Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
This report presents planning and implementation guidelines for bus rapid transit (BRT). The guidelines are based on a literature review and an analysis of 26 case study cities in the United States and abroad. The guidelines cover the main components of BRTârunning ways, stations, traffic controls, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems (ITSs), bus operations, fare collection and marketing, and implementation. S-1. WHAT IS BRT? BRT has been defined by the Federal Transit Administration as âa rapid mode of trans- portation that can provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of busesâ (âBRT Reference Guideâ). The following expanded definition has been used in developing the implementation guidelines presented here: BRT is a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong identity. BRT applications are designed to be appropri- ate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incremen- tally implemented in a variety of environments (from rights-of-way totally dedicated to transitâsurface, elevated, undergroundâto mixed with traffic on streets and highways). In many respects, BRT is rubber-tired light rail transit (LRT), but with greater oper- ating flexibility and potentially lower costs. Often, a relatively small investment in ded- icated guideways can provide regional rapid transit. S-2. PLANNING BRT should be developed as an outgrowth of a planning and development process that stresses problems and demonstrated needs rather than solution advocacy. BRT calls for early and continuous community and decision-maker support. State, regional, and town cooperation is essential; transit planners, traffic engineers, and urban planners must work together. A key issue, unique to BRT planning, is dealing with modal biases in the system- planning process and the perceived greater desirability of rail transit. Other issues, sim- ilar to planning for any rapid-transit mode, include finding suitable corridors for BRT, VOLUME 2: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES SUMMARY
obtaining street space for buses and sidewalk space for stations, achieving effective enforcement, and overcoming fragmentation of responsibilities and conservative agency attitudes. Planning BRT projects calls for a realistic assessment of demands, costs, benefits, and impacts. The objective is to develop a coordinated set of actions that achieves attractive and reliable BRT services, serves demonstrated demands, provides reserve capacity for the future, attracts automobile drivers, relates to long-range development plans, and has reasonable costs. Key factors include the following: ⢠Land Use: the intensity and growth prospects of activity centers, urban growth and expansion, development and growth patterns, and locations of major employ- ment centers and residential developments in relation to potential BRT routes. ⢠Road Network: street width continuity, capacity, congestion, and opportunities for off-street running ways. ⢠Bus Operations: past and future projected transit use, operating speeds, and reliability. Community willingness to support public transport, foster transit-oriented develop- ment, and enforce bus lanes is essential; therefore, extensive and effective public par- ticipation in the decision-making process can facilitate BRT implementation. A BRT plan should be developed as an integrated system that adapts attributes of rail transit, focuses on major markets, emphasizes speed and reliability, takes advantage of incremental development, and establishes complementary transit-first policies. Other system attributes that are equally important include the times during which service is available, frequency/headways, walking distances, waiting times, transfers, in-vehicle time, a clean and appealing image, and fare collection strategies. The elimination or reduction of system features to cut costs should be avoided. BRT is especially desirable in large cities and urbanized areas where passenger flows need frequent service, and there is a sufficient âpresenceâ of buses. The following gen- eralized standards should be applied as a starting point for BRT planning and design: ⢠In the United States and Canada, BRT is typically most successful when the urban population exceeds 750,000 and employment in the central business district (CBD) is, at a minimum, between 50,000 and 75,000. Land uses should be organized in dense patterns that facilitate transit use. ⢠Desired service frequencies for a basic BRT line should be at least 8 to 10 minutes during peak periods and 12 to 15 minutes during off-peak periods to facilitate ran- dom passenger arrivals. These service frequencies translate into a daily ridership of at least 5,000. BRT system design and operation should reflect the specific needs and opportunities of each urban area. They should enhance the presence, permanence, and identity of BRT facilities and services. The common types of BRT are (1) conventional radial routes, (2) extensions of rail rapid-transit lines, and (3) peak-period commuter express operations. S-3. RUNNING WAYS Running ways are the key element of BRT systems around which the other compo- nents revolve. Running ways should allow rapid and reliable movement of buses with minimum traffic interference and provide a clear sense of presence and permanence. S-2
S-3 Because buses have higher occupancies than private automobiles, economic benefits can result from increased ridership attraction, passenger time savings, and operating costs. S-3.1. General Guidelines BRT may run in dedicated busways, in freeway rights-of-way, or on city streets. Table S-1 lists the common types of running ways and groups them by amount of access control. Some general guidelines are the following: ⢠Running ways should serve and penetrate major travel markets. ⢠Running ways should serve the three basic route components of CBD distrib- ution, line haul, and neighborhood collection in a coherent manner. Generally, a variety of types of running ways will be used for each component and customized to specific needs. CBD distribution may be on street in bus lanes, off street in bus tunnels, or achieved by means of terminals; physically segregated busways or bus lanes will normally provide the line-haul service. Residential distribution may be via bus lanes or in mixed traffic. A dedicated BRT corridor may consist of a num- ber of segments, each with a different running way treatment. ⢠Running ways will generally be radial, connecting city centers with outlying residential and commercial areas. BRT can also effectively connect major activ- ity centers or corridors with dense development patterns that facilitate transit use. Cross-town running ways may be appropriate in large cities where they connect major passenger generators, serve large residential catchments, and cross frequent interchanging bus lines or rail lines. ⢠BRT is best achieved by providing exclusive grade-separated right-of-way. However, these rights-of-way may be difficult to obtain, costly to develop, and not always located in areas of the best ridership potential. Therefore, street running ways or at-grade intersections in an otherwise exclusive or separated running way may be required. ⢠Effective downtown passenger distribution facilities are essential. In provid- ing the more direct, off-guideway service to downtown origins and destinations, the downtown distribution system should maintain service dependability and min- imize time losses resulting from general traffic delays. ⢠BRT running ways should follow streets and roadways that are relatively free flowing wherever possible. Speeds and reliability should be enhanced by TABLE S-1 Running ways classified by extent of access control Class Access Control Facility Type I Uninterrupted Flow Bus Tunnel Full Control of Access Grade-Separated Busway Reserved Freeway Lanes II Partial Control of Access At-Grade Busway III Physically Separated Lanes Arterial Median Busway Within Street Rights-of-Way Bus Street IV Exclusive Semi-exclusive Lanes Concurrent and Contra Flow Bus Lanes V Mixed Traffic Operations
transit-sensitive traffic engineering, provisions of bus-only lanes, and, in some cases, major street improvements. Routes should be direct, and the number of turns should be minimized. ⢠Special running ways (e.g., busways, bus lanes, and queue bypasses) should be provided when there is (1) extensive street congestion; (2) a sufficient number of buses; (3) suitable street geometry; and (4) community willingness to support pub- lic transport, reallocate road space as needed, provide necessary funding, and enforce regulations. ⢠Preferential treatments for BRT may be provided (1) around specific bottle- necks or (2) along an entire route. Queue bypasses or queue jumpers are very effective on approaches to water crossings with extensive peak-hour congestion. Longer treatments are desirable along BRT routes. ⢠Running ways should maximize the person flow along a roadway with mini- mum net total person delay over time. There should be a net savings in the travel time per person for all travelers. When road space is allocated to BRT, the person minutes saved should be more than the person minutes lost by people in automobiles. ⢠Buses should be able to enter and leave running ways safely and conveniently. This is especially important in developing median and contra flow lanes and busways along arterial streets and within freeway corridors. There should be suitable provi- sions for passing stopped or disabled buses. ⢠Running ways should provide a strong sense of identity for BRT. This is espe- cially important when buses operate in bus lanes or in arterial median busways. Giving the lanes a special color is also recommended. ⢠Adequate signing, markings, and traffic signal controls are essential. They are especially important at entry and exit points of arterial contra flow bus and median busways, bus-only streets, busways, and reserved freeway lanes. ⢠Bus lanes and queue bypasses may be provided along both one-way and two- way streets. Although subject to unique local roadway conditions, generally, con- current flow bus lanes should allow at least two adjacent general traffic lanes in the same direction of travel. Contra flow lanes should allow at least two traffic lanes in the opposite direction of travel. Median arterial busways should allow at least one travel lane and one parking lane in each direction. In restrictive situations, there should be at least one through and one left-turn lane each way on two-way streets. ⢠Running way designs should be consistent with established national, state, and local standards. The stops and stations should be accessible to all likely users. They should permit safe bus, traffic, and pedestrian movements. ⢠Running way designs may allow, when feasible, possible future conversion to rail transit without disrupting BRT operations. Service during the construction period is desirable for median arterial busways, busways on separate rights-of-way, and busways within freeway envelopes. S-3.2. Capacities The number of buses and passengers that can be carried along a BRT route depends on the type of running way, the design of stations and stops, the size and height of buses, door arrangements on buses, fare collection methods, demand characteristics (e.g., the concentration of boardings at critical stops), and operating practices. Experi- ence with BRT in several cities around the world suggests the following: ⢠When buses operate nonstop along freeways, have well-designed entry points, and have adequately sized terminals, flows up to about 750 buses per lane per hour have been accommodated. S-4
S-5 ⢠Busways with passing lanes at stations carry over 200 buses per hour each way, but this requires adequate capacity such as dual bus lanes in downtown areas for buses. ⢠The South American experience indicates that median arterial busways can carry over 200 buses per hour each way with passing lanes at stations. ⢠Dual bus lanes on downtown streets carry a total of 150 to 200 buses per hour. Similar volumes can be carried in a single lane with more infrequent stops if there is multidoor boarding and use of off-board fare collection and/or noncash fares. ⢠Curb bus lanes on city streets typically can accommodate 90 to 120 buses per hour. Given the above information on capacities (based on experience with BRT systems around the world), it is safe to say that BRT generally can provide sufficient capacities for corridors in most U.S. cities. S-3.3. On-Street Running Ways On-street BRT running ways provide downtown and residential distribution and serve corridors where market factors, costs, or right-of-way availability preclude pro- viding busways (or reserved freeway lanes). On-street running ways also may be the first stage of future off-street BRT development and establish ridership during an interim stage. Each type of on-street running way has its strengths and weaknesses: ⢠BRT operations in mixed traffic flow can be implemented quickly at minimum cost, but can subject buses to general traffic delays, and there is little or no sense of BRT identity. ⢠Concurrent flow curb bus lanes are easy to install, their costs are low, and they minimize the street space devoted to BRT. However, they are usually difficult to enforce and are the least effective in BRT travel time saved. Conflicts between right-turning traffic and pedestrians may delay buses. ⢠Contra flow curb lanes enable two-way operation for buses on one-way streets, may increase the number of curb faces available for passenger stops, completely separate BRT from general traffic flow, and are generally self-enforcing. However, they may disperse BRT onto several streets, thereby reducing passenger conve- nience. Contra flow curb lanes require buses to run against the prevailing traffic signal progression, limit passing opportunities around stopped or disabled buses (unless multiple lanes are provided), conflict with opposing left turns, and may cre- ate safety problems for pedestrians. ⢠Concurrent flow interior bus lanes remove BRT from curbside frictions, allow curb parking to be retained, and provide far-side bus âbulbsâ at stops for passen- ger convenience. However, they generally require curb-to-curb street widths of 60 to 70 feet, and curb parking maneuvers could delay buses. ⢠Median arterial busways physically separate the BRT running ways from general traffic, provide a strong sense of BRT identity, eliminate conflicts between buses and right-turning automobiles, and can enable the busways to be grade separated at major intersections. However, they require prohibiting left turns from the paral- lel roadways or providing special lanes and signal phases for these turns. Median arterial busways also require wide streetsâgenerally more than 80 feet curb to curb, and their costs can be high. ⢠Bus-only streets remove BRT from general traffic, increase walking space for pedestrians and waiting space at stations, improve BRT identity, and improve the ambience of the surrounding areas. However, they need nearby parallel streets for the displaced traffic and provisions for goods delivery and service access from cross streets or off-street facilities. They are generally limited to a few city blocks.
Key guidelines for planning and implementing on-street running ways are as follows: ⢠General traffic improvements and road construction should be coordinated with BRT service to improve the overall efficiency of street use. Typical improve- ments include prohibiting curb parking, adding turning lanes, prohibiting turns, modifying traffic signal timing, and providing queue bypasses for buses. ⢠Curb parking generally should be prohibited before (curb) bus lanes are estab- lished, at least during peak hours. The prohibition (1) provides a bus lane without reducing street capacity for other traffic, (2) reduces delays and marginal frictions resulting from parking maneuvers, and (3) gives buses easier access to stops. ⢠Bus routes should be restructured as necessary to make effective use of bus lanes and bus streets. When BRT vehicles exceed 40 buses per hour, they should have exclusive use of the running way. When service is less frequent, it may be desirable to operate local buses on the same facility; this should not create bus-bus congestion or create passenger inconvenience. ⢠Bus priority treatments should reduce both the mean and variability of aver- age journey times. A 10 to 15% decrease in bus running time is desirable. ⢠Extended bus lanes are necessary to enable BRT schedule speeds to achieve significant time savings, better service, reliability, and increased ridership. A time savings of 1 minute per mile (equivalent to raising bus speeds from 10 to 12 miles per hour) could produce a 5- to 6-minute time savings, if achieved over the entire length of a typical 5-mile bus journey. ⢠Police cars, fire equipment, ambulances, and maintenance vehicles should be allowed to use bus lanes and bus streets. ⢠Design and operation of bus lanes must accommodate the service require- ments of adjacent land uses. Deliveries should be prohibited from curb bus lanes during the hours that the lanes operate; deliveries can be provided from the oppo- site side of the street, from side streets, or, ideally, from off-street facilities. Accom- modating deliveries is especially important when contra flow lanes are provided. ⢠Access to major parking garages should be maintained. This may require lim- ited local automobile circulation in blocks adjacent to garages. ⢠Taxi loading areas should be removed from bus lanes. On one-way streets, the taxi loading areas should be placed on the opposite side of the street from the bus lane. ⢠Access to bus stops and stations should be convenient and safe. Curbside stops should allow sufficient space for amenities within the stop or in the adjacent side- walk. Crosswalks to reach median bus lanes and busways should be placed at sig- nalized locations wherever possible and should be designed to discourage errant crossings. ⢠Running way design should reflect available street widths and traffic require- ments. Ideally, bus lanes should be provided without reducing the lanes available to through traffic in the heavy direction of flow. This may entail eliminating park- ing or reducing lane widths to provide additional travel lanes, eliminating left-turn lanes, and/or providing reversible lane operation. ⢠When buses preempt moving traffic lanes, the number of lanes taken should be kept to a minimum. The exception is when parallel streets can accommodate the displaced traffic. ⢠Bus lanes and streets should provide a strong sense of identity. This can be achieved by using colored pavement wherever buses have exclusive use of the lanes. Such treatments are especially important for curb bus lanes when the lanes operate at all times. S-6
S-7 ⢠Effective enforcement and maintenance of bus lanes and bus streets is essential. Fines for unauthorized vehicles should be high enough to discourage illegal use. ⢠BRT bus lanes (and streets) should operate all day whenever possible. This will give passengers a clear sense of bus-lane identity and make use of specially colored pavements easier. ⢠Generally, far-side bus stops should be provided. They are essential when there are traffic signal priorities for buses and along median arterial busways where left- turn lanes are located near-side. Far-side bus stops are desirable where curb lanes are used by moving traffic and at locations with heavy right-turn traffic. ⢠BRT lane widths should accommodate the anticipated BRT fleet. Concurrent flow bus lanes should be at least 11 feet wide for 8.5-foot-wide buses (including mirrors); 12- to 13-foot-wide bus lanes are desirable. Contra flow bus lanes should be at least several feet wider to provide a cushion between the bus lanes and oppos- ing traffic and to let buses pass around errant pedestrians in the lanes. Bus streets and arterial median busways should be at least 22 feet wide. ⢠Bus lanes in the center of streets should be physically separated from other traffic. These median arterial busways will require curb-to-curb roadway widths of at least 75 to 80 feet. ⢠Bus lanes and bus streets must be perceived as reasonable by users, public agencies, and the general public. An exclusive bus lane should carry more people than it would if the lane were used by general traffic. S-3.4. Off-Street Running Ways Off-street BRT running ways for line-haul BRT operations can permit high speeds and minimize traffic interferences. A desirable goal is to provide as much of the BRT route mileage in reserved freeway lanes or special busways as possible. The follow- ing considerations should underlie BRT development in special bus-only roads and in freeway corridors: ⢠Rapid and reliable BRT service is best achieved when buses operate in dedi- cated busways or reserved lanes in freeway rights-of-way. Busways have the advantages of better penetration of markets, closer relationship of stations to sur- rounding areas, better opportunities for transit-oriented development, and a stronger sense of identity. ⢠BRT access to freeways will benefit from bus-only ramps and/or metered ramps with bus bypass lanes. These ramps have the dual benefits of reducing bus delays and/or improving main-line flow. ⢠Ideally, busways should penetrate high-density residential and commercial areas, traverse the city center, and provide convenient distribution to major downtown activities. Busways should minimize branching to simplify route struc- ture and station berthing. ⢠Busways should be located on their own rights-of-way whenever possible. Locations in order of desirability are (1) separate right-of-way, (2) one side of a freeway right-of-way, and (3) within freeway medians. ⢠Railroad and freeway rights-of-way offer opportunities for relatively easy land acquisitions and low development costs. However, the right-of-way avail- ability should be balanced with its proximity and access to key transit markets. Such rights-of-way may generate little walk-on traffic, limit opportunities for land development, and require complex negotiations.
⢠It is generally preferable that downtown off-street busway distribution pro- vide at least three stops at 1â4- to 1â3-mile intervals. This is essential to avoid con- centrating all boardings and alightings at one location with attendant increases in bus dwell times. ⢠Busways should enable express BRT services to pass around stopped buses at stations. This increases service flexibility, reliability, and capacity, and it would result in cross sections of about 50 to 80 feet at stations. ⢠Busways could be designed to allow for possible future conversion to rail or other fixed guideway transit. A 60-foot, mid-station, right-of-way width and an 80-foot width at stations can allow BRT service during the conversion period. ⢠Busway stations should be accessible by foot, automobile, and/or bus. These should be placed at major traffic generators and at intersecting bus lines. Park- and-ride facilities should be provided in outlying areas where most access is by automobile. ⢠Busways can be provided as part of new town developments (e.g., Runcorn) or serve as an access framework for still-to-be-developed areas. This makes land acquisition easier and encourages transit-oriented development. ⢠Busways may operate normal flow (with shoulders provided whenever possi- ble), special flow (with a central shoulder or passing lane), or contra flow (with a central shoulder passing lane). Normal flow designs are the simplest, safest, and most common. Contra flow configurations permit common center-island station platforms that minimize station stairways, supervision, and maintenance require- ments; however, they require crossovers at beginning and end points if buses with doors on only one side are used. ⢠Car pools and van pools may sometimes share bus-only lanes and busways along freeways. However, this should happen only when bus volumes are low, there are no (or few) stations, and the high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) do not impede bus movements. Generally, bus-only facilities are preferable from a standpoint of service reliability and identity. ⢠Special BRT facilities along freeways are essential whenever congestion is prevalent. The identification of major overload points along freeways is an impor- tant first step in identifying where special BRT facilities should be provided. ⢠Bus lanes generally should extend at least 5 miles to allow buses to run non- stop. The principal exceptions are âqueue bypassâ lanes, which are common on approaches to river crossings (e.g., the New Jersey Route 3 contra flow lane on the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel). ⢠Existing freeway lanes in the heavy direction of travel should not be converted to bus lanes. It is better to provide additional lanes for this purpose so as not to make general traffic congestion worse. ⢠Standardization of freeway entrance and exit ramps to the right of the through traffic lanes permits use of median lanes by buses either in concurrent (normal) or contra (reverse) flows. Special bus entry and exit ramps to and from the median lanes should be provided as needed so buses do not have to weave across the main travel lanes. ⢠Both median and right-side bus lanes are in operation. Median lanes are removed from ramp conflicts at interchanges and can allow special median access to crossroads. However, they require careful design of access points to avoid weaves across the general traffic lanes. Right-shoulder lanes allow easy bus entry and exit. However, they result in frequent weaving conflicts, especially when crossroad entry and exit ramps are closely spaced. S-8
S-9 ⢠When a BRT commuter express service (such as in Houston) operates on an HOV facility, it is essential that the BRT service have its own access/egress ramps to off-line transit stations and/or to its park-and-ride facility. Residen- tial off-line collection should be done without requiring vehicles to weave across general traffic lanes to enter and leave the facility. ⢠Running ways should be wide enough to enable buses to pass stalled or dis- abled vehicles without encroaching on opposing lanes. S-4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING The specific traffic engineering techniques required for BRT running ways vary with the type and location of BRT running ways. They generally include (1) curb adjust- ments, changes in roadway geometry, and pavement markings; (2) curb parking and loading controls; (3) left- and right-turn controls; (4) one-way street routings; (5) and traffic signal controls including BRT priorities. They apply wherever BRT operates and interfaces with roads and streets, if only at intersections. The general goals are to (1) minimize delays along roadways for both buses and automobiles, (2) ensure safe and reliable pedestrian access to BRT stops, and (3) maintain essential access to curb- side activities. Enforcement should be done by the jurisdictions that have primary responsibility for the BRT running ways. It should be done on a sustained basis, and penalties for viola- tions (e.g., fines and towing) should be stringent. S-5. STOPS, STATIONS, AND TERMINALS Bus stops, stations, terminals, and associated facilities such as park-and-ride lots form the interface between passengers and the BRT system. They should be permanent, weather-protected facilities that are convenient, comfortable, safe, and accessible to passengers with disabilities. These facilities should support a strong and consistent identity for BRT in the community, while respecting and enhancing the surrounding urban context. BRT facilities should be viewed as urban-design assets. Integration of a BRT guide- way into an urban setting presents an opportunity to improve and enrich streetscapes by incorporating new amenities such as landscaping and recreational trails. Because guideway construction may displace lighting, sidewalks, and street furniture, these elements can and should be reconstructed or replaced so as to reinforce new, unified design themes. Station development calls for high-quality designs and passenger amenities; estab- lishing consistent themes of form, material, and color for stations and other BRT ele- ments; context-sensitive design; and relating BRT stations to adjacent land uses. Key BRT station concepts and guidelines are the following: ⢠Provide a full range of amenities at stations, including shelters, passenger information, telephones, lighting, and security provisions. ⢠Design for station access by customers who have disabilities. ⢠Provide a consistent pattern of station location, configuration, and design to the maximum extent practical. ⢠Separate BRT, local buses, automobiles, and pedestrian movements in station design. ⢠Coordinate station platform design with vehicles and fare collection policies.
⢠Ensure that station configurations support the service plan and operating phi- losophy of the BRT route. Provide bypass capabilities when express and local BRT services are provided on the same running way. ⢠Size station berths, platforms, and access facilities to serve the expected num- ber of riders without overcrowding or spillback, to provide capacity for future growth, and to achieve reasonable levels of service. ⢠Increase berth capacity by fostering fare prepayment and/or multidoor boarding. ⢠Ensure that station locations and designs are developed cooperatively with the surrounding community. ⢠Provide far-side stops where running ways cross streets at grade. ⢠Provide convenient transfers between BRT and intersecting transit routes. Place BRT and local bus stops in separate areas when both services use a common route, but allow for convenient transfers between them. ⢠For routes that terminate at the station, allow independent bus arrivals and departures at major transit centers and bus terminals. S-6. VEHICLES BRT vehicles should be carefully selected and designed because of their impacts on travel times, service reliability, and operating/maintenance costs; their impacts on the environment; and their identity and appeal to passengers. They should be customized for the markets that they will serve. They should use body styles and propulsion sys- tems that have been proven in revenue service. The desired features of BRT vehicles include the following: ⢠Vehicles should provide sufficient passenger capacity for anticipated rider- ship levels. They may be standard 40-foot or articulated 60-foot buses for main- line service or smaller buses for collector/distributor service. ⢠Vehicles should be easy to board and alight. This can be achieved by using low- floor buses with floor heights 12 to 15 inches above street level and using wide, multistream doors. Buses using high platforms at stations can also speed boarding, but they may require precise docking; they are only practical when operating flex- ibility is not limited. ⢠A sufficient number of doors should be provided, especially when coordi- nated with off-vehicle fare collection. Generally, about one door channel should be provided for each 10 feet of vehicle length (e.g., two double-stream doors for a 40-foot bus). Providing doors on both sides of buses (as with light rail vehicles) enables both center-island and side station platforms to be used. ⢠Internal vehicle design generally should maximize the number of people each bus can carry, rather than the number of seated passengers. This is less rele- vant for routes with long person trips, on which vehicles should accommodate as many seated passengers as possible. ⢠Wide aisles should be provided to maximize internal circulation space. The minimum aisle width of 34 inches on some specialized BRT vehicles is preferable to the 24-inch width used on most North American buses. ⢠Bus propulsion systems should be âenvironmentally friendlyâ by minimizing air pollution and noise. Conventional diesel buses can reduce emissions by using catalytic converters and ultra-low-sulfur fuel. Other low-pollution options include compressed natural gas (CNG) diesel-electric hybrids, electric trolley buses, and dual mode trolley/diesel propulsion. S-10
S-11 ⢠Vehicles should have a distinctive BRT identity and image. They should be clearly marked or âbrandedâ to convey the BRT theme. Ideally, BRT routes should only be served by dedicated BRT vehicles. ⢠Vehicles should have a high passenger appeal and give passengers a com- fortable ride. Desirable features include air conditioning, lighting, panoramic windows, automated station announcements, and upholstered seats. ⢠Vehicles should be reliable, with a long mean distance between failures. ⢠Life service costs should be reasonable; the cost of acquiring and operating buses should be reasonable. Conventional articulated buses cost about $400,000 to $600,000 and have a 12- to15-year design service life as compared with some of the BRT âpurpose-builtâ vehicles that cost about $1 million and have an 18- to 25-year design life. Existing BRT vehicles range from conventional single unit and articulated buses to âspecial purposeâ vehicles that resemble light rail vehicles. They include articulated low- floor vehicles (conventional) and specialized BRT vehicles. BRT vehicles may also have automated, multi-axle, rear-wheel, steering systems that permit precise docking at stations. S-7. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ITSs can play an important role in providing fast, safe, and reliable BRT. They can monitor bus operations, give real-time information to passengers, provide accessible information for patrons with hearing or visual impairments, provide priority for BRT at signalized intersections, expedite fare collection, and allow precise docking at stations. S-7.1. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Systems AVL systems pinpoint bus locations on the street network, improve bus dispatch and operation, and allow quicker response to service disruptions and emergencies. Both capital and operating cost savings have been reported by transit agencies using AVL. AVL systems can provide dynamic real-time information to passengers before a trip, at platforms, and/or on vehicle. S-7.2. Traffic Signal Priority Systems Traffic signal priority systems for BRT increasingly rely on global positioning sys- tems to identify bus locations. This enables the priorities to be integrated with the mas- ter Urban Traffic Control Systems. Advancing or extending the green can be uncondi- tional or conditional (e.g., applied only when buses run late). Overall route travel time reductions of up to 10% are common. Priority systems also have reduced the range (variability) in bus delays, thereby increasing reliability. S-7.3. Automatic Passenger Counters These applications have reduced the costs of ride checks associated with planning and monitoring service. S-7.4. Electronic Fare Collection Electronic fare collection can reduce dwell times and driver distraction, help reduce fare collection costs, and increase revenues. Electronic fare collection can be imple- mented with magnetic systems that use stripe cards, smart cards, and/or debit cards.
S-7.5. Bus Guidance Technologies Guidance technologies can control the position of buses in travel lanes, improve safety, and allow precise docking at stations. Guidance may be mechanical (e.g., the sys- tems operating in Leeds, United Kingdom; Adelaide, Australia; and Nancy, France); optical (e.g., the Rouen, France system); or magnetic (e.g., the system in Eindhoven, Netherlands). S-8. SERVICE, FARES, AND MARKETING BRT service should be clear, direct, frequent, and rapid. Fare collection should per- mit rapid boarding of buses. Marketing should focus on BRTâs unique features and further reinforce its identity. General guidelines are the following: ⢠Service patterns and frequencies should reflect the types of running way, city structure, potential markets, and available resources. Buses may run totally or partially on dedicated rights-of-way when such running ways are available. ⢠Service should be simple, easy to understand, direct, and operationally effi- cient. Providing point-to-point, one-seat rides should be balanced against the need for easy-to-understand, high-frequency service throughout the day. It is generally better to have a few high-frequency BRT routes rather than many routes operating at long headways. ⢠Busway route structure should include a combination of basic all-stop ser- vice that is complemented by express (or limited-stop), feeder, and connec- tor service. The all-stop service can run all day, from about 6 a.m. to midnight, 7 days a week, and the express service should operate weekdays throughout the day or just during rush hours. The basic BRT all-stop service should operate at 5- to 10-minute intervals during rush hours and 12- to 15-minute intervals at other times. ⢠BRT running ways may be used by all transit operators in a region where vehicles meet established safety requirements. BRT vehicles can share running ways with HOVs in reserved freeway lanes when the joint use does not reduce travel times, service reliability, and BRT identity. ⢠Running times and average operating speeds should be maximized by provid- ing wide station spacing and by reducing dwell times at stops. ⢠Fares should be integrated with the rest of the bus system, but they may not nec- essarily be the same. ⢠Fare collection systems should facilitate multiple-door boarding, at least at major stops during busy periods. Off-board collection (preferred) or on-board multipoint payment should be encouraged. ⢠Marketing should emphasize the unique features of BRT such as speed, reli- ability, service frequency and span, and comfort. It should create a unified sys- tem image and identity that clearly âbrandsâ BRT. Distinctive logos, color com- binations, and graphics should be applied to vehicles and used at stations and on printed materials. S-9. FINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION Implementing BRT calls for a clear understanding of its benefits, costs, and financ- ing mechanisms. Priorities should reflect needs and resources, with each stage con- taining a meaningful package of BRT features. Public agencies should work together S-12
S-13 in making BRT a reality and creating a transit-supportive environment. Some guidelines are the following: ⢠BRT systems should be integrated with other transit services in terms of routes, fares, service coordination, and marketing efforts. ⢠Overall system benefits resulting from travel time savings, operating cost sav- ings, and land development increase with operating speed. When travel time savings are substantial and market conditions are right, BRT can generate substan- tial new ridership and land development benefits. However, high speeds usually require busways, which may have high development costs. ⢠Systems can be financed through combinations of federal, state, and local funding sources. Value capture, benefit assessments, and other public-private arrangements may provide additional funding in special circumstances such as around major stations. ⢠Although most systems are developed by traditional design-bid-build arrange- ments, innovative project delivery arrangements may be feasible. Design- build-operate-maintain project delivery strategies may be appropriate for major projects with widespread system benefits. ⢠BRT is well suited for incremental development because of its operating flex- ibility. Each stage should contain a well-packaged series of BRT elements. Early action and early successes are essential to maintain community interest and sup- port. Busways can be designed to allow possible future conversion to rail as needs arise or ridership warrants. ⢠Transit agencies, city transportation departments, and state agencies must work together in planning, designing, and maintaining BRT systems. Close cooperation and coordination are essential. ⢠Parking and land use policy should reinforce BRT operations by fostering transit-oriented development and limiting downtown parking. ⢠BRT should be viewed as an important community asset that improves mobil- ity and contributes to more livable and vital urban areas. S-10. SUMMARY REFERENCE âBRT Reference Guide.â Bus Rapid Transit. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. www.fta.dot.gov/brt/guide/index.html
