Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit A Survey of Select U.S. Cities Annie Weinstock, Walter Hook, Michael Replogle, and Ramon Cruz May 2011 Cover: A sleek and modern-looking BRT vehicle pulls into a station in Las Vegas. Photo: Annie Weinstock, ITDP 2 • Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit Table of Contents 4 Foreword 5 Introduction 10 Chapter 1: History of BRT in the United States 16 Chapter 2: BRT Global Best Practice 34 Chapter 3: BRT in the United States Today 48 Chapter 4: Getting Better BRT in the United States 59 Chapter 5: BRT and the Feds 65 Chapter 6: BRT Branding and the Media 75 Conclusion 76 Annex 77 Notes 79 Acknowledgements Foreword The transportation system in the United States has often been dominated by a particular mode. A century ago it was rail; in the last several decades it has been the automobile. Over time we have come to learn that while various modes have a tremendous impact on the shape of our communities, the movement of goods, and the health of our environment, each also serves different needs. One approach does not fit all. Congress took an important step in 1991 to create a balance between different modes with the Inter- modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act; subsequent transportation authorization bills have con- tinued that trend. During my fifteen years in Congress, I have fought for a transportation framework that includes light rail, streetcars, and facilities that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as cars, buses, and railroads. Bus rapid transit (BRT) is an important part of an extensive tool kit that can strengthen both our transportation system and our communities. This report takes a close look at the value of bus rapid transit, highlighting best practices from sys- tems in the United States as well as abroad. BRT projects can be put in place quickly, provide a high level of flexibility, and integrate well with other transportation modes, from subways to cycling and walking, while fitting today’s often constrained budgets. While bus rapid transit has worked well in large and medium-sized cities from Bogotá, Colombia to Curitiba, Brazil to Guangzhou, China, it is less well known in the United States. BRT is sometimes met with skepticism and resistance from transportation planners and engineers who are unfamiliar with how to build high-quality BRT systems, since we have limited examples here at home. Citizens too are often concerned about dedicating the requisite street space to buses. This report outlines what it would take to build high-quality, or “gold-standard,” BRT in the United States. If American communities are to become more livable, we need all transportation options on the table for consideration. Now more than ever it is important to find creative solutions to provide affordable transportation options that meet the needs of our communities and residents and keep our economy moving forward. Congressman Earl Blumenauer Third Congressional District, Oregon 4 Introduction Bus Rapid Transit was first implemented in Curitiba, Brazil in 1974, and has become a global phenomenon in the twenty-first century. Major new BRT projects have opened since the turn of the century in Africa, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Turkey, several cities in Europe, and dozens of cities in Latin America. BRT holds great promise for the United States. In 2008, transit ridership in the United States reached its highest level since the mid-1950s and ridership grew faster than population and vehicle miles travelled between 1995 and 2008 [ APTA 2010 Fact Book ]. The flexibility and cost effectiveness of Bus Rapid Transit make it an excellent choice for cities and transit agencies facing both increas- ing demand for transit and increasingly constrained budgets. Though it is still in its infancy in the United States, several good BRT systems have opened in the country over the last decade, and perhaps a dozen new projects are in the pipeline in cities from San Francisco to Chicago. In many ways, the spread of BRT in the twenty-first century mimics the worldwide spread of the streetcar a century earlier. Bus Rapid Transit Around the World Crawley Amsterdam Paris Eindhoven Ottawa Caen Rouen Harbin Eugene Nantes Cleveland Lyon Beijing Dalian Istanbul Jinan Pittsburgh Lanzhou Seoul Los Angeles Las Vegas Tehran Nagoya ZhengzhouHefei Changzhou Delhi Chongqing Jaipur Hangzhou Kunming León Ahmedabad Taipei Guadalajara Guangzhou Mexico City Pune Xiamen Guatemala City Bangkok Barranquilla Pereira Bucaramanga Cali Bogotá Quito Guayaquil Jakarta Lima Goiânia Belo Horizonte São Paulo Johannesburg Curitiba Brisbane Santiago Porto Alegre CapeTown length of system in km to 14 15–24 25–49 50+ 5 Today, cities are beginning to realize that a good This problem is by no means unique to the mass transit system helps attract an educated United States. After Curitiba opened the first BRT workforce that forms the backbone of the system, other cities in Brazil opened systems with modern economy. A mass transit network is a some of the same characteristics as Curitiba, but powerful tool in the fight against traffic conges- with much lower speeds, capacities, and customer tion, air pollution, rising road construction and comforts. These light BRT systems — São Paulo’s maintenance costs, and the economic hazards of passa rápido corridors, for example — also brought growing dependence on insecure and volatile oil some real benefits to passengers, but were far imports. Cities that have already made the deci- less appreciated by the general public. As a result sion to invest in mass transit find BRT systems of this backlash, Brazil, once the leader in BRT attractive for the following reasons: system development, lags behind Colombia and other countries in BRT development. Instances of a. Speed of Implementation: the time from this same problem have occurred across the globe. planning to opening tends to be far shorter After Indonesia opened TransJakarta — a system for BRT than for rail-based alternatives — a with significant problems of its own — other cities benefit very attractive to politicians facing across Indonesia began opening copycat systems, short election cycles. the best of which brought about only marginal improvements, and the worst of which made b. Cost: capital costs tend to be considerably conditions worse. Chinese and Indian cities, after lower than those for rail-based mass transit gaining some limited familiarity with Bogotá’s alternatives; operating costs are also lower TransMilenio, also made a number of sub-optimal in some contexts. bus system improvements, which were branded as BRT, but which could not be judged as cost effective. c. Network Connectivity: because parts of the network can operate on normal streets, it is The United States has followed a similar trend. much cheaper and faster to establish a full Having gained some familiarity with BRT from network using bus-based mass transit. In this visits to Curitiba or Bogotá, a number of Ameri- way, modern BRT can offer more one-seat can cities began developing BRT-type systems. rides than the typical trunk-and-feeder sys- Some of these systems have brought significant tems offered by older BRT and most light rail, benefits and won public approval. However, even metro, or commuter rail systems. the best U.S. systems lack some key character- istics of the world’s best BRT systems, and none Rail-based mass transit technologies have certain of them have fully captured the imagination of common characteristics dictated by the need for American motorists and voters. rail infrastructure and the specialized vehicles needed to operate on it. This is less true for BRT Ultimately, the only true test of a high-quality systems, where there is no rigid definition of mass transit intervention is an assessment of precisely what constitutes a BRT system. The “cost effectiveness,” indicating: lack of a common definition of BRT has caused •฀ A substantial reduction in total travel time confusion in discussions of the technology since and/or travel cost for the population of transit its inception. riders in the project’s impact area; Lack of a common understanding of what consti- •฀ Evidence that the system has attracted new tutes a BRT system has led to branding problems. riders from other modes; and The lack of any sort of quality control on bus- •฀ Effectiveness in achieving other public trans- based mass transit interventions has made it portation objectives, such as serving as a frame- possible for marginal bus system improvements work for sustainable development. However, this to be branded as BRT, leading to some commu- indicator is heavily dependent on the first two. nity backlash against the concept of BRT. Modest incremental improvements, while beneficial to Project proponents are required to collect some bus riders, are often not the most cost-effective of this information if applying to the U.S. FTA solution. They certainly do not add up to the for funding. However, insufficient information fundamental change needed to shift the travel is available to the general public about how this paradigm in ways that make alternatives to driv- cost effectiveness determination has been made ing cars attractive at a national scale. to independently verify its legitimacy. 6 • Introduction For this reason, this paper follows the approach or are allowed to use only a limited part of the taken by the LEED certification process ( Leader- specialized BRT infrastructure. ship in Energy and Environmental Design ) pio- neered by the Green Buildings Council, creating a Infrastructure design should therefore accom- scoring system based on readily observable sys- modate the addition of new limited and express tem characteristics associated with best practice. bus services. In order to provide fast services to Existing and potential future projects were evalu- far-flung suburban areas, it is critical to design ated based on the resulting BRT Standard which trunk infrastructure that also accommodates classified them as gold, silver, bronze or not BRT.