Introduction Part I Project Preparation 4Part II Operational Design Part III Physical Design Part IV Integration Part V Business Plan Part VI Evaluation and Implementation Resources, Annexes, and References ������������������ �������������� ��������� Part II – Operational Design CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 Network and service design System capacity and speed CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10 Intersections and signal control Customer service Bus Rapid Transit - Planning Guide 2007 7. Network and service design the trip involve many difficult transfers or can one access desired destinations within a single “Always design a thing by considering it in routing? If transfers are necessary, will they its next larger context—a chair in a room, a involve cumbersome walks across intersections room in a house, a house in an environment, and grade separations or are the transfers easily an environment in a city plan.” facilitated across a platform protected from —Eliel Saarinen, architect, 1873–1950 adverse weather? The starting point for the design process should In some instances, operational decision-making not be the infrastructure or the vehicles. In- can involve trade-offs. The most economical stead, the system should be designed to achieve and efficient system may impose transfers on the operational characteristics that are desired customers while direct services may prove to be by the customer. From the customer’s perspec- more costly. Providing the most effective service tive, some of the most important factors affect- frequently requires a significant change in how ing their choice of travel modes are whether the existing public transport operators work, but service will take them where they want to go changing the status quo for operators can often and how long it takes. be politically difficult. Balancing the various This chapter addresses the system’s coverage factors between customer service, cost efficiency, across the wider network of a city’s principal and operator relations requires a full under- origins and destinations. Additionally, this standing of the operational options and their chapter discusses the various factors that affect implications. the system’s convenience and ease of use. Does The topics discussed in this chapter are: 7.1 Open systems versus closed systems 7.2 Trunk-feeder services versus direct services 7.3 Route design 7.1 “Open” versus “closed” systems If there are no restrictions on operator access or “Sometimes we stare so long at a door that is the types of vehicles, the busway may perform closing that we see too late the one that is open.” inefficiently. As more vehicles enter the busway, —Alexander Graham Bell, inventor, 1847–1922 the resulting congestion at stations and intersec- tions will greatly reduce average speeds and The degree to which access is limited to thus increase customer travel times. Limiting prescribed operators and vehicles can have a access to an optimum number of operators and significant impact on vehicle speeds, environ- vehicles can help to ensure system capacity and mental impacts, and the system’s aesthetic speeds are maximised and maintained over qualities. On one extreme, there are busways time. However, placing restrictions on operator that are essentially high-occupancy vehicle access generally requires changing the way the lanes (HOV). In this case, access is granted to public transport sector is regulated and man- any vehicle carrying over a certain number of aged. While such a re-organisation can be a passengers. Bus corridors such as Avenue Blaise positive development, it often requires a great Diagne in Dakar, Oxford Street in London deal of political will and political leadership. and the Verazano Bridge in New York allow Emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, are both buses and taxis. The Ottawa Transitway generally permitted access on most BRT systems permits both urban BRT vehicles as well as (Figures 7.1 and 7.2), whether it is an open or inter-city bus services. Conversely, the Bogotá closed system. This public service provides an and Curitiba systems limit access to only additional motivation for approving a BRT prescribed BRT operators and special BRT project, especially since many rail options are vehicles. not be compatible with emergency vehicles. In Part II Operational Design 213 Bus Rapid Transit - Planning Guide 2007 Fig. 7.1 and 7.2 In cities such as Quito, the exclusive busways also permit emergency vehicles to avoid traffic delays and respond more quickly to those in need. Photos by Lloyd Wright many cities, mixed traffic congestion signifi- 7.1.1 Defining “open” and “closed” cantly inhibits emergency access and delivery. systems By facilitating rapid emergency services for the Systems that limit access to prescribed operators injured and critically ill, the BRT system is in are known as “closed systems”. Typically, this effect helping to save lives. access is granted through a competitive selection Some cities also permit “official” vehicles to process. In general, the highest-quality examples utilise the busway. This usage may include of BRT, such as Bogotá and Curitiba, utilise a presidential and ministerial motorcades as closed system structure. In these cases, private well as travel for low-ranking public officials companies compete for the right to provide (Figure 7.3). The justification for such usage public transport services under a process of can be somewhat questionable. Certainly, for competitive tendering. The number of operating the highest ranked officials, such as the national companies and the number of vehicles utilised president or prime minister, the exclusive bus- will largely be a product of optimising customer way does allow for potentially safer movements, conditions. These systems also only permit which can be important in nations where terror- vehicles with highly-defined specifications to ism or other security threats may exist. The us- operate on the corridor. age by lower-ranking officials is harder to justify By contrast, systems that have implemented a Fig. 7.3 and can ultimately have a highly detrimental busway system without any sector reform or any impact on system speeds and capacity. In Quito, When usage of the exclusivity are known as “open systems”. In such exclusive busway sometimes the expropriation of busway space cases, any operator that previously provided by lower-ranking even extends to public utility vehicles, such as collective transport services will retain the right governmental officials garbage trucks (Figure 7.4). While it is under- to provide services within the new busway. In becomes common standable that utility companies would like to Fig. 7.4 place, then there can be take advantage of rapid access on the busway, negative impacts on the In Quito, even garbage trucks take efficiency of the system. the presence of such vehicles can do much to advantage of the exclusive busway. Photo by Lloyd Wright hinder proper BRT operation. Photo by Lloyd Wright 214 Part II Operational Design Bus Rapid Transit - Planning Guide 2007 the advantage that they do not require any fundamental changes in the regulatory structure of the existing bus services. Open systems are particularly prevalent in cities where the politi- cal will does not exist to re-organise the bus system. Since bus operating companies may represent powerful political interests, public officials may decide that maintaining the status quo will cause the least amount of discomfort to existing operators. Thus, with the exception of a bit of new infrastructure in the form of a basic busway, an open system may be otherwise indistinguishable from a standard bus service. In reality, the division between “closed” and “open” systems is not as clearly delineated as suggested above. Some “open” systems may still exclude charter buses, school buses, airport access buses, minibuses, or intercity buses. Systems may undergo some relatively minor reforms that may partially limit operator ac- cess. In some cases, such as the Quito “Central Fig. 7.5 Norte” corridor, the business structure may be Kunming employs an “open” BRT system, partially reformed. The operational concession using segregated busways but with few for the Central Norte line essentially permitted routing or structural reforms. all existing operators to participate in the new Photo by Lloyd Wright busway. However, to operate on the Central an open system, operators will largely continue Norte corridor, only vehicles of a specific type to run the same routes as they did previously. are allowed. The shift to larger, articulated Thus, the operators will tend to utilise the vehicles did help to rationalise services in the busway infrastructure whenever it coincides corridor, despite the lack of complete business with their previous routing, and they will reform. Thus, systems such as the Central Norte likely also operate parts of their existing routes may represent a partially closed system that without busway infrastructure. The systems in reaps some benefits from marginal reform. the cities of Kunming, Porto Alegre, and Taipei operate as open systems (Figure 7.5). Most cities 7.1.2 Impacts on operations with lower-grade BRT systems, or simply basic Perhaps the most telling difference between an busways, utilise an open system structure. open and closed system is the impact on aver- age vehicle speeds and customer travel times. In general, a closed structure is more conducive Without any rationalisation of existing services, to efficient operations. Since the number of an open system can lead to severe congestion operators and the number of vehicles are ration- on the busway, though a poorly planned closed ally selected and carefully controlled, a closed system can also become congested. A closed system tends to be designed around the opti- system will tend to operate high-capacity mum conditions for customer movement. Fur- vehicles that will likely result in service being ther, a closed structure frequently implies that provided every three minutes. An open system a competitive structure is in place that provides may consist of many smaller vehicles all tightly operator incentives regarding service quality.