old casino and strong identity that appeals to signs at stations, which reinforced its customers—from the stations to the city’s identity. the buses.
Branding 3 points maximum
BRT promises a high quality of service, which is reinforced by having a unique brand and identity.
Branding POINTS
All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand of entire BRT system 3
All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, 2 but diferent from rest of the system
Some buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, 1 regardless of rest of the system
No corridor brand 0
Scoring in Detail 42
Passenger Information 2 points maximum
Numerous studies have shown that passenger satisfaction is linked to knowing when the next bus will arrive. Giving passengers information is critical to a positive overall experience.
Real-time passenger information includes electronic panels, digital audio messaging (“Next bus” at
stations, “Next stop” on buses), and/or dynamic information on handheld devices. Static passenger COMMUNICATIONS information refers to station and vehicle signage, including network maps, route maps, local area maps, emergency indications, and other user information.
Passenger Information (at Stations and on Vehicles) POINTS
Functioning real-time and up-to-date static passenger information corridor-wide 2
Up-to-date static passenger information 1
Very poor or no passenger information 0
PASSENGER INFORMATION PASSENGER
Guangzhou, China has real-time passenger information systems.
Scoring in Detail 43 Access and Integration
Universal Access 3 points maximum
A BRT system should be accessible to all special-needs customers, including those who are physically,
ACCESS visually, and/or hearing-impaired, as well as those with temporary disabilities, the elderly, children, parents with strollers, and other load-carrying passengers.
Scoring Guidelines: Full accessibility means that all stations, vehicles, and fare gates on the corridor are universally accessible for wheelchairs. The corridor must also include drop curbs at all immediate intersections, Braille readers at all stations, and Tactile Ground Surface Indicators leading to all stations.
Universal Accessibility POINTS
Full accessibility at all stations and on all vehicles 3
Partial accessibility at all stations and on all vehicles 2
Full or partial accessibility at some stations and on some vehicles 1 UNIVERSAL ACCESS UNIVERSAL Corridor not universally accessible 0
Eugene, USA provides universal access for passengers.
Scoring in Detail 44
Integration with Other Public Transport 3 points maximum
When a BRT system is built in a city, a functioning public transport network oten already exists, be it rail, bus, or minibus. The BRT system should integrate into the rest of the public transport network. There are two components to BRT integration: • Physical transfer points: Physical transfer points should minimize walking between modes, be well- sized, and not require passengers to exit one system and enter another;
• Fare payment: The fare system should be integrated so that one fare card may be used for all modes. ACCESS
Scoring Guidelines: The BRT corridor should integrate physically with other public transport modes where lines cross. If no lines cross, points may still be awarded for physical integration. If no other formal public transport modes exist in the city, full points may be awarded for all aspects of integration.
Integration with Other Public Transport POINTS
Integration of both physical design and fare payment 3
Integration of physical design or fare payment only 2
No integration 0
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC TRANSPORT PUBLIC OTHER WITH INTEGRATION
Guangzhou, China has physical integration, like this tunnel connecting the BRT to the Metro.
Scoring in Detail 45
Pedestrian Access 3 points maximum
A BRT system could be extremely well-designed and functioning but if passengers cannot access
ACCESS it safely, it cannot achieve its goals. Good pedestrian access is imperative in BRT system design. Additionally, as a new BRT system is a good opportunity for street and public-space redesign, existing pedestrian environments along the corridor should be improved.
Good pedestrian access is deined as: • At-grade pedestrian crossings where pedestrians cross a maximum of two lanes of traic before reaching a pedestrian refuge (sidewalk, median); • If crossing more than two lanes at once, a signalized crosswalk is provided; • Well-lit crosswalks where the footpath remains level and continuous; • While at-grade crossings are preferred, pedestrian bridges or underpasses with working escalators or elevators can also be considered; • Sidewalks along corridor are at least 3 meters wide. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian Access POINTS
Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and for a 500-meter catchment area surrounding 3 the corridor
Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and many improvements along corridor 2
Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and modest improvements along corridor 1
Not every station has good, safe pedestrian access and little improvement along corridor 0
Metrobus, in Mexico City, Mexico, provides good pedestrian access to stations.
Scoring in Detail 46
Secure Bicycle Parking 2 points maximum
The provision of bicycle parking at stations is necessary for passengers who wish to use bicycles as feeders to the BRT system. Formal bicycle parking facilities that are secure (either monitored by an attendant or observed by security camera) and weather-protected are more likely to be used by passengers.
Bicycle Parking POINTS
Secure bicycle parking at least in terminal stations and standard bicycle racks elsewhere 2
Standard bicycle racks in most stations 1 ACCESS
Little or no bicycle parking 0
SECURE BICYCLE PARKING BICYCLE SECURE
Secure bike parking is provided at a TransMilenio terminal in Bogotá, Colombia.
A bike locker along the Orange Line in Los Angeles, USA, provides secure bicycle storage.
Scoring in Detail 47
Bicycle Lanes 2 points maximum
Bicycle-lane networks integrated with the BRT corridor improve customer access, provide a full set of sustainable travel options, and enhance road safety. Bicycle lanes should ideally connect major residential areas, commercial centers, schools, and business centers to nearby BRT stations to provide the widest access. All such major destinations within at least two kilometers of a corridor should be connected by a formal cycleway. Moreover, in most cities, the best BRT corridors are also the most desirable bicycle routes, as they are oten the routes with the greatest travel demand. Yet there is a shortage of safe cycling infrastructure
ACCESS on those same corridors. If some accommodation for cyclists is not made, it is possible that cyclists may use the busway. If the busway has not been designed for dual bike and bus use, it is a safety risk for cyclists. Bicycle lanes should be built either within the same corridor or on a nearby parallel street and should be at least 2 meters, for each direction, of unimpeded width.
Bicycle Lanes POINTS
Bicycle lanes on or parallel to entire corridor 2
Bicycle lanes do not span entire corridor 1
No bicycle infrastructure 0 BICYCLE LANES BICYCLE
A bikeway is located parallel to MyCiTi, in Cape Town, South Africa.
Scoring in Detail 48
Bicycle-Sharing Integration 1 point maximum
Having the option to make short trips from the BRT corridor by a shared bicycle is important to providing connectivity to some destinations. Operating costs of providing bus service to the last mile (i.e., feeder buses) are oten the highest cost of maintaining a BRT network; thus, providing a low-cost bicycle-sharing alternative to feeders is generally seen as best practice.
Bicycle-Sharing Integration POINTS
Bicycle-sharing at minimum of 50% of stations on corridor 1 ACCESS
Bicycle-sharing at less than 50% of stations on corridor 0
BICYCLE-SHARING INTEGRATION BICYCLE-SHARING
A bike-share station is located along a BRT corridor in Nantes, France.
Scoring in Detail 49 Point Deductions
Point deductions are only relevant to systems already in operation. They have been introduced as a way of mitigating the risk of recognizing a system as high quality that has made signiicant design errors or has signiicant management and performance weaknesses not readily observable during the design phase. The penalties from improperly sizing the infrastructure and operations or from poor system management are as follows:
Commercial Speeds -10 points maximum POINT DEDUCTIONS Most of the design features included in the scoring system will always result in higher speeds. However, there is an exception: higher-demand systems in which too many buses carrying too many passengers have been concentrated into a single lane. In this case, bus speeds could be lower than in mixed-traic conditions. This penalty was imposed to mitigate the risk of rewarding such a system with a quality standard.
Scoring Guidelines: The minimum average commercial speed refers to the system-wide average speed and not the average speed at the slowest link. Where commercial speed is not readily available, the full penalty should be imposed if buses are backing up at many BRT stations or junctions.
Commercial Speeds POINTS
Minimum average commercial speed is 20 kph (12 mph) and above 0
Minimum average commercial speed is 16 kph–19 kph (10–12 mph) -3
Minimum average commercial speed is 13 kph–16 kph (8–10 mph) -6
Minimum average commercial speed is 13 kph (8 mph) and below -10
Point Deductions 50 Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd) Below 1,000 -5 points
BRT systems with ridership levels below 1,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) during the peak hour are carrying fewer passengers than a normal mixed-traic lane. Very low ridership can be an indication that other bus services continue to operate in the corridor alongside, and competing with, the BRT system. Alternatively, it indicates that a corridor was poorly selected.
Almost all cities have corridors carrying at least 1,000 pphpd during the peak hour. Many cities, however, have corridors where transit demand is very low, even below this level. While many Gold- Standard BRT features would still bring beneits in these conditions, it is unlikely that such levels would justify the cost and dedicated right-of-way intrinsic to BRT. This penalty has been created to
penalize systems that have done a poor job of service planning or corridor selection, while not overly POINT DEDUCTIONS penalizing smaller, car-oriented cities with low transit demand.
Scoring Guidelines: All ive points should be deducted if the ridership on the link in the corridor with maximum peak-hour ridership is under 1,000 pphpd in the peak hour. Otherwise, no deduction is necessary.
Passengers per Hour per Direction (PPHPD) in Peak Hour POINTS
PPHPD below 1,000 -5
Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way -5 points maximum
A BRT system may have a good alignment and physical separation, but if the right-of-way is not enforced, bus speeds will decline. This penalty addresses systems that do not adequately enforce the busway to prevent encroachment from other vehicles. There are multiple and somewhat context- speciic means of enforcing the exclusive right-of-way. The committee generally recommends on-board camera enforcement and regular policing at points of frequent encroachment, coupled with high ines for violators, to minimize invasions of the lanes by non-authorized vehicles. Camera enforcement at high-risk locations is somewhat less efective, however, when the selection of appropriate enforcement is let to local conditions.
Lack of Enforcement POINTS
Regular encroachment on BRT right-of-way -5
Some encroachment on BRT right-of-way -3
Occasional encroachment on BRT right-of-way -1
Point Deductions 51
Signiicant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform -5 points maximum
3 Even systems that have been designed to accommodate platform-level boarding could have gaps if the buses do not dock properly. A signiicant gap between the platform and the bus floor undermines the time-savings beneits of platform-level boarding and introduces a signiicant safety risk for passengers. Such gaps could occur for a variety of reasons, from poor basic design to poor driver training. Technical opinion varies on the best way to minimize the gap. Most experts feel that optical guidance systems are more expensive and less efective than measures such as the use of simple painted alignment markers and special curbs at station platforms where the drivers are able to feel the wheel touching the curb yet the curb does not damage the wheel. Boarding bridges are used successfully in many systems and would tend to eliminate gap problems.
POINT DEDUCTIONS BRT STANDARD 201 Note: If a system does not have platform-level boarding by design, no penalty points should be given.
Gap Minimization POINTS
Large gaps everywhere or kneeling buses required to minimize gaps -5
Slight gap remaining at some stations, large gap at remaining stations -4
Slight gap at most stations -3
No gap at some stations, slight gap at remaining stations -2
No gap at most stations, slight gap at remaining stations -1
Overcrowding -5 points
This was included because many systems that are generally well-designed are so overcrowded that they become alienating to passengers. While average “passenger standing density” is a reasonable indicator, getting this information is not easy, so we have allowed a more subjective measure to be used in cases of obvious overcrowding.
Scoring Guidelines: The full penalty should be imposed if the average passenger density during the peak hour is greater than ive passengers per square meter (0.46 per square t.) on more than 25% of buses in the predominant direction, or the average passenger density during the peak hour is greater than three passengers per square meter (0.28 per square t.) at stations.
If this metric is not easily calculated, then clearly visible signs of overcrowding on buses or in stations should be used, such as doors on the buses regularly being unable to close, stations overcrowded with passengers because they are unable to board full buses, etc.
Overcrowding POINTS
Passenger density during peak hour on more than 25% of buses in peak direction is > 5 m2, OR Passenger density during the peak hour at one or more stations is > 3 m2, OR -5 Passengers unable to board buses or enter stations
Point Deductions 52
Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations, and Technology Systems -10 points maximum
Even a BRT system that is well built and attractive can fall into disrepair. It is important that the busway, buses, stations, and technology systems be regularly maintained. A corridor can be penalized for each type of poor maintenance listed below for a total of -10 points.
Maintenance of Busway POINTS
Busway has signiicant wear, including potholes or warping, or debris, such as trash or snow -4
Maintenance of Buses POINTS POINT DEDUCTIONS
Buses have graiti, litter, seats in disrepair -2
Maintenance of Stations POINTS
Stations have graiti, litter, occupancy by vagrants or vendors, or structural damage -2
Maintenance of Technology Systems POINTS
Technology systems, including fare collection machines, are not functional -2
Low Peak Frequency -3 points maximum
How oten the bus comes during peak travel times such as rush hour is a good proxy for quality of service. For BRT to be truly competitive with alternative modes, like the private automobile, passengers need to be conident that their wait times will be short and the next bus will arrive soon.
Scoring Guidelines: Peak frequency is measured by the number of buses observed per hour for each route that passes the highest-demand segment on the corridor during the peak period. The peak frequency deduction is then allocated based on the percentage of routes that have a frequency of at least eight buses per hour in the peak period. If observations are not able to be made, frequencies may be obtained through route schedules.
% Routes With At Least 8 Buses per Hour POINTS
100% have at least 8 buses per hour 0
75% have at least 8 buses per hour -1
50% have at least 8 buses per hour -2
< 50% have at least 8 buses per hour -3
Point Deductions 53
Low Of-Peak Frequency -2 points maximum
As with peak frequency, how oten the bus comes during of-peak travel times is a good proxy for quality of service.
Scoring Guidelines: Of-peak frequency is measured by the buses per hour of each route passing through the highest-demand segment on the corridor during the of-peak (mid-day) period. The of-peak frequency score is then determined based on the percentage of all routes that have a frequency of at least four buses per hour during the of-peak period.
% Routes With At Least 4 Buses per Hour POINTS
100% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour 0
60% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour -1 POINT DEDUCTIONS < 60% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour -2
Point Deductions 54 Application to Rail Corridors
The BRT Standard was speciically designed by BRT experts to be applied to BRT corridors. However, almost all of the elements in The BRT Standard could easily be applied to rail transit corridors (including streetcar, tram, light rail, and metro) with minimal modiication. Using The BRT Standard to evaluate rail transit corridors would allow users to assess the general quality of rail transit services and compare them to other transit corridors, including BRT. It could also provide a more standard deinition of rapid transit and determine which rail transit corridors meet that deinition. The following section briefly describes a preliminary concept of how The BRT Standard might be applied to rail transit corridors.
BRT Basics The BRT Standard deines the BRT Basics as a set of elements essential to a service’s being called BRT. These elements all aim to minimize passenger delay, thus ensuring the “rapid” component of a bus rapid transit system. These same criteria can be applied without modiication to rail transit corridors to assess whether they meet a more general deinition of rapid transit as well. Terminology The BRT Standard oten refers to “busways”, “BRT”, and “buses.” When using The BRT Standard to assess rail transit corridors, these should be substituted with “transitways”, “rapid transit”, and “transit vehicles” throughout the text. The deinitions of a corridor would also need to be modiied to account for rail. Pavement Quality The BRT Standard metric of pavement quality should be modiied to evaluate rail quality. ITDP is engaging with rail transit experts who understand how railbed and tracks are designed for more guidance on this section. In the meantime, the evaluation of the railbed and tracks can be scored based on whether they are designed to a 30-year life span or not. Signaling The distance between rail vehicles is largely governed by the type of signal system that is used. Better signals can allow for increased headways and improved service. Since BRT systems are not limited by signal systems, this is not a part of The BRT Standard. Ideally, to evaluate rail transit corridors, a separate section would be added to address signal systems. BRTs would automatically score maximum points in this section, since buses are not constrained by signaling systems and can operate at closer spacings than are permitted by most signal systems. ITDP is consulting rail experts to determine how this section might be developed. Until that work is completed, signaling considerations could simply be ignored, as the efects of low-quality signal systems are likely captured by some of the point deductions for operations (e.g., overcrowding). Elements Speciic to BRT Some elements of The BRT Standard are more common in BRT systems. For example, very few metro and light-rail systems ofer express, limited, and local services or multiple routes operating on the same corridor. There are, however, prominent rail examples of both, such as the New York City Subway or the Lyon Tramway. These elements provide a higher quality of transit service for any mode and should be retained, even if they seldom result in points for rail systems. Grade Separated Systems Fully grade-separated electric rail transit systems, such as metro, will likely receive maximum points in a number of categories, including Transitway Alignment, Of-Board Fare Collection, Intersection Treatments, Minimizing Emissions, Stations Set Back from Intersections, and Platform- Level Boarding. This is logical, as grade separation removes many of the sources of delay that a transit system might encounter, making them more likely to achieve gold standard.
Application to Rail Corridors 55 Notes www.itdp.org www.rockefellerfoundation.org www.barrfoundation.org
www.climateworks.org www.gtz.de www.theicct.org www.unep.org
Introduction 57 BRT Standard Scorecard
CATEGORY max score CATEGORY max score BRT Basics (pp. 14 – 23) Communications (pp. 42 – 43)
Dedicated Right-of-Way 8 Branding 3
Busway Alignment 8 Passenger Information 2
Of-board Fare Collection 8 Access and Integration (pp. 44 – 49) Intersection Treatments 7 Universal Access 3 Platform-level Boarding 7 Integration with Other Public Transport 3
Service Planning (pp. 24 – 30) Pedestrian Access 3
Multiple Routes 4 Secure Bicycle Parking 2
Express, Limited, and Local Services 3 Bicycle Lanes 2
Control Center 3 Bicycle-sharing Integration 1
Located in Top Ten Corridors 2
Demand Proile 3 Point Deductions (pp. 50 – 54) Hours of Operations 2 Commercial Speeds -10 Multi-corridor Network 2 Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd) Below 1,000 -5 Infrastructure (pp. 31 – 36) Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way -5 Passing Lanes at Stations 4 Signiicant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform -5 Minimizing Bus Emissions 3 Overcrowding -5 Stations Set Back from Intersections 3 Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations, Center Stations 2 and Technology Systems -10
Pavement Quality 2 Low Peak Frequency -3
Low Of-peak Frequency -2 Stations (pp. 37 – 41)
Distances Between Stations 2 Safe and Comfortable Stations 3 Minimum Requirements for a Corridor to be Considered BRT Number of Doors on Bus 3 1. At least 3km length with dedicated lanes Docking Bays and Sub-stops 1 2. Score 4 or more points in dedicated right-of-way element 3. Score 4 or more points in busway alignment element Sliding Doors in BRT Stations 1 4. Score 20 or more points across all ive BRT Basics elements
BRONZE SILVER GOLD 55–69 points 70–84 points 85–100 points
Appendix C Proposed BRTuk Scoring Card and Standard CCategories
Appendix C - Proposed UK BRT Scoring Standards and Sub Categories
Country UK UK UK
City Cambridge Crawley Hampshire
Cambridgeshire Route 10, 20 & System Busway 100 Eclipse Corridor Route A Corridor Length (km) 26 24 3.4 BRT Basics 26 22 19 22 Busway alignment 7 5 3 5 Dedicated right‐of‐way 7 5 5 7 Intersection treatments 6 6 5 4 Platform‐level boarding 6 6 6 6 Service Planning 24 19 16 13 Multiple routes 4 4 3 1 Peak frequency 3 333 Off‐peak frequency 2 223 Express, limited, and local services 3 0 1 1 Control center 3 3 0 0 Located In top ten corridors 2 2 2 2 Demand Profile 3 321 Hours of operations 2 2 2 2 Multi‐corridor network 2 0 1 0 Infrastructure 8 5 6 6 Minimizing bus emissions 3 0 3 3 Stations set back from intersections 3 3 1 1 Pavement quality 2 2 2 2 Station Design and Station‐bus Interface 3 3 3 3 Safe and comfortable stations 3 3 3 3 Quality of Service & Passenger Information Systems 5 5 6 5 Branding 3 3 3 3 Passenger information 2 2 3 2 Integration and Access 14 12 10 11 Universal access 3 3 2 2 Integration with other public transport 3 2 3 1 Pedestrian access 3 3 3 3 Secure bicycle parking 2 2 0 1 Bicycle lanes 2 2 1 2 Bicycle‐sharing integration 1 0 1 2 TOTAL 100 80 66 60 60 BRT BASICS 26 22 19 22
Total Score: 92 66 60 60 Gold, Silver, Bronze, or Basic BRT Gold Silver Silver