Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) an Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport

Home , Articulated bus, Bangkok BRT, BRT Standard, Bus lane, Bus rapid transit, Gold Line (Bangkok)

20th ACEA

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport

DECEMBER 2013

Robert Cervero

University of California Berkeley, USA

Report_20thSAG.indd 1 26/11/2013 15:37 Content

Introduction: rationale and main objectives 3

BRT: a suite of high-quality, bus-based mobility options 3

Global trends 4

BRT systems by countries and regions 5 Regional comparisons of BRT ridership and performance 7 Urban densities and BRT usage 9

Characterising BRT: the supply side 11

Infrastructure and running-ways 11 Stations 11 BRT vehicles 12 Network designs 13 BRT operations, routing and scheduling 14 Fare collection and enforcement 17

BRT system performance 17

Operating speeds 17 Comfort 18 Safety 19 Environmental impacts 19 Social equity 20

BRT versus urban rail: cost and service comparisons 20

Cost comparisons 20 Urban densities and cost-effective investments 23 The limits of BRT relative to urban rail 23 Net welfare impacts 24

BRT and urban development 24

BRT management and institutional challenges 28

Managed competition in Bogotá 28 Other BRT institutional experiences 29

Conclusion 31

Report_20thSAG.indd 2 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 3 occupying the middle ground urban between rail and tradi as of thought often is BRT then, costs, and quality service of terms In 1998). (Cervero, cost the of afraction at but subway bus withsimilar service performance of– a a high-quality metro” a“surface as system BRT city’s the to referred Lerner, Jaime time, the at mayor its and BRT pioneering with credited is Brazil, Curitiba, price. lower amuch at systems of urban rail characteristics capacity, high-performance high- the mimics that system abus-based as BRT frame all agendas in the foreseeable future. given global and projections growth other pressing policy future likely BRT’s on discussions with closes report The been manage introduced BRT to services. effectively discussions on that the arrangements have institutional near BRT stations and along corridors. This is followed by promoteproactively transit-oriented development (TOD) to cities to handful a among efforts to turns then report The relativesystems to urban densities are also compared. BRT and light-rail heavy-rail, of cost-effectiveness the on mance relative to urban rail transit Information systems. perfor and cost BRT’s of acomparison by followed is This reviewed. then –are like the and collections, fare stations, terms of running ways, rolling stock, route configurations, in – operations and designs System noted. are effectiveness Relationships urban between densities and BRT cost- systems. advanced and extensive most the with world the trends are reviewed, next highlighting cities and regions of Global costs. and qualities service of aspectrum across defined first is BRT worldwide. systems BRT implementing local streets. a feeder vehicle, collecting and customers distributing on into morph can busway or lane bus a dedicated on services –systems the same vehicle that provides line-haul speedy due to of advantages the rubber-tyre inherent flexibility sizemany suburban markets and cities small-to-medium ofpatterns settlement also the serve better low-density systems bus-based sive urban rail High-quality investments. expen more far to alternative a cost-effective as worldwide bus-based mobility options BRT: high-quality, of asuite 2. rationale and main objectives Introduction: 1. Dozens of definitions can be found on BRT however they they however BRT on found be can definitions of Dozens and designing with experiences reviews report This popularity gained have systems (BRT) Transit Rapid Bus

- - -

with urban rail systems and private automobiles, exclusive, jumper lanes. queue- and stops bus far-side as such flows, vehicle expedite to capacities and run on clean fuels; treatments and intersection reducing vehicle dwell times); vehicles that are quiet,have high thus and bus the on get to steps climb to passengers for boarding andsame-level alighting (eliminating the need and platforms raised services; bus traditional than stations stops/ between spacing wider services); bus conventional (e.g., logos and colour schemes that distinguish BRT from orregardless These not. whether include: high-end branding common are BRT of features Other buses). on station” “next dynamic passenger information bus” (“next systems at stations; treatment of buses at signalised and intersections, real-time managementreal-time and dispatching, preferential signal for location) vehicle BRT: AVL (automated high-end of parcel reliable Advanced services. technologies are and also part more thus, and scheduling predictable more for allows and stops at time dwell reduces This systems. rail urban to ter, more boarding orderly, and similar alighting, multi-door fas for allowing bus, the boarding before payment fare date since they important accommo areBus stations particularly andand boarding platforms more areas. station substantial exclusive for or dedicatedoperating buses, rights-of-way is services the from presenceguishes low-end high-end of usually has simpler bus shelters.Thus, what mainly distin stations, of instead and busways, full-segregated not but rior customer service. BRT Lite offers some form ofpriority modern, clean vehicles; branding and marketing; and supe fare collection/verification; frequent and rapid services; stations; pre-board and corridors; enclosed, high-quality service, featuring:quality an integrated of network routes metro- a offer China, Guangzhou, and Colombia Bogotá, in design such and services, features.operating as High-end key of terms in services moderate-quality to low-end from “BRT Lite”. “BRT called have some which services, quality lower from BRT of a separate that right-of-way “high-end” distinguishes element the is It 2007). Hook, and (Wright service” customer and frequent and operations, excellence in marketing and provision of segregated rapid right-of-way infrastructure, through theurban mobility and cost-effective comfortable transit that system delivers bus-based fast, high-quality technology’s strongest BRT proponents, defines as “a the of one as emerged has which (ITDP), Policy lopment and lower cost of a conventional bus (Deng and Nelson, 2011). the speed and of reliability rail, and the operating flexibility worlds: both of best the offers it ways, In systems. bus tional For BRT, to truly represent a mode that is time-competitive time-competitive is that amode represent BRT, truly to For New York-based Institute of Transportation &Deve Transportation of Institute York-based New Table

distinguishes high-end, full-service BRT full-service high-end, distinguishes - - - - -

26/11/2013 15:37 3 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

dedicated right-of-way is an essential feature. A new termi- The three BRT systems that have been awarded the nology has been introduced in recent years, adopting the Gold Standard – Bogotá, Guangzhou, and Lima, Peru – to Olympic medals of Gold, Silver, and Bronze, to rate BRT in date have also added elements that safeguard or improve terms of service quality. In The BRT Standard 2013, a col- the speed, reliability, and comfort of services. These include lection of pro-BRT organisations led by ITDP identified five full-service control centres that GPS monitor bus locations essential elements needed to “keep the ‘R’ in Bus Rapid (to respond to incidents, avoid bunching and recording Transit” and thus achieve a Gold Standard: demand patterns for future service adjustments) and passing lanes at stations. • busway alignment: median-location of a busway or bus- only corridor that minimises conflicts with turning vehicles, delivery vehicles, and other potential obstructions (Figure 1) ; 3. • dedicated right-of-way: physical segregation and full enforcement; Global trends • off-board fare collection: barrier-controlled turnstiles that verify off-board ticket payment; To date, more than 150 cities have implemented some • intersection treatments: turn prohibitions across busway form of BRT system worldwide, carrying around 28 million and sign priorities; and passengers each weekday. At present, BRT systems world- • platform-level boarding: elimination of steps and wide comprised 280 corridors, 4,300km of routes, 6,700 shrinkage of gaps between vehicles and platforms through stations and 30,000 buses (BRTDATA.ORG). bus guidance, raised platforms, and boarding bridges. BRT systems are currently being added at a geometric Lower-quality BRT exists where elements deviate from rate, gaining particular favour in the developing world, this (according these services Silver or Bronze standards), following on the heels of widely publicised BRT successes such as the use of delineators or colourised pavement in lieu in Curitiba, Bogotá, Mexico City, Istanbul, Ahmedabad and of physical separators along the dedicated right-of-way or Guangzhou. These developing cities show that high-per- barrier-free, proof-of-payment schemes instead of turnstile formance BRT systems that yield appreciable mobility and controls with verified ticketing for passenger entry. environmental benefits can be built at an affordable price.

Table 1 Differences between High-End BRT and BRT Lite

High-End BRT/Full-Service Low-End BRT/ BRT “Lite”/ Moderate-Service

Exclusive transit-ways; dedicated bus lanes; Mixed traffic; modest intersection Running Ways some grade separation; intersection treatments treatments

Enhance shelters to large Stops, sometimes with shelter, seating, lighting, Stations/Stops temperature-controlled transit centres and passenger information

Service Design Frequent services; integrated local More traditional service designs and express services; timed transfers Scientific Advisory Group Report Off-vehicle collection; smart cards; More traditional fare media Fare Collection multi-door loading

Automated Vehicle Location (AVL); More limited technological applications ACEA

th Technology passenger information systems; traffic signal

20 preferences; vehicle docking/guidance systems

Report_20thSAG.indd 4 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 5 some developing cities that have historically lacked a viable aviable lacked historically have that cities developing some To systems. rail urban pre-existing to complement a robust as BRT in invested have Bangkok and City Mexico Seoul, like cities times, recent In 1998). (Cervero, (LRT) Transit Rail Light busways mainly because they were more than affordable time. Early BRT adopters, such and as Curitiba, built Ottawa economically competitive. investing in schooling and educationwas the key to being felt that share the twice nearly was This 2011). (Economist, stage global the on business for competitive more city their make to done be could that thing important most the was mayors that reported “improving public transport/roads” Intelligence Unit (2011) found that 61 percent of surveyed Economist the series, Liveanomics its BRT. of In potential development economic the to drawn also are Politicians results. quick want who taxpayers and politicians to attractive particularly is place in is system entire an before segments and ever-worsening congestion. The to ability traffic open and expanded quickly during periods of rapid motorisation built be can transit high-capacity because BRT to drawn been have Lagos, and Paulo Sao Delhi, Jakarta, like world, Besides of cost-savings, highly congested the mega-cities Rail Transit can be (LRT) more than four times as expensive. Light 2013). al., et (Suzuki length similar of system a BRT much as times 10 cost can show, studies systems, Metrorail

The rationales for BRT investments have broadened with with broadened have investments BRT for rationales The Figure 1

source Designs thatand minimise maintain obstructions high travel speeds, receiving 7 in points The BRT Standard 2013. Desirable busway alignments ITDP et al. (2013) al. et ITDP comfort along existing roadways (Finn et al., 2011). and punctuality reliability, service enhancing on afocus with areas, built-up in tramways to affa more alternative ordable as introduced being –is Service) of Level High with (Buses BHSL called –also BRT cities, medium-size in particularly Europe, of much In Ahmedabad. and Jakarta Lagos, like cities characterises This system. public anew of backbone the as serving transformation, amajor of part is BRT services, uncoordinatedmostly private bus and informal paratransit public transit instead system, relying on a constellation of transit riders (Cervero, 1998). alonggrowth mixed-use corridors compact, that attract urban channel to BRT using for known best today is Curitiba expanded carrying-capacity. boarding tubes significantly buses and well-designed Bi-articulated services. fast frequent, and offcollection fare stations, -board attractive São Paulo’s metrorail system– dedicated right-of-way, nearby of features many mimic to sought it 1976, in Metro’ ‘Surface its launched Curitiba When cities. other 30 to tem sys- pioneering Curitiba’s of success the extending systems, Brazil has emerged as the global leader in building BRT years. 15 last the in built been have systems these of majority number of cities BRTwith as systems of mid-2013. The vast BRT sysTems By coUnTRIes and ReGIons and By coUnTRIes sysTems BRT

FIGURE FIGURE 2

rank-orders countries or regions based on the 26/11/2013 15:37 5 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 6 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Beijing, Hangzhou, Xiamen, Jinan and Guangzhou, having Other Latin American countries, notably Colombia and opened dedicated-lane BRT services since 2005. Over the Mexico but also Chile, Peru and Ecuador, have since followed past eight years, China has added BRT lane-kms at a faster Brazil’s lead. Latin America is today the epicentre of the pace than any part of the world (Figure 3) . All have been global BRT movement. A third of BRT route kilometres and high-end investments. nearly two thirds (63%) of ridership are in Latin America (BRTDATA.ORG, 2013). Bogotá’s 110km TransMilenio is reco- Figure 2 reveals that after Brazil and China, three gnised as the Gold Standard of BRT. Delegations of officials developed countries – the US, France and the UK – rank and dignitaries from around the world visit Bogotá to marvel next in terms of numbers of cities with BRT systems. With at the system. Operating on a two-lane dedicated car- the exception of exclusive busways like the Orange line in riageway, TransMilenio carries upwards of 40,000 passen- Los Angeles and Eugene, Oregon’s EmX, most US systems gers per hour per direction, which matches the passen- fall in the category of BRT lite. The purveyors of BRT in ger-throughputs of most metros. The system also boasts Europe were Runcon UK, which installed a Figure 8 busway enhanced stations (accessible by networks of skyways), as part of a master-planned new town, and Essen, Germany, smart card-based fare collection, advanced control systems, the first city to build a track-guided busway. Today, European distinctive images and affordable fares. TransMilenio’s BRT systems, particularly those in France, have a more rail- patronage is growing at a healthy pace of around 10 percent like appearance than elsewhere, such as in Caen, Paris and annually, from 800,000 daily riders when it opened in 2001 Rouen (Deng and Nelson, 2011). BRT systems in these places to around 1.7 million today, accounting for 74 percent of operate on dedicated rights-of-way, supported by various public transit trips in the city. Finance policy has played a role guidance technologies, and feature vehicles that too many in TransMilenio’s success. In 2000, a 20 percent surcharge are visually indistinguishable from modern tramways. Rouen, was tacked onto all gasoline sales in Bogotá, with half the France, has three guided BRT lines, called TEOR (Transport revenues earmarked for TransMilenio infrastructure. As a Est-Ouest Rouennais). Optical guidance allows TEOR vehi- cross-subsidy from the 19 percent of Bogotá’s population cles to run along tightly restricted corridors, offering riders that owned cars to transit-dependents, the policy promoted reliable, comfortable and accessible services (Rambaud et social as well as environmental sustainability. al., 2008). Other French cities, like Nantes, operate similarly high-quality bus-based systems though using more tradi- China has followed Latin America’s footsteps in aggres- tional technologies. Nantes’ 6.9km busway connects a ring sively building BRT, with more than ten cities, including road to the city centre with a frequency of 3 minute headways

Figure 2 Number of cities with BRT systems, by national and regional settings, 2013 source BRTDATA.ORG

31 30

BRT cities BRT 17 of 15 14 13

umber 11 N 10 10 9 8 Scientific Advisory Group Report 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 3

0 ACEA th US

20 Brazil India China France Africa Mexico Mexico Sweden Colombia Australia Germany Other Latin Other Asia Netherlands Other Europe United Kingdom

Report_20thSAG.indd 6 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 7 the route (Pirie, 2011). on vehicles of 4percent just up make vehicles BRT though even corridor, its along trips transport public of aquarter or aday, passengers 200,000 almost carries it Still, 2009). IBIS, and (ITP anywhere cheapest the of one build, to kilometre per million US$1.7 just cost 2008, in opened which system, Lagos’ spectrum. the of end Lite BRT the on –fall Capetown experience as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ (Deng and Nelson, 2011). Fastrack overall rated have percent –95 customers from praise won has system Fastrak Thameside conventional Kent Kent. and Swansea in as such UK, the in built been guidance busways without have2011). Purpose-built also (Foster, system point-to-point longest world’s the reputedly is busway Cambridgeshire length, in 19km At Essen. and track-guided busways built decades two earlier in Adelaide Leeds and modeled after the Luton-Dunstable, O-Bahn guided in BRT services Cambridgeshire, Crawley, Ipswich, ride at terminus the outlying (Finn et al., 2011). atuniquetreatments intersections, branding and park-and- for priority stations, most of the ITS-equipped operations, it runs on pavement and rubber tyres:centre dedicated lane tram lines save in all for respects, well-established the fact city’s the resembles system bus-based The peak. the during

Km of BRT lines: busways & mixed Traffic of investments BRT of pace furious the Notwithstanding Africa’s Lagos, Johannesburg threeand -- BRT systems Like France, the UK today several boasts high-end Figure 3 600 500 200 400 300 100 0

2004 source 2012 to 2004 directions): two kilometres, (in lengths network BRT China’s in Growth CHINABRT.ORG 2005 2006 2007

2008 most riders, as shown in in shown as riders, most track-guided buses were former (Cervero, motorists 1998). riding those of percent 40 Adelaide, In 2005). al., et (Peak car private from switched having most users, transit new are systems BRT new by served riders of percent 33 to 24 percent that estimated US the in study One train. by commuted or bus aconventional used previously who those riders, specifically former motorists asattracts opposed to BRT system in a day – 2.3 million. million. –2.3 aday in system BRT entire an on moved passengers most the for record the holds also Curitiba 2012). Rojas, and (Duarte riders weekday that funnel into BRT Curitiba averages stations, 2.26 million nised BRT Counting passengerssystem. on feeder lines patro heavily most world’s the is TransMilenio Bogotá’s US and Europe. 1.7 With million passengers per weekday, the of cities BRT for averages than greater times 10 more was ridership weekday average data, reliable with cities BRT person trips made that year (Pourbaix, 2011). (Pourbaix, year that made trips person motorised all of percent 0.3 a mere and trips transport public all of percent 2.2 but were worldwide systems BRT by served trips passenger 28 million nearly the 2011, In growth. for room of plenty remains there decade, past the of BRT ri BRT of Re gi BRT systems in Latin America have attracted, by far, the far, the by attracted, have America Latin in systems BRT it if only benefits mobility and environmental yields BRT onal compa 2009 de r sh i p and pe p and ri sons 2010 F igure r

4 fo . Among 38 Latin American American Latin 38 . Among F igure r mance 2011 4

shows that Asian 2012 -

26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 7 8 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Figure 4 Average weekday ridership among BRT cities, by continent-region Numbers in bars denote number of BRT cities in region that are included in the analysis. source BRTDATA.ORG

Latin America 38 427868

Asia 28 256507

Africa 2 119000

Australia/NZ 5 78406

US/Canada 20 42772

Europe 27 28709

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000

Average Weekday ridership among BRT cities

Figure 5 Scatterplot of average weekday ridership and BRT length among 115 BRT cities source BRTDATA.ORG ridership weekday verage A Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20 BRT length (kms of busway & mixed-traffic lanes, one direction)

Report_20thSAG.indd 8 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 9 fairly robust. relationship BRT between supply and demand, moreover, is The lines. BRT of kilometres of terms in side supply the one. inverse an generally say, is to safe is it ownership, BRT like and ridership factors household income and vehicle than a million quarter daily riders. The relationship between BRT cities, dominated by China and India, averaged more kilometre of BRT busway or dedicated lane. lane. dedicated or busway BRT of kilometre indicator of BRT performance: average weekday riders per levelsridership considerably as become systems vary larger. reveals, plot the As though. 0.56 is ridership and kilometres BRT between correlation The data. reliable with systems (Yazici et al., 2013). 2013). al., et (Yazici 1,077 TransMilenio’s as much as twice than day, more per Metrobus, for example, averages 2,255 boardings per bus and 2010;(Hildalgo Carrigan, Yazici et al., 2013). Istanbul’s used intensively most the are Istanbul and Guadajalara systems. European as many as 6times nearly and systems, American North as many as 5times than more systems, African and Oceana as many as 3times than more systems, Asian as kilometre BRT averaging more than 2 ½ times as many weekday riders per productive, most the far by are systems American Latin that

Latin America Australia/NZ US/Canada Latin America and Asian BRT similarly dominate on Combining ridership with supply-side data yields a basic abasic yields data supply-side with ridership Combining On a riders per bus basis, BRT systems in Guayaquil, Guayaquil, in systems BRT basis, bus per a riders On Figure 6 Europe Africa Asia F

igure 0 source analysis. the in included are that region in cities BRT of number denote bars in Numbers Average weekday riders per BRT kilometre among BRT cities, by continent-region 27 20 2 5 28 38 5 shows a simple scatterplot for 115 BRT BRT 115 for scatterplot asimple shows BRTDATA.ORG 2000 2946 4000 4151 F 5305 igure 5482 6000 A 6 B per riders verage shows 6433 8000 cities brt among kilometre bus rt 10000 goes, “mass transit” needs “mass”, or density. density. “mass”, or needs transit” “mass goes, and Zupan, 1977; Ewing and Cervero, 2010). the As saying ridership, whether for or bus-based rail (Pushkarev systems transit on influence astrong have also densities urban rates, ridership data in Development. Transit-Oriented Rapid –Bus BRTOD of favour in argues vity urbanassociation between densities and producti ridership more as urban densities increase. Regardless, the positive vary to tends kilometre BRT per riders of number the reveals, scatterplot the as and (.225) correlation simple the weakens outliers of presence The relationship. positive a moderately for which reliable data could be obtained, obtained, be could data reliable which for cities BRT 105 For densities. urban and km) BRT per (riders gauge of the relationship BRT ridership productivity between role riders and in boosting productivity. attracting a played have affordability, and quality service BRT as such basis. Clearly, in other than Latin America, factors density, derably more customers, overall and on a per kilometre than yet their Asian counterparts they tendconsi to attract densities lower considerably average however, cities, BRT urbanbetween densities and BRT ridership. Latin American tified by region. Comparing Comparing region. by tified sents average population densities among BRT cities, stra U rb In to addition like factors income and car ownership Disaggregating data to level the city provides a better an dens an 12000 iti F es and BRT u BRT and es igure 14000 4 suggests a suggests strong association F igure 16000 sa 7 g withsimilarly stratified e 17160 F igure 18000 F igure 8 suggests 20000 7 pre - - - -

26/11/2013 15:37 9 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 10 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Figure 8 is dominated by BRT cities from developing 3545 to 2825 people in developed countries, declining in all countries. In developed cities of Europe and North America 32 developed cities surveyed by the World Bank (Angel, 2011). that have experienced auto-fueled suburbanisation and Because of the inherent flexibility advantages of rubber- sprawl in recent decades, BRT’s market niche is considered tyre buses – e.g., unlike rail systems, the same vehicle that to be smaller to medium-size cities and the suburbs of bigger functions as a line-haul carrier can also morph into a neigh- cities. As a flexible, versatile technology, BRT is able to better bourhood feeder -- BRT is especially suited for many lower serve the spread-out development patterns than urban rail density non-CBD settings. In The Transit Metropolis, BRT is and the private car better (Cervero, 1998; Levinson et al., defined as a form of “adaptive transit” – best able to serve 2003). Despite compact-city and smart-growth initiatives, largely market-driven, spread-out development patterns population continues to disperse in most advanced econo- (Cervero, 1998). mies. From 1990 to 2000, average urban densities fell from

Figure 7 Average population densities among BRT cities, by continent-region Numbers in bars denote number of BRT cities in region that are included in the analysis. Year of density data varies by city, ranging from 1999 to 2011 source UN Habitat (2012)

Asia 33 9619 Latin America 41 7950

Africa 3 6151

Europe 30 2633

Australia/NZ 5 1639

US/Canada 20 1528

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Average population densities of brt cities ( persons per km2)

Figure 8 Scatterplot of riders per BRT kilometre and population density among 105 BRT cities source BRTDATA.ORG and UN Habitat (2012) kilometre brt per riders Scientific Advisory Group Report weekday ACEA th 20 Population density (persons per km2, metropolitan area)

Report_20thSAG.indd 10 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 11 junctures. key at disruptions avoid to bridge long avery and tunnels several features longest, sixth world’s the busway, 49km on signal prioritisation schemes (BRTDATA.ORG). Xiamen’s offersystems somedegree of grade separation; most rely BRT exclusive-lane 14 Only intersections. busy at necessary with metrorail some systems, degree is of grade-separation rule. the than exception the more far are Brisbane), (e.g., motorways alongside or dedicated roadway, whether on a former railroad alignment own their with Systems freeway. or street arterial an of centre in • on • in • tems do not. do tems protected, exclusive sys whereas rights-of-way, low-end mostly BRTs have high-end earlier, noted As provided. car or metrorail) depends on significantly the rights-of-way collection. operations: network design; operations and routing; and fare BRT on discussions by followed is This stock. rolling and and running ways; infrastructure wide attributes: stations; along • ways: four in operate buses lanes, bus exclusive or lanes median dedicated with systems BRT For buses. BRT from traffic regular separate to barriers physical and markers on rely typically lanes curb or shoulders dedicated using Those slowest. the are systems Mixed-traffic 2011). Wright, 2003; al., et (Levinson busways called also lanes, bus exclusive using (4) or curb lanes; (3) running in dedicated median lanes; and shoulder dedicated in operating (2) intersections); at priority gurations: (1) running in mixed traffic (sometimeswith signal C 4. Infr Bogotá, Nantes,Bogotá, Seoul, Beijing) Los Angeles, Amsterdam) haracterising BRT: the supply side

If at-surface BRT lines are to become time-competitive time-competitive become to are lines BRT at-surface If ofThe majority busways operate overwhelming in the BRT services operate across four different lane confi lane different four across operate services BRT private (vis-à-vis BRT of time-competitive and speed The supply- of terms in systems BRT discusses section This arterial tunnels

elevated as

railroad tru

medians (e.g., c

structures tur

alignments Seattle, e and runni

freeways

(e.g., Boston)

(e.g.,

Nagoya,

(e.g., Ottawa, ng

Cleveland,

-ways Adelaide,

Miami,

Xiamen) Vancouver,

- -

expensive than other BRT running environments. ride, however these tend systems to be considerably more scenic often and asmooth enjoy riders stabilisers, horizontal and wheels guide by steered and tracks between Nestled rights-of-way, such as along narrow freeway medians. restricted with areas in built typically are Track systems buses (e.g., Nagoya, Leeds, Adelaide, Mannhaim, Nantes). 28km. is system length median the busways, dedicated with systems BRT global 36 Among (70km). Curitiba and (81.5km) City Mexico by followed system, longest second the has Bogotá busway, of 105km With specifications. TransMilenio sionals from Colombia to design TransJakarta according to profes with it staffed and Jakarta in office a branch opened TransJakarta was designed to mimic TransMilenio. ITDP lanes, bus dedicated protected, of 134km With lanes. BRT inside a steel drum (Suzuki et al., 2013). 2013). al., et (Suzuki drum asteel inside being to likened been have they that structures the shakes can be so deafening during rush hours when nearby traffic stations bus centre into feed that skyways metal of network disabled, and Bogotá’s especially in settings. warm-climate and elderly the for particularly taxing, be can flyovers and can be dangerous, andtrian-crossings skywalks negotiating pedes at streets parallel busy Crossing access. customer to disruptions of expense the at often however buses, between do most BRT Centre facilitate stations. stations transfers systems. BRT for stations all and Lianyungang), surveillance has CCTV been at installed or falling onto bus lanes. In China (e.g., in Gaungzhou, Lanzhou prevent people from entering unauthorised station locations regulate passenger flows, reducethe risk of accidents and end BRT also stations feature sliding doors plexi-glass that high- Most (CHINABRT.ORG). worldwide systems BRT 30 than more at found sunrays, and rain from protection full provide that platforms station at shelters and awnings large are common More city). capital coldest second world’s the is Ottawa given (necessary winter the in heated and summer the in air-conditioned are example, for Transitway, Ottawa’s occasionally temperature control. Fully enclosed on stations fare seating machines, and comfortable waiting areas, and as well –as brochures) maps, schedules, (e.g., static and station) at bus” (“next dynamic real-time –both information withreliable featurestations systems passenger full-service BRT High-end abus. catch to where marking asign than a St Several cities have experimented track-guided with dedicated of network largest the boasts today Jakarta Just as most busways lie in the median of roadways, so so roadways, of median the in lie busways most as Just more providing on themselves pride systems BRT ti ons - -

26/11/2013 15:37 11 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 12 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

The BRT Standard 2013 sets the ideal station spacing at or throuhg joint ventures (e.g., MAN and Huanghai make 1.5km, or around a mile, apart: beyond this, customers spend buses for Dalian) and in India, Tata has mostly cornered the too much time walking, whereas less than this, bus speeds BRT market. Chinese manufacturers, such as Xiamen-based are compromised (ITDP et al, 2013). In built-up urban areas, Kinglong, are branching out, designing and building buses most BRT stations are 500 to 600 metres apart. Australian not only for Xiamen’s high-end BRT system but also for and US systems average considerably longer spacings of Guangzhou, Lianyungang, Zaozhuang and Lima, Peru. 1.5km, reflecting their lower average population densities (Hensher and Golob, 2008). Amsterdam averages the Worldwide, most BRT buses today run on clean diesel longest spacing, 1750m between stations, followed by Los fuels that meet Euro III and Euro IV emission standards. Due Angeles, Bangkok and Zoahuang, China, whose BRT sta- its natural resource base, all BRT buses in Australian cities run tions are around 1.5km apart (CHINABRT.ORG). At 470m, on CNG. Because natural gas burns more cleanly than liquid Nantes averages the closest spacing among BRT systems fossil fuels, it does not emit diesel particulates and gene- with dedicated running ways. rates much lower levels of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. The combination of fast-moving vehicles on busways (as in Lastly, park-and-ride lots are found at only a few BRT Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney) running on clean fuels means stations, typically at terminuses, such as Los Angeles’ that Australian BRT services are the world’s eco-friendliest. Orange Line. More common is bicycle parking, found at BRT stations in Beijing, Guangzhou, Changde and Lianyungang, Outside of Australia, Jakarta, Lima, Nantes, Los Angeles China, as well as Amsterdam, Utrecht, Bogotá and Bangkok. and several Chinese cities also run CNG buses. LNG is used Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Nantes and Mexico City, moreover, by Beijing’s and Guangzhou’s fleets. Some of Curitiba’s offer bike sharing in the vicinity of BRT stations. Besides BRT buses are propelled by biofuels. In Istanbul, Hefei, Zheng systems in North American, Europe and Australia, wheel- and Seattle, diesel-hybrid buses are operated. Istanbul’s chair accessible stations are today found in a handful of ATC Phileas buses, 26 metres in length that accommodate stations in the developing world, notably Bangkok, Cali, up to 230 passengers, run on clean diesel along high-speed Leon, Capetown, Johannesburg and Lima. busway and electric batteries in idling and slow-speed mode. Electric traction allows lighter vehicles, faster acce- BRT vehicles leration and the ability to feed energy back into batteries or the power grid through regenerative brakes. In tunnels, Modern BRT fleets feature low-floor, clean-fuel buses Seattle uses diesel-electric hybrid buses, which operate with more and wider doors than traditional buses, along with similar to hybrid cars outside the tunnel and in a low-noise, a unique image or brand. Ballooning ridership and the need low-emissions “hush mode” (in which the diesel engine does to accommodate swift, large-volume loading has meant not exceed idle speed) when underground. that articulated and bi-articulated buses with multiple doors are becoming common (Levinson et al., 2003; Hildalgo and Branding is another distinguishing feature of BRT buses. Gutiérrez, 2013). ITDP et al. (2013) calls for a minimum of Logos, colour schemes and other visual element are used three doors for articulated buses and two for regular buses. to convey BRT’s unique identify, distinguishing them from Along busy corridors, double- and triple-section articulated regular buses. Las Vegas’s BRT buses and stations, for vehicles can carry more than 150 passengers. Curitiba’s example, feature old casino signs that reflect the city’s iconic 24m bi-articulated buses have a crunch load capacity of identity and history. A distinct identity is also a hallmark of 270 passengers. Istanbul’s 4-door Mercedes CapaCity Europe’s BHLS systems, a means to distinguish high-quality buses can carry upwards of 200 passengers. During peak bus services from regular ones. periods, far more people stand than sit. Wide aisles provide space to move around. BRT Lite buses often have a low-floor or kneeling configu- ration, allowing same-level boarding and alighting at simple Numerous manufacturers are today producing curbside stations. Higher-end buses that stop at raised BRT buses. Large systems, such as Bogotá and Mexico platforms or full-service stations, such in Quito and Bogotá, Scientific Advisory Group Report City, operate BRT buses from multiple manufacturers, deploy ramps to expedite passenger flows. Some systems, in their cases Volvo, Mercedes and Scania. Curitiba’s such as in Beijing and Hangzhou, combine low-floor buses special bi-articulated buses and left-side boarding with slightly raised station platforms (Kantor et al., 2006).

ACEA Ligeirinho or Speedy are made by Volvo, whose South th American bus manufacturing plant is located in Curitiba. In Europe and particularly France, the distinction 20 China’s BRT buses are often made by Chinese manufactures between BRT and rail is becoming increasingly blurred.

Report_20thSAG.indd 12 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 13 Bradford, Sussex, Edinburgh, Luton Ives. and Cambridge-St. busescurb-guided have been introduced in Ipswich, Leeds, mechanical of versions improved UK, the In stabilisers). Essen (i.e., nestled along guide-wheels horizontal tracks/ and Adelaide of systems O’Bahn original the with introduced mechanical guidanceadvanced than the first-generation steering. Thesemagnetic-guided are systems far more Spain in 2008. Eindhoven’s Phileas vehicles have electro- since 2001. Optimal guidance was adopted in Castellón guidance optical using been have Rouen in buses Civis tems. suburbs. the in diesel on run can but town, in wires trical on course. Twisto vehicles are propelled by overhead elec- it keeps that rail a central as well as tyres rubber on running label, to hardest the is system Twisto Caen’s runway. a dedicated off and on both operate Nancy and Caen in vehicles TVR Rubber-tyred Metz. in used are vehicles Hool four optical guidance doors, and wide aisle. Tram-like Van vehiclesarticulated appearance, train-like with including diesel-electric hybrid feature Civis Rouen’s wheels. covered Reservée) by Bombardier that feature rounded bodies and Voie sur (Transport TVR and Irisbus by Civis purchased French cities like Caen, Lyon, and Nancy Rouen have Sensitive to the need to a project modern, rail-like image,

Steering distinguishes some European further BRT sys- Figure 9

source build-out at network BRT TransJakarta the of coverage regional Planned ITDP et al. (2013) al. et ITDP across the city of 14-million inhabitant’s sprawlingacross landscape of the city 14-million direction all in stretching that, just do to aims out build at network proposed TransJakarta’s access. regional of degree private automobile, it is imperative that they deliver the same the with time-competitive be to are systems transit based notably regional freeway and motorway If networks. bus- facilities, of other regional transportation and connectivity fl exible routedesigns that minimise transfers. Chinese citiespoints, tend to have and branching networks transfer with systems hub-and-spoke or radial than Rather such systems, as in Guangzhou. multi-directional flexible, et al., 2012). planar urban form Their calls spread-out, for more to have high, urban fairly uniformly distributed densities (Yang Chinese corridors. In contrast, cities tend along high-density distributed are trips Most systems. BRT radial accord-ingly Curitiba and Bogotá, have radial forms distinct city and philosophies. Earlyservice Latin America BRT cities, like (FIGURE (FIGURE histories and broader agendas. policy In Seoul, BRT was neTwoRK desIGns desIGns neTwoRK Ideally, a BRT network mimics the spatial coverage coverage spatial the mimics network aBRT Ideally, refl also They form. ect urban follow often networks BRT BRT network designs also refl ect cities’ public transport transport reflpublic also cities’ designs ect network BRT 9 ) . 13 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 14 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

introduced as part of a radical service reform. There, BRT ting rail, regular bus and mini–bus services -- physically as functions as high-capacity trunklines, and most other routes well as through scheduling and tariff s/fare media. Several have been reconfi gured to serve as feeders, to cater to non- of Guangzhou’s BRT stations are connected to the city’s BRT markets, or provide nice-market services like downtown metrorail system via air-conditioned tunnels. Integration of circulators or cross-town express lines (Cervero and Kang, BRT routes is equally important. Mexico City’s Metrobus 2011). In low-income settings, such as southeast Asia, BRT added 20,000 daily passengers by eliminating the transfer has been introduced partly to help rationalise and formalise penalty following the direct route connections of separate transit services, with informal or quasi-legal micro- and mini- BRT corridors (ITDP et al., 2013). In Los Angeles, intermodal buses, either eliminated or upgraded/redesigned, to play a BRT-rail connections as well as park-and-ride provisions complementary role, such as BRT-feeders. Long-standing have been statistically associated with gains in daily ridership private operators and other incumbents have sometimes (Cervero et al., 2010). In Seoul, a single fare card can be used been removed as a necessary way to achieve economies of for all transit modes. GPS and smart cards allow the charging scale and fi nancial sustainability, with varying degrees of suc- of BRT customers an interim fare when exiting the bus and a cess (Cervero and Golob, 2011). Highly atomise quasi-infor- fi nal fare upon completing the trip by rail. Moreover, distance- mal paratransit feeder services continue to characterise BRT based fares can be adjusted by the value of service: if the station areas in cities like Jakarta, Bangkok, Delhi and Lagos. connecting metrorail training is late, fares can be lowered to compensate for the diminished quality of service. In Europe, fi ve types of network designs are found among BHLS systems (Finn et al., 2011) (see FIGURE 10 ). In cities BRT opeRaTIons, RoUTInG and schedUlInG like Nantes, Madrid and Hamburg, buses operate in dense, mixed-use corridors of the urban core, taking advantage The three main types of BRT operations and vehicle of dedicated lanes and intersection priority treatment to routing are: (1) trunk-only, also called closed systems; deliver fast and reliable services. Short-distance routes on (2) trunk-feeder; and (3) direct-service, also called open dedicated lanes provide high-quality distributor services in systems. Among exclusive-lane systems, around a dozen the master-planned new town of Almere, the Netherlands. operate as trunk-only systems, with BRT buses operating Longer distance radial routes, cross-city services and peri- only along dedicated running-ways. Among the largest BRT pheral lines can also be found in Europe. exclusive-lane systems, trunk-only, closed systems are found in Jakarta, Ahmedabad, Beijing, Xiamen and Istanbul. Of Network integration is essential to successful BRT. BRT course, all of these systems have regular buses and some- services materially improve when they are linked to exis- times minibuses that feed into stations however they are not

Figure 10 Five types of network designs of European BHLS (buses with high level of service) systems source European Cooperation in Science and Technology (2011)

urban (CBD) route: operating nantes (busway) Castellón, 1 within the core urban area Hamburg, Madrid (line 27)

Local or distributor routes: locally in the inner Almere, 2 or outer suburbs, including feeder routes Ebsﬂ eet Kent (fastrack)

Collector or radial routes: connecting one surban area Madrid (bus VAO), 3 or the hinterland with the center of the urban area Purmenrend Scientific Advisory Group Report Cross-city routes: connecting diff erent parts of the Lorient, twente, 4 urban and suburban areas via the main city centre Cambridge, Rouen (tEOR) ACEA

th Peripheral/tangential routes: connecting suburban tVM, Zui dtangent, 5

20 areas without entering the centre jokeryline

Report_20thSAG.indd 14 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 15 Some BRT systems, like in Mexico City, run a mix of trunk- of amix run City, Mexico in like systems, BRT Some China, Cali, Utrecht and Johannesburg operate similarly.

diff patterns erentorigin-destination converge on a single dedicated BRT corridor, each serving Guangzhou’s open system involves bus multiple routes that and feederline-haul (i.e., collection/distribution) services. of integration the allows This aroute. of ends both at usually ways, running the leave and enter buses systems, open With Hefei, Lianyungang, Yangcheng, Yinchuan and Zhengzhou. Chinese cities, including Guangzhou, Dalian, Hangzhou, services. “open” direct provide buses Gothenburg, and operates as trunk-feeder In services. cities like Lorient, Madrid Nantes, Stockholm, Catellón and Jönköping (Sweden), BRT and TransMilenio’s terminal stations. informal mostly between housingconnections settlements free provide example, for midi-buses, green-colour Bogotá’s Quito. and Lima Leon, City, Mexico Curitiba, Bogotá, in found feeder Trunk-feeder services. BRT operations are today colour scheme and operated by the BRT company offer commonly, however, smaller buses featuring a different neighbourhood at distributor one end of the route. More a as functioning and busway the leaving occasionally but featuring BRT buses that operate mainly on the trunk line, (mostly private) operators. ofpart the BRT system and operated instead by different Direct, open services characterise BRT services in many many in services BRT characterise services open Direct, In designs. service of a mix apply systems BRT European In Latin America, trunk-feeder are systems common, Figure 11

source China’sGuangzhou open BRT system direct-line, CHINABRT.ORG (FIGURE (FIGURE 11 )

. Outside of . Outside transfer fromtransfer line to line. passengers, not Vehicles, busway. the to return then and tion, destina- amajor to distance ashort travel abusway, exit might way. Avehicle running the from distance some located tions off have also sta- can -line system a BRT systems, rail urban Unlike downtown. as such destination, amajor to service express for abusway then and riders, collect to streets rhood route,A suburban-urban for example, may use neighbou- travel – i.e., increasingly “many origins to many destinations”. suburban of geography new the serve to buses schedule fixed-route/fixed- traditional even or rail than positioned based systems off ertremendous BRT advantages. is better travel patterns become more and diffuse complex, bus- ride.one-seat Asurban densities decline worldwide and a no-transfer, enjoy passengers that so designed be can routes anywhere, practically operate can vehicles BRT Because advantagesof and BRT. versatility inherent flexibility the exploit they because popularity gaining are services 2011). Wright, 2003; al., et (Levinson norm the becoming is service, local) (or all-stop as well as stop), limited (or express of overlay an stop) also services operate. In Guangzhou and elsewhere, (skip- express some station; every at stop lines BRT Most BRT corridor, morphing into feeder buses on regular streets. the of part just use however, Most, corridor. BRT the down and up only run routes bus Guangzhou’s of Some services. bus) regular and (BRT open and (trunk-only) closed of mix only Even and services. direct-line Guangzhou operates a Direct-line services with mixes with services ofDirect-line regular and express 15 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 16 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Besides grade separation, a service feature that drama- ments have increased Guangzhou’s throughput capacity tically increases the throughput capacities of BRT systems to over 27,000 passengers per hour per direction, nearly is auxiliary passing lanes at stations. The provision of dual three times higher than that of any other Asian BRT system. carriageways was a major advancement of Bogotá’s Trans- Milenio (Figure 12) , raising its peak throughput capacity, Lastly, almost all busways operate in a with-flow direction. theoretically at least, to some 45,000 passengers per hour Two notable exceptions are the contra-flow operations BRT per direction (similar to that of many metrorail systems, services in Istanbul and San Juan. In addition, most BRT although the system’s highest recorded throughput volume systems operate on headway-based schedules. During peak is 37,700) (Hildalgo and Graftieaux, 2008). This compares hours, dedicated-lane BRT services typically operate buses with Curitiba’s directional, hourly throughput of some 11,000 every 5 minutes or less. Theoretically, buses can operate passengers, despite its use of larger (bi-articulated) buses on headways of 10 seconds or less. In Curitiba and Bogotá, than in Bogotá. Only a handful of other exclusive-lane BRT 90 minute headways are the norm during peak periods. systems – Guangzhou, Lanzshou, Cali, Lima, Los Angeles, At some busy intersections, TransMienio buses average Capetown and Johannesburg – have auxiliary passing lanes 13 second headways, the shortest headway of any BRT at stations. system, followed by Istanbul’s average of 14 seconds.

Along Guangzhou’s Zhongshan Boulevard 23km corridor, median BRT lanes with auxiliary passing lanes at stations were built in each direction. Three additional measures were introduced to further expedite bus flows: strict right-of- way control that limits lanes to BRT buses (and emergency vehicles); separate pedestrian crossings (26-grade separated and 10 at-grade signalised ones); and comprehensive traffic management improvements, including dynamic signalisation that optimises speeds for buses. Collectively, these treat-

Figure 12 Bogotá’s dual carriageway BRT system, with passing lanes at stations Upper image: cross-section of centre-lane BRT station on a major 5-lane arterial Bottom image: Plan view of passing lanes at stations Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 16 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 17 the system’s growing deficit (Torres-Montoya, 2013). (Torres-Montoya, deficit growing system’s the to contributor a main been has evasion fare Rampant ment. pay fare avoid to right the with service BRT bad associate Santiaguinos Many declines. service more even to led cuts Services none. incur to supposed was it though even percent 35 over of adeficit running was system the mid-2007, By and sometimesfleets even ignored waiting passengers. demand. revenues With guaranteed, shrank operators their actual, than rather expected, of basis the on operators pay to contractors abandoning Chile’s services, government opted of fear In services. of deterioration a steady by followed was 2007, in BRT dedicated-lane and mixed-traffic of a hybrid as and converted lorries to a formal public system designed privately minibuses operated system of run-down mostly atomised ahighly from switch, The 2013). (Torres-Montoya, Transantiago, averages a fare evasion rate of 27.7 percent system, BRT Santiago’s cities. developing in systems BRT many with aproblem remains evasion fare users, dependent inspection. ticketingon pre-paid barrier-free, with proof-of-purchase predominantly rely systems BRT European and US France. and Asia America, Latin in systems BRT among found widely affordablefares andlow subsidies. levels,vity discussed earlier, likely accounts combination of and(Hensher Golob, 2008). Their higher producti ridership BRT are systems least dependent on operating subsidies an entire day. Despite fairly affordablefares, AmericanLatin for good is dollar US one around of fare Bogotá’s 2011). lob, informal or operators charge quasi-private (Cervero and Go what than affordable more often are fares BRT BRT.ORG). (CHINA ones flat had rest the fares; zonal or distance-based showed BRTworldwide systems that only 3high-end had F a r Due to the large clientele of low-income, transit- low-income, of clientele large the to Due most is verification fare and collection fare Pre-board 31 of Asurvey fare. aflat charge systems BRT Most e collec ti on and enfor cemen t - - - -

side-benefit of expediting bus flows with dedicated lanes and and lanes dedicated with flows bus expediting of side-benefit are performance and an on-time reliability important service in Improvements stops. at times dwell vehicle reducing ding and level boarding, expedite passenger thus flows, boar enabled by multi-door payment, electronic off-board shave travel door-to-door times. Fast boarding techniques, to BRT other also of elements fastservices, help high-end 2013). al., et (Yazici mode the for congestion were the overwhelming reason customers opted traffic in stuck being of risk alower and speeds travel fast that A recent survey of Istanbul Metrobus passengers revealed (CHINABRT.ORG). system BRT any of speed hour peak city central- highest the averages Istanbul 35kph, At 18km/h. to 16 is systems BRT high-end for speed central-city average Atypical provided. are lanes dedicated where even more, even decline speeds cities, central In 2008). Golob, and (Hensher 20km/h is speed operating average the crossings, speeds considerably. Among surface BRTs withat-grade grade separation as welloperations as slows mixed-traffic flows at rail-like speeds. smooth for allows crossbeams on 2mm of tolerances with surfaces concrete prefabricated fitted precisely and nuous Conti a guideway. on rail to akin speeds allowing stabilisers, toattached the front axle of buses as function horizontal Guide-roller 2006). (Currie, 100km/h as high as speeds 41km/h). Buses on Adelaide’s corridor Northeast can reach at Busway, (East Pittsburgh and (45km/h) Miami (58km/h), Brisbane (60km/h), Cambridge of busways high-end and (80km/h) Adelaide of buses track-guided –e.g., separation havesystems but also not grade- only separate rights-of-way fastest The busway. the of quality the on depending services, BRT to regular from conversion the following 26km/h and findingthat average speeds increased by 15km/h between Asia, and America Latin in cities 11 in systems BRT reviewed (2008) Graftieaux and Hildalgo services. metrorail and car private the to becomes BRT time-competitive more the faster the average operating speed, and correspondingly equity. social and impacts speed,operating levels of safety, comfort, environmental measures: keyperformance several to regard with reviewed BRT system performance 5. O per While exclusive lanes and grade separation are critical of forms other and overpasses tunnels, of absence The aAs rule, the higher of the quality the BRT services, are systems BRT with experiences global section, this In a ti n g speeds - -

26/11/2013 15:37 17 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 18 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

passenger fl ows with same-level boarding. Services become malised public ones. Following Istanbul’s 2007 opening of less stochastic and expected arrival times more predictable Metrobus, 1,300 private minibuses were removed from the because buses are less vulnerable to the disruptive eff ects streets. Among those who switched from minibus or BRT, of non-recurring incidences in typical traffi c streams, such as an average daily time savings of 52 minutes was recorded vehicle accidents or breakdowns or delays in accommoda- (Yazici et al., 2013). Where older private buses are allowed to ting wheelchair patrons. share dedicated lanes with BRT buses, however BRT speed advantages have eroded. This has been the case in Delhi Experiences show that BRT improvements increase where older buses are not only slower but also more likely to speeds of not only buses, but also motorists. Buses, however, malfunction or break down, thus disrupting BRT fl ows. benefit the most. In mid-2004, Seoul introduced median- lane bus services and by 2008, 74km had been built along comfoRT 8 corridors (FIGURE 13) . The combination of exclusive-lane services, bus-priority traffic signals, real-time passenger BRT earns high marks for passenger comfort. In Istanbul, information systems and attractively designed bus stops 58 percent of surveyed residents were either satisfied or materially improved service quality. Separating buses from very satisfi ed with the BRT service (Yazici et al., 2013). BRT cars sped up regular traffi c. However, average bus speeds scores high, even when compared to rail. Surveys from increased far more, making transit more time-competitive Adelaide show customers rated BRT more highly than on- with the car (Cervero and Kang, 2011). TABLE 2, which com- street bus or rail services (Currie, 2006). In Los Angeles, pares bus versus car speeds along three road segments of riders on the full-service Orange Line rated BRT comparable the BRT network, shows bus users enjoyed substantial travel to the brand-new Gold Line (LRT) in terms of comfort and time savings relative to motorists. Schedule adherence also convenience (Cain et al., 2009). improved. As a consequence, previous declines in bus ridership citywide were reversed, with bus patronage jumping Comfort is a signature feature of BHLS designs in Euro- 10 percent between the end of 2003 (prior to median-lane pean cities. Many buses have larger windows (especially services) and the end of 2004 (after median-lane services). on low-floor vehicles) and interior light fixtures that allow for abundant during the day and an “open feeling” at night. Not all of the travel time savings that have followed BRT Some systems sacrifi ce load capacities so that large shares improvements can be attributed to technology itself. Some of customers have a seat. Seats comprise 84 percent of the gains have been due to the replacement of unplanned and total passenger capacities of Dublin’s double-decker BRT unreliable private services with more organised and for- buses (Finn et al., 2011).

Figure 13 Evolution of Seoul’s Median-Lane-BRT: GIS plot of bus stops source Cervero and Kang, 2011 Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 18 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 19 guards and cameras that instilla sense of security. parent that allows setting natural surveillance; and in-person trans well-lit, weather; inclement from protection 3 metres; least at of width internal with platforms environment: station BRT acomfortable for makes what defined has 2013 dard Stan BRT The transferring. or waiting stations at also but bus reduction in bus accidents in one year (Yazici et al., 2013). al., et (Yazici year one in accidents bus in reduction percent a64 by followed was lanes dedicated in buses new of deployment the and routes, bus regular and minibuses of decline was in deaths.the In removal pedestrian Istanbul, the of Most 2005). al., et Echeverry 2012; al., et Hidalgo ties on TransMilenio corridors (Hidalgo and Yepes, 2005; fatali traffic in reduction percent 88 an with credited been have Bogotá in deployment BRT with concert in mented declines in quality. service Road improvements safety imple are viewed benefits asslightsafety more than offsetting the thus speeds, bus BRT reducing on effect a modest have precautions Safety 2013). al., et (Duduta operates BRT where with refuge islands significantly improve safety on corridors crossingshibitions and pedestrian signalised mid-block Safe

Studies show configurations, centre-lane pro left-turn a in spent time by only not judged is experience BRT The Road a Road Road c Road Road b Road t Table 2 Table y

source BRT after and before lanes, bus median exclusive with Comparison of changes in operating speeds (km/h) of cars and buses along three road segments Des Car (other lane) Car (other lane) lane) (exclusive Bus Car (other lane) lane) (exclusive Bus lane) (exclusive Bus cr Seoul Development Institute, 2005 ip t ion 20.3 18.5 11 18 13 13.1 (jun B o ef e re 2004) - - - - - the use of cleaner fuels as well as its lower cost which allows allows which cost lower its as well as fuels cleaner of use the to due vehicles LRT than dioxide carbon less emits generally (GHG) emissions, BRT likely again confersBRT net benefits. areas.emission increases in non-BRT-served by marked redistributive, mostly be could benefits these surrounding townships, Echeverry et al. (2005) caution that placed by TransMilenio moved to the urban edge and smaller dis buses old Because period. a 20-year over million US$114 emissions following TransMilenio’stwophases first totaled et al. savings (2013) from estimated reduced health-cost bus BRT (Wöhrnshimmel et systems al., 2008). Hildalgo Metro- the of implementation the after fell City Mexico in pollutants air to exposure commuters’ that found study minibuses and microbuses, has air improved. quality One tems have replaced older, maintained, high-emission poorly sys BRT where American Latin in as such services, transit air relative quality to the status quo. Where BRT formalises BRT improvessmoother-flowing, services, dedicated-lane with conditions stop-and-go and traffic mixed in buses ving slow-mo replacing and streets city from cars removing By positive. likely are BRT of impacts quality air net the impacts, ofted BRT. impacts the air-quality Accounting for indirect andclean-diesel other fuels low-emission have modera of use widespread the earlier, noted As smog. tochemical pho to a precursor (NOx), oxides nitrogen and (PM) matter E nv With regard to “global pollution”, i.e., greenhouse gas gas greenhouse i.e., pollution”, “global to regard With particulate of levels high relatively emit buses Urban ir onmen 21 19.9 20.3 19.1 17.2 22.5 ( After a ugu t s al i t 2004) mpac ts Per c chang en 85.0% 32.0% 70.0% t 3.4% ag 7.6% 6.1% e e - - - - - 19 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 20 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

6. more services to be deployed for a given budget (Vincent and Jerram, 2006). Attracting former motorists to BRT can signi- BRT versus urban rail: ficantly reduce VKT (vehicle kilometres traveled) and thus cost and service comparisons GHG emissions (Cervero and Murakami, 2010). It is for this reason that the International Energy Agency (2013) has called Apple-to-apple comparisons of BRT versus urban rail for a mass deployment of BRT services worldwide, as much systems are difficult because of their contrasting designs, as 25,000km of new exclusive-lane services in total, to help carrying capacities, impacts on urban development, and limit the global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees. the like (table 3) . By most accounts, however, BRT is a cost-effective alternative to light or heavy rail (i.e., metrorail) In terms of noise impacts, well-patronised buses that systems. The more economical use of rights-of-way and come by every few minutes are certainly quieter than steady roadway operations lowers the cost of BRT relative to rail streams of single-occupant cars carrying similar numbers of systems, though at the expense of generally lower passen- people. They are also generally quieter than steel-wheels- ger carrying capacities and slower speeds. Comparisons of on-steel rail. BRT corridors could emit more noise around passenger capacities are made difficult by wide variations stations due to the concentration of accelerating buses. among BRT systems – as high as 45,000 passengers per However, this is likely offset by quieter operations along direction per hour (ppdph) in the case of Bogotá. However, smoother flowing corridors. Soundwalls can mitigate noise it is one tenth this amount for other busway systems (with impacts at busy stations, though at the expense of station- even lower peak hourly throughputs of 1000 passengers in area aesthetics. Capetown, Amsterdam, and Changde). These are theoreti- cal numbers. In practice, BRT’s carrying capacities are lower. Social equity Hensher and Golob (2008) found the crunch-load ridership of many BRT systems to range from 2000 to 8000 ppdph. BRT investments are pro-poor. Bogotá’s decision to Thus the line capacities of BRT relative to urban rail, and thus investment in BRT vis-à-vis a metrorail was driven in part its relative cost-effectiveness, in table 3 could be exagge- by a desire to deliver a lower cost, more affordable mobility rated. Any cost-effectiveness edge of BRT is also curbed option that serves outlying informal settlements as much as to the degree that large-scale rail networks provide greater downtown financial districts and other commercial clusters connectivity and accessibility at faster travel speeds in typically served by rail (Penalosa, 2002). Hildalgo and Yepes addition to having stronger city-shaping impacts than more (2005) estimated that the first phase of TransMilenio pro- limited range BRT systems. duced more travel times savings for the poor (18 minutes per trip) than for the middle-class (10 minutes). Savings accrued Cost comparisons from faster in-vehicle travel times; adding times for access to stations, waiting, and transferring, however, translated into There is no disputing the fact that BRT systems cost an increase in door-to-door trip durations for poor and non- considerably less to build than their urban rail counterparts. poor alike (Lleras, 2003). This makes BRT the preferred choice for budget-constrained cities. Wright and Hook (2007) estimated that constructing More substantial have been savings in average bus a BRT system typically costs 4 to 20 times less than an LRT fares, which have been recorded in Jakarta (Wright and system and 10 to 100 times less than a metrorail system. Hook, 2007), Bogotá (Hildalgo and Yepes, 2005; Cervero, According to Menckhoff (2005), BRT costs, on average, one- 2005) and Lagos (ITP and IBIS, 2009). The replacement of tenth as much as other rail systems per kilometre of running loosely regulated private buses with government-sponsored way/guideway. There are exceptions, however. Adelaide’s BRT has usually translated into lower shares of daily earnings track-guided bus cost over US$26 million per kilometre devoted to travel for the very poor (Cervero, 2011). Studies of (2008 dollars) and Nagoya’s exceeded US$45 million per km, Bogotá (Cervero, 2005) and Cali (Jaramillo et al., 2012) also considerably more than most LRT systems. At the other end show that BRT can substantially improve access of the poor of the spectrum is TransJakarta busway (mostly nestled in the to low-skill job opportunities. Another analysis revealed that median of motorways), which cost just US$1.35 per kilometre Scientific Advisory Group Report Mexico City’s Metrobus Line 3 BRT yielded the most benefits (Hildalgo et al., 2013). To date, most BRT investments have to the lowest three income quintiles (Delgado and Uniman, come in well below US$10 million per kilometre (Hensher and 2011). In contrast, Johannesburg’s 26km BRT line (Rea Vaya) Golob, 2008). 1

ACEA has failed to improve the livelihoods of the poor due to its pri- th cing scheme and focus on middle-income markets (Venter 20 et al., 2013).

1. In a study of BRT investments across 37 global cities, Hensher and Golob (2008) could not identify factors that overwhelming explained variations in capital costs. Costs per km did rise with the number of terminals, intersections with signal priorities and levels of grade separation, but only marginally. Localised and idiosyncratic factors (e.g., amount of disruption and relocation impacts; number of contract bidders; soil conditions) that were not directly controlled for in the study were thought to partly explain cost differences.

Report_20thSAG.indd 20 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 21 operating operating speeds the between were two similar average though even system, rail light atypical than mile per build to less percent 60 around cost to estimated was busway economy or a rapidly developing one. In the US, a typical of whether invariety settings, an affluentadvanced western Mini unit) (passengers/coupled Maxi (passengers/direction/hour) C heavy rail systems has been placed in the $100-$150 million million $100-$150 the in placed been has systems rail heavy building of cost kilometre per the Europe, In 2008). Golob, tems in Brisbane notably and Australia, Sydney and (Hensher million per kilometre, similar to the cost BRT of sys high-end US$20 over cost busway Miami’s 2011). Cervero, and (Guerra Silver BRT line cost more than US$52 million per kilometre Boston’s of Sections tunnelling. downtown expensive to due Line Phase 1, on the other hand, registered high costs capital Silver Boston the of Parts standard. LRT an to tramway tional $23.3 million for the and reconstruction upgrading of a tradi dedicated west busway cost $16 million per kilometre versus even cheaper thanPittsburgh’s rail modernisation projects. be can LRT. BRT Line Gold the for kilometre per million $38 versus km per $120,000 cost Boulevard Wilshire on Bus Rapid Angeles Los facilities. maintenance bus extra or systems signalising,nor power sophisticated single-purpose supply dedicated right-of-way for the entire length of a bus corridor afully requiring necessarily not BRT from accrued Savings 1. 1. Rig Maxi unit) (passengers/vehicle Veh (2000 U (2000 A (2000 U A (kph) L (seconds) Maxi Veh

Running W

in ver v on Costs figures are for U for are figures Costs er e hts BRT’s capital costs-savings have been found across a across found been have costs-savings capital BRT’s icl icl C str mu mu mu mu ag ag apaci Table 3 Table km) revenue vehicle per S$ S$/km) e e f -o uc e e C C Pr Op he on Sp C C - ion Ti tion api opul W ay apaci apaci t er adway tr ee ay y

s t

al C al d ol

t s source systems Transit Rail Urban and BRT of Comparisons

ing C t t ion me

y y o

S case studies. Costs adjusted to $2000, calculated using Consumer Price Index average. Index Price Consumer using calculated $2000, to adjusted Costs studies. S case

sts

o Levinson et al., (2003); Vuchic (2005); Hensher and Golob (2008); Zhang (2009); Deng and Nelson (2011) Nelson and Deng (2009); Zhang (2008); Golob and Hensher (2005); Vuchic (2003); al., et Levinson st 1

160-270 160-270 years 1-2 Operator/visual Internal engine combustion Pavement; roadways 2.94 8.4 60-70 5000 - 45000 12-30 BRT Mixed: shared (at-grade); lanes exclusive and dedicated

igure

14 )

- - .

Automated/sign control 12000 – 27000 found average operating costs of BRT to be less than that of of that than less be to BRT of costs operating average found study US One structures. cost labour differing widely to due instead went to building a metro rail system system rail ametro building to went instead funds if possible been have would than BRT kilometres much as 20 times nearly build to able was Ecuador, Quito, 2006. to 2003 from Ecuador, Guayaquil, in 45km and 2006 to 1999 from Bogotá in built BRT of 84km –e.g., period ter shor amuch in delivered rail, than provided be can services BRT more far budget, same the for that means savings cost kilometre of running way/guideway (Hossain, 2006). Such per skytrain city’s the of that thirty-fourth one cost system million to US$350 million. By one account, Bangkok’s BRT per kilometre and underground metrorail’s cost US$45 Asia rangedSoutheast from US$40 million to US$100 million LRTat-grade in systems three in countries. Elevated skytrains per kilometre versus US$15 million to US$40 million for six seven countries to range from US$4 million to US$7 million the BRT ofacrosscapital costs systems seven high-quality 2008). al., et (Flyvbjerg BRT for million $10-$15 and rail light for million $25-$35 to compared dollars) 2002 (in range 500-900 170-280 years 2-3 (overheadElectric wires) 7.58 5.30 104.5 21.5 60-80 120-150 75-150 Steel track L Exclusive (elevated or barriers) or shared (at-grade) shared or ig ht With respect to BRT operating cost, experiences vary vary experiences cost, operating BRT to respect With For developing countries, Wright (2011) recently found 70-100 Rail 240-320 Urban 1000-2400

R ail Transi

t Automated/sign control 40000 - 72000 M Electric (high-voltage third rail) (high-voltage Electric 4-10 years 4-10 Steel track Exclusive, grade-separated etr or ail (F igure 15 )

. -

21 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 22 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

LRT and metrorail on both a revenue-kilometre and revenue- thing that few urban rail systems can lay claim to. For Porto hour basis, despite bus services being more labour-intensive Alegre, one study found that every passenger trip was sub- (Zhang, 2009). Moreover, many BRT systems in the deve- sidy-free whereas the city’s urban rail system required a loping world (e.g.,Bogotá, Kunming, Lanzhou, Guayaquil, 70 percent subsidy for each passenger carried (Wright and Curitiba) operate without a public operating subsidy, some- Hook, 2007).

Figure 14 Comparison of capital costs of LRT, busways and bus on HOV lanes in the US Costs in US dollars in 2000. source US General Accounting Offi ce, 2001

Light Rail 34,79

Busways 13,49

Bus on HOV Lane 8,97

DOLLARS IN MILLIONS (2000) 0 10 20 30 40

Figure 15 BRT cost-savings advantage over metrorail in Quito, Ecuador 37 kilometres BRT investment in Quito, Ecuador provided 20 times as much high-capacity services as a Metrorail for equivalent capital investment expenditures. source Institute of Transportation Development Policy

METRoRail opTion Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th BRT opTion 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 22 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 23 up well in terms of service quality (e.g., average speeds) and and speeds) average (e.g., quality service of terms in well up match always not does it that remembered be must it carried, in terms of investment and operating per costs passenger (Guerra and Cervero, 2011). 2011). Cervero, and (Guerra investments BRT and LRT, HR, recent of quartile performance top the in fell that costs-per-rider capital produce to needed examined the combined job and densities that population are study US A recent outlays. these justify to revenues farebox and trips enough produce to stations around needed are jobs and residents of concentrations large Thus, ways. running land, relocating displaced households and constructing godollars often to tunnelling, rerouting acquiring utilities, highments, urban densities are needed. Tens of millions of hectare) to fall in the top quartile. per 150 (or acre per 60 nearly need would investment vy-rail ahea and hectare), per 125 (or acre per residents and jobs 50 nearly need would cost per-mile same the at investment LRT An investments. cost-effective of percent 75 top in be to station its of 0.8km) (or mile of ahalf within hectare) per 45 (or acre per residents and jobs 18 around need would 1.61km) per (or mile per million US$50 costs that system a BRT that and cos The l The U

Capital cost per guideway mile ($2009) systems rail urban over out wins generally BRT While invest transit high-capacity of price high the To justify an dens an Figure 16 i 200 300 250 350 100 150 m 50 0 it t s of BRT r BRT s of -effec J +P ob

source iti Graph reveals densities it would take for a project to be in the top 25 percent of past US fixed-guideway investments investments in terms ofconditions. “typical” under cost-effectiveness fixed-guideway US past of percent 25 top the in be to aproject for take would it densities reveals Graph across investments acapital range in ofthecosts Minimum fixed-guideway US urban for needed top-performance densities ( densities opulation es es tive i 5

ela Guerra and Cervero (2011) nves F ti igure ve t ve t acre per men o urb 16 , from the study, shows shows study, the , from 10 ts ) an r an a i l 25 - - prompted many former bus riders to buy cars and switch to switch and cars buy to riders bus former many prompted trains operated by a single driver. overcrowding Extreme has by enjoyed scale of economies of kinds the precluded and costs operating increased have buses spaced closely of problems have disrupted and slowed Successions services. onintervals main routes during the peak hour, bunching ber-tyre technologies. With buses operating on 30 second sparked riots and blemished TransMilenio’s reputation. atcustomers stranded during stations peak periods, has leave thus and passengers, more load to buses of inability The 2009). (EMBARQ, bus of metre square per passengers et al., 2013). During peak hours, TransMilenio average 6.5 ridersaway in droves middle-class 2008; (Gilbert, Suzuki chasing resulted, have pickpocketing and groping of blems pro and conditions Sardine-like percent). (30 million 1.7 to grew just 2.2 percent whereas daily demand rose from 1.2 fleet TransMilenio’s 2010, to 2005 From Curitiba. and Bogotá both in case the been has acar, which own who travellers choice away chasing of way asure-fire are buses crowded relative to their capacities. Veritable elephant trains of over popular too being of effects the suffering success, own their some. by questioned also is TOD leverage and growth urban shape to ability BRT’s section, next the in discussed As streets. surface on operate buses where areas regional coverage. suffers in BRT particularly dense, built-up Curitiba has also begun to experience the limits of rub of limits the experience to begun also has Curitiba of avictim been have systems BRT instances, some In 50 75 brt l rt hr 100 - - - 23 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 24 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

7. driving. In the words of one urban planner: “Many Curitibanos view (BRT) as noisy, crowded and unsafe. Undermining BRT and urban development the thinking behind the master plan, even those who live alongside the high-density rapid-bus corridors are buying One only has to look at the skylines of cities with cars“ (Lubow, 2007, p. M8). A long-discussed light rail line, to world-class rail systems like New York City and Hong Kong replace overcrowded buses, has yet to gain momentum due to to appreciate the powerful city-shaping influences of rail cost concerns and political inertia (Duarte and Ultramari, 2012). investments. Agglomerations of 200,000 or more workers in central business districts (CBDs) are impossible without rail Many earlier BRT systems were designed (in terms of systems for the simple reason that roadways are incapable overhead clearances, station platforms, track geometries) of funneling this many people to jobs in concentrated areas to allow conversion to electric rail services if and when during rush hours (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977; Cervero, 1998). market demand justified the change-over. This was so for Ottawa and Curitiba. Institutional and political impediments, Some question the city-shaping potential of BRT, in part however, have stood in the way of bus-to-rail conversions. due to a belief it delivers fewer regional accessibility benefits Once bus-based organisations and institutions are in place, than rail, but also the social stigma some assign to bus-based a status-quo mindset takes hold, obstructing technological forms of mass mobility. Doubt remains in the minds of some conversions. as to whether BRT can induce less car-dependent, more sustainable patterns of urban growth in rapidly motorising and Net welfare impacts suburbanising cities. While BRT is often conceived as being better suited to lower density, more outlying settings, under To pass judgments on the economic merits of BRT ver- the right conditions, experiences show that BRT can also be sus urban rail, the approach long used by economists is to every bit as influential as metrorail systems in inducing urban conduct a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Few credible BCA redevelopment and shaping urban growth in more sustai- studies of BRT versus rail have been conducted to date. A nable formats. recent study by Hildalgo et al. (2013) tried to assign a net rate of return for Bogotá’s TransMilenio investment. The authors Bus-based systems are thought to have weaker city- estimated that TransMilenio’s first two phases yielded shaping effects partly because they confer fewer regional sizable net economic benefits in terms of travel-time savings, accessibility benefits relative to faster, more geographically reduced vehicle operating costs, fewer accidents and health extensive rail operations (Vuchic, 2007). The absence of a benefits from cleaner air. A benefit-cost ratio of 2.5 and a fixed guideway or high-profile infrastructure is also thought social internal rate of return of 24.2 percent were estimated. to dilute bus-transit’s development potential in minds of Accounting for redistributive effects (e.g., displacing old, loo- real-estate developers, who never can be sure of the service sely regulated buses to the urban periphery), Echeverry et al. features of future bus operations. Factors like the spewing (2005) estimated the net economic benefits of TransMilenio’s of diesel emissions and the social stigma attached to transit- first two phases to be considerably less. dependent (and thus often lower income) users also detract from bus-transit’s image. High-end BRT systems with exclu- Welfare economics aside, one unassailable advantage of sive lanes and clean-fuel buses, however, begin to mimic the BRT systems is that they can be introduced incrementally as service features of metrorail systems and correspondingly different segments of a project are finished. This is because hold the potential to exert comparable impacts on urban buses have the options of using regular streets until gaps in form. the system are completed. Fast implementation builds political support and public goodwill since elected officials and Whether BRT can promote transit-oriented development taxpayers alike quickly see benefits on the ground. (TOD) — compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development organised around a transit station – on a significant scale, at least comparable to what is found around some metrorail stations remains an open question. TOD is widely Scientific Advisory Group Report viewed as an inherently efficient and sustainable urban form (Curtis et al., 2009). Experiences show that well-designed TOD not only increases ridership but also serves as a hub

ACEA for organising community development and revitalising th long-distressed urban districts (Bernick and Cervero 1997; 20 Cervero 1998). Transit-oriented growth lies on a spectrum

Report_20thSAG.indd 24 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 25 (Rodriguez and Targa, 2004). There is also some evidence away farther located units than metre square per more for housing close units to Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT rented Mojica, 2008; Munoz-Raskin, 2010). There, multi-family value benefits(Rodriquez and Targa, 2004; Rodriquez and system in Bogotá, Colombia, have found appreciable land- BRT substantial more the of studies contrast, In 2013). al., et (Ma 5percent of premium aprice averaged hand, other the on system, metrorail city’s the near properties system; BRT city’s the by properties residential on conferred fits Beijing similarly found no bene- appreciable capitalisation in study Arecent 2006). (Cervero, parcels commercial for only accrued and small very were impacts value land Angeles, Los In 2011). Kang, and (Cervero Seoul and 2010) Targa, 2004; Rodriquez and Mojica, 2008; Munoz-Raskin, & Associates and Levinson, 2007), Bogotá (Rodriquez and (Kittelson Boston 2009), Catala, and (Perk Pittsburgh 2006), (Cervero, Angeles Los 2002), al., et (Levinson Brisbane in reported be also have benefiinvestments sation BRT of ts presence of capitali- improved Land-price transit services. the to growth this associate to ability the confounded sites Adelaide. However, the absence of control or comparison and Ottawa, Pittsburgh, in stops BRT around activities ment limited. Levinson et al. (2002) reported significant develop- 2010). Chen, 2003; Poticha, and (Dittmar TOD of niche market density moderate low-to- occupy to well-positioned BRT with forms, built of

Empirical evidence on BRT’s city-shaping impacts isEmpirical evidence on impacts BRT’s city-shaping Figure 17

source Curitiba’s Trinary road system Lindau et al., 2010 al., et Lindau in Curitiba was the “trinary” in Curitiba was the “trinary” urban growth. charged with ensuringentity integration of all of elements for Research and Urban Planning an (IPPUC), independent Institute the of purview the been has growth regional trating urban development be sited along a BRT corridor. Orches- government mandated that all and medium- large-scale (Cervero, investments 1998). Ininfrastructure Curitiba, local policies, land assistancewith assemblage and supportive raged TOD through zoning reforms, tax pro-development leve- proactively governments Local 2013). al., et (Suzuki urban in growth a more sustainable, transit-oriented format shape to opportunity an also but investment amobility only not as envisaged was BRT instances, both In 1998). (Cervero, BRT to along channel well-defi growth nedlinear corridors use to systems both of planning the in on early visions carved leaders city pioneers, TOD”. BRT As “BRT of examples 2008). Mojica, and (Rodriquez BRT by access nal benefitted on properties older corridors by improving regio- moreover, lines, BRT new Adding 2008). Rodriguez, and nan benefi(Estupi- ts land-value increase further can stops bus that environments near creating BRT pedestrian-friendly f l oors of the busway, which do not count against permissible permissible against count not do flwhich busway, the of oors two first The corridor. BRT the from distance with taper ways withcompatible land uses and building that heights A design element used to enhance accessibility transit and CuritibaareOttawa perhaps global the two best (FIGURE (FIGURE 17 ) — three parallel road- parallel —three 25 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 26 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

plot ratios (building height/land area), are for retail uses. has appreciably shrunk the city’s environmental footprint. Above the second fl oor, buildings must be set back at least Curitiba’s annual congestion cost per capita of $0.67 five metres from the property line to allow sun to cast on (in US$2008) is a fraction of São Paulo’s (Suzuki et al., 2011). the busway. The inclusion of upper-level housing entitles The city also boasts the cleanest air of any Brazilian city with property owners to density bonuses, which has led to ver- more than 1 million inhabitants, despite having a sizable tical mixing of uses within buildings. An important benefit industrial sector. The strong, workable nexus that exists of mixed land uses and transit service levels along these between Curitiba’s bus-based transit system and its mixed- corridors, in addition to extraordinarily high ridership rates, use linear settlement pattern deserves most of the credit. has been balanced bidirectional fl ows, ensuring effi cient use of bus capacity. Sustained political commitment has been pivotal to Curitiba’s success. The harmonisation of transit and land use The higher densities supported by the trinary design took place over 40 years of political continuity, marked by have translated directly into higher ridership. Concentrated a progression of forward-looking, like-minded mayors who commercial development has also channelled trips from built on the work of their predecessors. A cogent long-term residences beyond BRT terminuses to the trinary corridors. vision and the presence of a politically insulated regional In 2009, for example, 78.4 percent of trips boarding at the planning organisation, the IPUCC, to implement the vision terminus of Curitiba’s north-south trinary corridor were des- have been crucial in allowing the city to chart a sustainable tined to a bus stop on the same corridor (Duarte and Ultra- urban pathway. mari 2012). FIGURE 18 shows daily ridership at stops along Curitiba’s north-south BRT line superimposed on the cor- The Green Line is Curitiba’s first new BRT corridor in ridor’s skyline. Where densities rise, so generally does years, an 18 kilometre corridor that was converted from a ridership. federal highway. As in Bogotá, the Green Line has passing lanes, which greatly increase capacity by supporting express Dividends from the past two decades of leveraging TOD services. As important is an evolved view of BRT corridors as through BRT improvements have been remarkable. Curitiba rights-of-way that also accommodate linear parks and bike today averages considerably more transit trips per capita paths. A recent law promotes the preservation of green than Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, which are much bigger space along BRT corridors by giving developers increased cities. Its share of motorised trips by transit (45 percent) is building rights in exchange for purchasing or preserving the highest in Latin America (Santos, 2011). High transit use land along the corridor as parks. Formerly a national highway

Figure 18 Correspondence between daily transit boardings (vertical axis) and skyline profi le along Curitiba’s North-South Trinary axis source Duarte and Ultramari, 2012 Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 26 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 27 dicular for reaching connections and pedestrians cyclists A of network perpen green ensures connectors high-quality second floors of adjoining commercial buildings gently sloped footbridges and same-levelintegration with the BRT features through seamlessconnections pedestrian to connections BRT stops. Guangzhou’ssigned high-quality development opportunities. misation principles ended up suppressing longer term land- demolitions and relocation costs. Thus near-term cost-mini andcheap the avoidance available rights-of-way of building relatively of because access, pedestrian poor with often BRT lines and in stations the medians of busy roadways, sitting meant often has This resistance. least of path the follow to a tendency been has there costs, investment on economise to drive the In ones. urban-planning over out won Engineering principles investments. rather than city-shaping mainly due to BRT being envisaged principally as mobility was BRT. This with growth urban shape to opportunities likesystems, Bogotá and Ahmedabad, have squandered BRT well-regarded and extensive with cities that argue (2013) al. et Suzuki Transit, with Cities Transforming In rule. the than half a million new residents. to up accommodate to able be will that corridor mixed-use apedestrian-friendly become to slated is uses industrial of hodgepodge this lumberyards, and stops truck with dotated

A number of Chinese cities, Guangzhou, notably have de exception the more are Ottawa and Curitiba like Cities Figure 19

source stops BRT Guangzhou’s with integration pedestrian of view Planned ITDP China, 2012 China, ITDP (F igure 19 )

- - - .

stations from two or more blocks away away blocks more or two from stations occurred. since has which district, the to capital private attracting in it was services, to felt,was critical upgrading transportation to A private strong projects. public real-estate commitment redevelopment by BRT services prior delivering high-quality Fastrack, was consciously designed to leverage brownfield neighbourhood. In Kent the UK, Thameside’s BRT system, and institutional development to a formerly distressed billion contend US$4.3 nents in attracted new commercial propo and build to million US$200 cost BRT Avenue Euclid rejuvenating once Cleveland’s decaying urban districts. 2013). al., et (Suzuki operations BRT of years two first the during percent 30 by prices estate is gravitating to Guangzhou’s BRT corridor, increasing real connections to commercial high-rise stations, development pedestrian and services BRT high-quality of combination the In the US and Europe, BRT has been credited with with credited been has BRT Europe, and US the In (F igure 20 )

. Owing to to . Owing - 27 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 28 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

8. In a recent review of BRT institutions, Wright (2011) defi ned BRT management the typical BRT business model as: and institutional challenges • an institutional regulatory environment in which privately concessioned fi rms operate the system with strong public Most BRT systems introduced to date have embraced the oversight; “managed competition” model (Hook, 2005; Wright, 2011). • an operating bidding process that encourages competition Under this approach, a public authority retains control over for the market but limits competition within the market; planning, policies, designing routes and schedules, fare set- • operator compensation based upon vehicle-kilometres ting and collection, services standards and marketing. The traveled rather than number of passengers; and delivery of BRT services is then competitively tendered to • an independently concessioned fare collection system that the lowest bidders that meet quality-control standards while distributes revenues in a wholly transparent manner. earning fair returns on investments. Then functionally, there is a separation of sponsorship (public sector) and operations manaGed compeTITIon In BoGoTÁ (private sectors). Bogotá’s TransMilenio largely follows the business model With managed competition, competition is “for”, not laid out by Wright. TransMilenio is administered by a public “within” the market (Gwilliam, 2002). Firms aggressively authority that manages concession contracts to the private compete within the bidding process. However, once winning sector and oversees service quality. A series of concessions firms have been selected, there is no competition on the and standard contracts establish the relationship with each street to wrestle passengers away from other companies. private-sector party, which includes construction fi rms, an Exceptions to the managed competition model are mostly independent fare collection company and bus operators. found in the developed world, where BRT services are often Then institutionally, facility construction, fare administration both managed and delivered by public authorities – e.g., and operations are functionally separated. in greater Paris (Ile de France), RATP (Régie Autonome des Transports), a state-owned transit authority, oversees and In reality, some competition within the BRT marketplace operates BRT as well as metrorail, trams, regular bus and exists even in Bogotá. TransMilenio has as many as four dif- regional rail services, subject to policies set by the regional ferent operators providing services on the same BRT route. planning authority, STIF. From the customer’s perspective, all vehicles and services

Figure 20 Green perpendicular connectors to Guangzhou’s BRT stations source ITDP China, 2012 Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 28 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 29 Municipal developed Corporation (AMC) the initial propo Ahmedabad The twists. afew with TransMilenio, of cations specifi organisation and design both to according 2009 in Ahmedabad launched Janmarg its (People’s Way) system Ahmedabad, Guangzhou, Mexico and Jakarta, Cali. City petitively tendered operations and concessions include -- com and system the of control and planning for ponsible res authority aBRT –i.e., approach institutional Bogotá’s Curitiba, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Guangzhou Jakarta, Curitiba, and Leon. vate firms bybus kilometres rather than passengers include pri pay similarly that cities BRT Other 2013). al., et (Hildalgo worldwide operators BRT cost-effective most the of one be system hasbased allowed penalty-reward TransMilenio to kilometres surrendered by the penalised firms. This service- companies arethe best-performing awarded the vehicle- Milenio operators 250 kilometres. a As double incentive, Trans costs system communications GPS the of alteration or example, picking up passengers at stops other than stations For infractions. of guilty operators for services of kilometres future reducing by done is This standards. service meet to failing for income monthly their of percent 10 as much as fined are operators Bogotá, In sanctions. enforced strictly also are There quality. service to focus the shifts services) time incentives (e.g., performance-based with on- conjunction operators based on kilometres of deployed service in the developing world (Cervero and Golob, 2011). Paying thatcompetition plagues informal throughout transit services aggressive of kind the curbed also has carried passenger of wasted. not is Bogotá of streets the in operating with among incumbent operators, and ensures their experience Thisadditional points. avoids alienating and creating ill-will existing small operators in a bid, for example, gains firms whooperators were reticent to join their ranks. Including 2011). TransMilenio has also managed to assuage private vehicles for new every bus introduced articulated (Wright older 9 scrapped firms of II TransMilenio, phase In fleet. bus city’s the modernise helped has This vehicles. clean operate and prudently invest cost-effective, be to firms incentivises that system apoint uses Bogotá competition. managed revenue information. and private operators,creating fully transparent sharing of companies public both at computers to relayed is mation suitable headways and frequencies. Fare infor transaction ensure to vehicles monitors centre Acontrol same. the look Ot he Other large-scale BRT systems that have adopted adopted have that systems BRT large-scale Other Tying income to deployed service rather than numbers successful of part acritical is process bidding The BRT i r BRT ns tituti onal expe onal ri ences ------

sustain services. services. sustain accountability, and insufficient fiscal resources mount to and as a authority, weak poor management transportation and shortcomings institutional such to traced be can Santiago in as problems (2011), Jiron to According improved. since to take form. Transantiago and has quality reliability service ring and accountability among private and public interests risk-sha of mix workable areasonably allowed time over has seriesand A sanctions. of give-and-take intense negotiations tually reduced income guarantees and began imposing fines and to inability get to desired Regulators destinations. even overcrowding severe transfers, of numbers excessive waits, rapidly deteriorated quality ment Service systems. – long pay and vehicle-control of failure and contracts, of breach of infrastructure, buses, poor unfinished route definition, series of problems immediately surfaced: insufficient supply disappeared. services Adiscipline to deliver high-quality tors. Because of guaranteed subsidies, however, the market opera private former to risk no virtually with buses, often and routes services, new completely with system trunk-feeder sponsored apublicly to operators minibus private of mix ter income. In one day, Transantiago changed from a helter-skel operators’ of percent 90 to up guaranteeing risks, mised operators to join the BRT public system, authorises mini (Boncompte and Galilea, 2013). To incumbent incentivise private operators that worked in a unregulated mostly market small of acartel by controlled was 2007, in transit opening Transantiago’s to Prior capital. Chilean the in project BRT 2010). Jain, and Tiwari 2011; (Rizvi, regarding fleet maintenance, vehiclefitnessand cleanliness Incentives and have penalties been set and are enforced period. contract a seven-year over basis kilometre per cost agross- on bid competitively are collection fare and tions outsourcedstrategically to maximise efficiency.Bus opera taining financial haveOther sustainability.functions been achieving andoperations, standards performance main agency with operating authority, responsible for overseeing independent and aspecial-purpose as state and local by ted The Ahmedabad Janmargsupport. was Limited crea (AJL) financial provide and development project the oversee to on served aand steering national committee departments State system. cost-effective and efficient asafe, build to was charge – whose Ahmedabad in University CEPT -- entity System design and implementation is led by an independent correspondingly ensuring the system’s financial solvency. responsible for policies, setting rules and regulations, and system, the for authority chief the remains and BRT for sal One notable institutional failureOne is notable institutional the Transantiago ------29 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report 30 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Another case where the jury is still out about managed competition is Quito, Ecuador. Quito’s BRT system was given over to a consortium of private operators that run buses and handle fares. BRT buses share corridors with incumbent private operators, creating in-market competition and redun- dancies. Local government provides loans to the private consortium to acquire new buses, contingent on repayment once the system achieves financial stability and profitability (Boncompte and Galilea, 2013). With the consortium han- dling all fare transactions, authorities are unable to assess the system’s financial status. Operators claim they have yet to achieve profits, thus so far, government loans have not been repaid.

In close, managed competition of BRT has for the most part allowed cost-effective services to be delivered. Bogotá as well as a handful of other BRT cities (Curitiba, Guayaquil, Lanzhou) require no government operating subsidies partly as a result. A side-benefit of a wholesale switch to BRT services is that it allows for an institutional shake-up. While traditional bus services are difficult to reform because of incumbent operators resist efforts to increase competition, inauguration of a wholly new type of transit, BRT, provides the political opportunity to introduce meaningful institutional reforms (Wright, 2011). Scientific Advisory Group Report ACEA th 20

Report_20thSAG.indd 30 26/11/2013 15:37 Report_20thSAG.indd 31 funding from support national governments, BRT-oriented of eliciting private in participation operations, increased ways better services, transit citywide with BRT of integration new trends are emerging. These include: and service tariff reach new destinations. now can that corridors existing on workers and residents to also but corridor, served newly the to traveling and working living, those only not benefits line BRT new Each effects. network to due accelerate to expected be can benefits tal BRT expand, systems moreover, and environmen mobility ticularly well suited for lower-density As existing settings. same vehicle, and makes thus eliminating transfers, it par at linking versatility Its feeder in andservices the line-haul marks. high gets BRT regard, this In delivered. service of lity qua the –is steel-wheel-on-steel-rail or pavement on tyres than the physicalimportant apparatus – whether rubber- century. 21st the throughout contexts urban of range a wide over choices mobility of mix the to add to poised stands BRT needed. –is points price of arange at options mobility of set landscape – one that providesplural transportation a rich amore diversify, to continue choices lifestyle and values neighbourhood designs, societalhousehold structures, cities, As rail. for asubstitute and to acomplement both be can BRT co-exist. nicely systems metrorail and BRT City, as Beijing, Los Teheran, Angeles, Delhi, Seoul and Mexico diverse as cities In either-or. not fortunately is rail urban and rail. urban over BRT favour fringes urban budget constraints along with continuing on growth the LRT systems. Even in more mature, advanced economies, or metros than cost-effective more be to likely are networks BRT less-expensive places, these In 500,000. to 100,000 of populations with cities in be will 2030 and now between dwellers urban new 2billion the of most (2011), Habitat UN to BRT. to According conducive settings in be will century 21st vices. The bulk of future throughout the populationgrowth favouremissions, further a world of expanded transit ser combined global with to initiatives curb dramatically carbon environmental andof fiscalcar-dependent sprawl, impacts long-term the over concerns ever. Mounting than imperative more transit systems high-performance high-capacity, economies and cities makefast-growing in investments ever-worsening trafficconditions in many rapidly emerging C 9. onclusion As an industry, BRT is hardly static. As the BRT matures, matures, BRT the As static. hardly is BRT industry, an As Less dichotomy. afalse increasingly is bus versus Rail BRT between choice the areas, metropolitan large For and motorisation Rapid bright. is BRT for future The - - - - (Wright, 2011, p. 454). 454). p. 2011, (Wright, clear” are rewards BRT, the full with cities their redefine to chance the take who leaders political few the for However, technical. or financial than political be to likely more are ment 2011). (Wright, lity “Ultimately, the obstacles to BRT develop qua service undermined buses BRT alongside run to tors vehicles, and unwillingness to prevent incumbent opera feeder and trunk between integration of lack the phase, first Jakarta’s In quo. status the retain to pressures political Lagos andJakarta, Santiago, fell mainly because of short originally BRTenvisaged,such services as the high-quality leadership. political Citiesnary that have failed to deliver visio and strong of alegacy is common in share Seoul and 2013). Gutiérrez, and Hidago 2013; al., et (Suzuki technology-providers from Brazil, India, Indonesia and China and manufacturers bus of growth the and development, land One thing that successful BRT cities like Bogotá, Curitiba Curitiba Bogotá, like cities BRT successful that thing One - - - - 31 26/11/2013 15:37 20th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group Report References

Cervero, R. and Golob, A. 2011. Informal public transport: a global perspective. In: Urban Transport in the Developing World: A Handbook of Policy and Practice, H. Dimitriou and R. Gakenheimer, eds. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 488-518. Angel, S. 2011. Making room for a planet of cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cervero, R. and Kang, C. 2011. Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul, Korea. Transport Policy, Bernick, M. and Cervero, R. 1997. Transit villages for the Vol. 18, pp. 102-116. 21st century. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. Chen, X. 2010. Prospect of the transit-oriented Boncompte, J. and Galilea, P. 2013. Identification of key development in China, Management Research and factors in the design and implementation of BRT systems Practice, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 83-983. in developing countries. Paper presented at the13th World Conference on Transportation Research, Rio de Janeiro, CHINABRT.ORG. ITDP China, Institute for Transportation Brazil, July. & Development Policy, Guangzhou, China. Accessed data July 24-25, 2013. BRTDATA.ORG. Accessed July 24-25, 2013. Currie, G. 2006. Bus transit oriented development: Cain, A., Flynn, J., McCourt, M., and Reyes, T. 2009. strengths and weaknesses relative to rail. Journal of Public Quantifying the importance of image and perception Tranpsortation, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1-21. to Bus Rapid Transit. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation, Curtis, C., Renne, J., and Bertolini, L. 2009. Transit Demonstration and Innovations. oriented development: making it happen. Surrey, UK: Ashgat. Cervero, R. 1998. The transit metropolis: a global inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Delgado, H. and Uniman, D. 2011. Analysis de distribucion de impacts: costs y beneficios – application Metrobus Cervero, R. 2005. Progressive transport and the poor: – Line 3, Centro de Transporte Sustentable de Mesico. Bogotá's bold steps forward. Access, No. 27, pp. 24-30. Presented at the VII Sustainable Transport Congress, Mexico City. Cervero, R. 2006. The property value case for transit. Developing Around Transit: Strategies and Solutions That Deng, T. and Nelson, J. 2011. Recent developments in bus Work, R. Dunphy et al., eds. Washington, DC: Urban Land rapid yransit: a review of the literature. Transport Reviews, Institute. Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 69-96.

Cervero, R. 2011. State roles in providing affordable Dittmar, H. and Ohland, G. 2003. The new transit mass transport services for Low-Income Residents. Paris: town: best practices in transit-oriented development. Organisation for Economic Development/International Washington, DC: Island Press. Transport Forum, Discussion Paper 2011-17. Duarte, F. and Ultramari, C. 2012. Making public Cervero, R. and Murakami, J. 2010. Effects of built transport and housing match: accomplishments and Environments on vehicle miles traveled: evidence from 370 failures of Curitiba's BRT, Journal of Urban Planning and US metropolitan areas, Environment and Planning A, Development, Vol. 138, No. 2, pp. 183-194. Vol. 42, pp. 400-418. Duarte, F. and Rojas, F. 2012. Intermodal connectivity Cervero, R., Murakami, J., and Miller, M. 2010. Direct to BRT: a comparative analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba. ridership model of bus rapid transit in Los Angeles county, Journal of Public Transportation, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1-18. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2145, pp. 1-7.

Report_20thSAG.indd 32 26/11/2013 15:37 Duduta, N., Adriazola-Steli, C., Hildalgo, D., Lindau, L; and Gilbert, A. 2008. Bus rapid transit: Is Transmilenio Santos, P. 2013. The relationship between safety, capacity, a miracle cure? Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, and operating speed on bus rapid transit. Paper presented pp. 439-467. at the13th World Conference on Transportation Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July. Guerra, E. and R. Cervero. 201. Cost of a ride: the effects of densities on fixed-guideway transit ridership and costs, Echeverry, J., Ibáñex, A., Myoa, A. and Hillón, J. 2005. Journal of the American Planning Association vol. 77, no. 3, The economics of TransMilenio: a mass transit system for pp. 27-290. Bogotá. Economia, Spring. Gwilliam, K. 2002. Cities on the move. Washington, Economist Intelligence Unit. 2011. Lievanomics: Urban D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and liveability and economic growth. London: The Economist. Development/The World Bank, A World Bank Transport Strategy Review. EMBARQ. 2009. Evaluación ex-post sistema de transport masivo de Bogotá: Fases I y I. Washington, D.C. Hensher, D. and Golob, T. 2008. Bus rapid transit systems: a comparative assessment. Transportation Vol. 35, No. 4, Estupinan, N. and Rodriquez, D. 2008. The relationship pp. 501-518. between urban form and station boardings for Bogota’s BRT, Transportation Research A, Vol. 42, pp. 296-306. Hildalgo, D. and Yepes, T. 2005. Are bus rapid transit systems effective in poverty reduction? European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Buses Economist Intelligent Unit. 2010. Liveanomics: with High Level of Service: Fundamental Characteristics urban liveability and economic growth. http://www. and Recommendations for Decision-making and managementthinking.eiu.com/liveanomics.html. Accessed Research. Brussels: European Cooperation in Science and June 25, 2013. Technology. Hildalgo, D. and Graftieaux, P. 2008. Bus rapid transit Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the built systems in Latin America and Asia: results and difficulties environment: a meta-analysis, Journal of the American in 11 cities. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2072, Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 265-294. pp. 77-88.

Finn, B., Heddebaut, O., Kerkhof, A., Rambaud, Hildalgo, F. and Carrigan, A. 2010. BRT in Latin America: F., Lozano, O., Soulas, C. 2011. Buses with High high capacity and performance, rapid iImplementation and Level of Service: Fundamental Characteristics and low cost. Built Environment, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 283-297. Recommendations for Decision-making and Research. Brussels: European Cooperation in Science and Hidago, D. and Gutiérrez, L. 2013. BRT and BHLS around Technology. the world: explosive growth, large positive impacts and many issues outstanding. Research in Transportation Foster, A. 2011. Waiting is finally over for the longest Economics, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 8-13. busway in the world. Bus Rapid Transit Has Arrived: A Review of Key Developments 2011/2012, Landor Links, Hildalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñán, N., and Jiménez, BRTuk, pp. 23-24. P. 2013. TransMilenio BRT system in Bogotá: high- performance and positive impacts; main results of an Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius, and B. van Wee (2008) ex-post evaluation. Research in Transportation Economics, Comparison of capital costs per route-kilometre in urban Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 133-138. rail. European Journal of Transportation and Infrastructure Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp.17-30. Hook, W. 2005. Institutional and regulatory options for BRT in developing countries: lessons from international experiences. Transportation Research Record 1939, pp. 184-191.

Report_20thSAG.indd 33 26/11/2013 15:37 Hossain, M. 2006. The issues and realities of BRT planning Lubow, A. 2007. The road to Curitiba. New York Times initiatives in developing Asian cities. Journal of Public Magazine, May 20, pp. 4-6. Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 69-87. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2013. Global land Ma, L , Ye, R., Titheridge, H. 2013. Capitalization effects transport infrastructure requirement: estimating road and of rail transit and BRT on residential property values railway infrastructure capacity and costs to 2050. in a booming economy: evidence from Beijing. Paper Paris: OECD/IEA. presented at the13th World Conference on Transportation Research, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July. ITDB (Institute for Transportation & Development Policy), ClimateWorks Foundation, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Menckhoff, G. 2005. Latin American experience with bus Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), International Council rapid transit. Melbourne: paper presented at World Bank on Clean Transportation, and Rockefeller Foundation. Annual Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2013. The BRT standard 2013. New York. Available at: http://www.gobrt.org/Latin_American_ Experience_with_Bus_Rapid_Transit.pdf. ITP (Integrated Transport Planning Ltd) and IBIS Transport Consultants Ltd. 2009. Lagos BRT-Lite: Africa’s first Bus Munoz-Raskin, R. 2010. Walking accessibility to Bus Rapid Rapid Transit scheme: scheme evaluation and summary Transit: does it affect property values? Transport Policy, report. Vol. 17, pp. 72-84.

Jaramillo, C., Lizárraga, C., and Grindlay, A. 2012. Spatial Peak, M., Henke, C., and Wnuk, L. 2005. Bus rapid transit disparity in transport social needs and public transport ridership analysis. Washington, D.C.: US Department of provision in Santiago de Cali, Colombia. Journal of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Report FTA- Transport Geography, Vol. 2, pp. 340-357. CA-26-7068-2004.1.

Jiron, P. 2011. Sustainable urban mobility in Latin America Penalosa, E. 2002. Urban transport and urban and the Caribbean. Nairobi: UN Habitat, Nairobi. http:// development: a different model. Berkeley: The Centre for www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2013. Latin American Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Kantor, D., Moscoe, G. , and Henke, C. 2006. Issues and Perk, V. and Catala, M. 2009. Land use impacts of bus technologies in level boarding strategies for BRT. Journal rapid transit: effects of BRT station proximity on property of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 89-101. values along the Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, Kittelson & Associations, Inc. and Levinson, H. 2007. US Department of Transportation. Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 118. Pirie, G. 2011. Sustainable urban mobility in ‘Anglophone’ Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi: UN Habitat, Nairobi. http:// Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., and Gast, www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2013. J. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit: Synthesis of case studies. Transportation Research Record 1841, pp. 1-11. Pourbaix, J. 2011. Towards a smart future for cities: urban transport scenarios for 2025’ Public Transport Lleras, G. Bus Rapid Transit: Impacts on travel behavior International, Vol., 3, pp. 8-10. in Bogotá. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Pushkarev, B. and Zupan, J. 1977. Public transportation Planning, master’s thesis. and land use policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lindau, L., Hildalgo, D. and Facchin, D. 2010. Bus Rapid Rambaud, F., Rabuel, S., and Crest, T. 2008. BHLS: The Transit in Curitiba, Brazil: a look at the outcome after French BRT approach. Paris: Centre on Transport and 35 Years of bus-oriented development. Transportation Urbanism (Centru). Research Record, Vol. 2193, pp. 17-27.

Report_20thSAG.indd 34 26/11/2013 15:37 Rizvi, A. 2011. Alternative approaches to economically United States General Accounting Office. 2001 Bus Rapid sustainable mobility in India: comparing Ahmedabad Transit shows promise. Washington, DC: US Congress, Bus Rapid Transit and Dehli Metro Systems. Nairobi: General Accounting Office, Report GAO-01-984. UN-Habitat, case study prepared for sustainable urban mobility: global report on human settlements 2013; Venter, C., Hildalgo, D., Pineda, A. 2013. Assessing the available from: www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2013. equity impacts of bus rapid transit: emerging frameworks and evidence. Paper presented at the13th World Rodriquez, D. and Targa, F. 2004. Value of accessibility to Conference on Transportation Research, Rio de Janeiro, Bogota’s Bus Rapid Transit system, Transport Reviews, Brazil, July. Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 587-610. Vincent, W. and Jerram, L. 2006. The potential for Bus Rodriquez, D. and Mojica, C. 2009. Capitalization of BRT Rapid Transit to reduce transportation-related CO2 network expansion effects into prices of non-expansion emissions. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 3, areas. Transportation Research A Vol. 43, pp. 560-571. pp. 219-237.

Santos, E. 2011. Pioneer in BRT and urban pPlanning. Vuchic, V. 2007. Urban transit systems and technology. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Press. New York: John Wiley.

Seoul Development Institute. 2005a. Toward better public Wöhrnschimmel, J., Zuk, M, Martinez-Villa, G., Cerón, transport. Seoul, Korea: Seoul Development Institute, Cárdenas, B., and Rojas-Brancho. 2008. The impact Seoul Metropolitan Government. of a bus rapid transit system on commuters’ exposure to benzene, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 in Mexico City. Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffatt, S., Yabjuk, N. and Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 8194-8203. Maryyama, H. 2010. Eco2 cities: ecological cities as economic cities. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Wright, L. 2011. Bus rapid transit: a review of recent advances. Urban transport in the developing world: a Suzuki, H., Cervero, R. and Iuchi, K. 2013. Transforming handbook of policy and practice, H. Dimitriou and R. cities with transit: transit and land-use integration for Gakenheimer, eds. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edgar Elgard, sustainable urban development. Washington, DC: World pp. 421-455. Bank. Wright, L. and Hook, W. 2007. Bus rapid transit Tiwari, G. and Jain, D. 2010. Bus rapid transit projects in planning guide. New York: Institute of Transportation India cities: a status report. Built Environment, Vol. 36, & Development. No. 3, pp. 353-362. Yang, J., Shen, A., Shen, J., and He, C. Transport Torres-Montoya, M. 2013. Tackling fare evasion in impacts of clustered development in Beijing: Compact Transantiago: an integrated approach. Paper prepared development versus overconcentration, Urban Studies, for presentation at the 93rd annual meeting of the Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1315-1331. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, scheduled for January 2014. Yazici, M., Levinson, H., Ilicali, M., Camkesen, N., Kamga, C. 2013. A bus rapid transit line case study: Istanbul’s UN Habitat. 2011. Global report on human settlements Metrobus system. Journal of Public Transportation, 2011: Cities and Climate Change. Nairobi: UN Habitat. Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 153-177.

UN Habitat. 2012. Database on urban densities among Zhang, M. 2009. Bus versus rail: meta-analysis of cost global cities. Nairobi: UN Habitat. Proprietary data characteristics, carrying capacities, and land use impacts. provided to the author. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2110, pp. 87-95.

Report_20thSAG.indd 35 26/11/2013 15:37 Association des Constructeurs Européens d’Automobiles

European Automobile Manufacturers Association

Avenue des Nerviens 85 B – 1040 Bruxelles Belgium

T +32 2 732 55 50 F +32 2 738 73 10

www.acea.be

Report_20thSAG.indd 36 26/11/2013 15:37