National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines (2003)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21947.
×
Page 21

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.

1-1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This second volume of TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit 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. This is the third of three documents covering TCRP Project A-23, “Planning and Implementation Guidelines for Bus Rapid Transit.” The first document, “BRT—Bus Rapid Transit—Why More Communities Are Choosing Bus Rapid Transit,” an informational brochure, was published in 2001. The second document is the first volume of TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, published in July 2003. In addition, the project team compiled a video library of BRT and an exten- sive annotated bibliography of previous research on BRT. The guidelines presented in this volume are intended to assist transportation practitioners with planning and imple- menting BRT systems. The guidelines cover the main com- ponents of BRT—running ways, stations, traffic controls, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems (ITSs), bus oper- ations, fare collection and marketing, finance, implementa- tion, and staging. The guidelines also cover the packaging of these elements into a permanently integrated unit that char- acterizes BRT. This volume is organized as follows: • Chapter 1 describes basic BRT concepts, the reasons for BRT implementation, and the key findings of the 26 BRT case studies. • Chapter 2 sets forth general planning considerations, key issues and concerns, the system development process, desirable conditions for BRT, general planning princi- ples, and an overview of system types. • Chapter 3 describes the various types of running ways. • Chapter 4 contains traffic engineering treatments for BRT. • Chapter 5 gives guidelines for stops, stations, and terminals. • Chapter 6 gives salient information on vehicle types and features. • Chapter 7 discusses the application of ITSs. • Chapter 8 covers bus operations, including service pat- terns, fare collection, and marketing. • Chapter 9 presents key implementation considerations, including benefits and costs, financing, institutional and public policy issues, and incremental development or staging of BRT systems. • Appendixes A through F (which have not been edited by TRB) contain supporting materials. The guidelines focus on North American practice. How- ever, many aspects also apply to BRT development in other countries. 1-1. BASIC CONCEPTS OF BRT There is a broad range of perspectives as to what consti- tutes BRT. The Federal Transit Administration, for example, defines BRT as “a rapid mode of transportation that can com- bine the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses” (Thomas, 2001). The following definition of BRT has been used in developing the guidelines presented here: BRT is a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid transit that combines sta- tions, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS elements into an integrated system with a strong identity. BRT applications are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their physical surroundings, and they can be incrementally implemented in a variety of environments (from rights-of-way totally dedicated to transit—surface, elevated, underground— to mixed with traffic on streets and highways). In many respects, BRT is rubber-tired light rail transit (LRT), but with greater operating and implementation flexi- bility and potentially lower costs. Often, a relatively small investment in a dedicated guideway can support regional rapid transit. This definition has the following implications: • BRT is operated with steerable, rubber-tired vehicles capable of on- as well as off-guideway operation. This can provide greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital and operating costs than rail transit. • When BRT vehicles (buses) operate totally on exclusive or protected rights-of-way (surface, elevated, and/or tunnel) with on-line stops, the service provided is simi- lar to rail rapid transit. • When buses operate in combinations of exclusive rights- of-way, median reservations, bus lanes, and street running with on-line stops, the service provided is similar to LRT. • When BRT operates almost entirely on exclusive bus or HOV lanes on highways (freeways and expressways), to and from transit centers with significant parking, and with frequent levels of peak service focused on a tradi- tional Central Business District (CBD), it is similar to commuter rail.

1-2 • When buses operate mainly on city streets, with little or no special signal priority or dedicated lanes, the service provided is similar to an upgraded limited-stop bus or tram system. The major components of BRT are planned with the objec- tive of improving the key attributes of speed, reliability, and identity. Collectively, as an integrated package, they form a complete rapid-transit system with significant customer con- venience and transit level of service benefits (“BRT-Bus Rapid Transit,” 2001). 1-2. REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION Transportation and community-planning officials all over the world are examining public transportation solutions to improve urban mobility and contain urban sprawl. These concerns have led to the reexamination of existing transit technologies and the development of new, creative ways to improve transit service and performance. BRT is seen as a cost-effective means of achieving these objectives. BRT can be built in stages, requires shorter planning and construction time frames, and has lower costs and greater flexibility than LRT. In addition, it can be built in any environment where LRT runs. For most intermediate capacity rapid-transit applications now being considered in North America, bus-based rapid transit has the potential to offer capacities and a level of ser- vice that are comparable to rail systems in many respects, superior in some respects, and characterized by both operat- ing and capital costs that (depending on passenger volumes) will generally be considerably lower. Specific reasons for implementing BRT are the following: • Continued growth of urban areas, including many CBDs and suburban and regional centers, requires more transport service and improved access. Given the costs and community impacts associated with major road construction, improved and expanded public transport emerges as an important way to provide the needed capacity. However, existing bus systems are difficult to use; service is slow, infrequent, and unreliable; route structures are complex and hard to understand; vehicles and operations are not well matched to markets; and there is little, if any, passenger information and few amenities at stops. Rail transit can be difficult, time con- suming, and expensive to implement; costly to operate; and poorly suited to many contemporary U.S. travel markets. • BRT can often be implemented quickly and incremen- tally, without precluding future rail investment if and when it is warranted. • For a given distance of dedicated running way, BRT is generally less costly to build and equip than rail transit. Moreover, there are relatively low facility costs where buses operate in existing bus-only lanes or HOV lanes. • BRT can be cost-effective in serving a broad variety of contemporary U.S. urban and suburban environments. BRT vehicles, whether driver-steered or guided mechan- ically or electronically, can operate on streets and in free- way medians, railroad rights-of-way, and arterial struc- tures, as well as underground. BRT can easily provide a broad array of direct express, limited-stop, and local all-stop services on a single facility. Rail systems, with their large basic service units, must often force multiple transfers to serve the same markets. • BRT can provide quality performance with sufficient transport capacity for corridor applications in most U.S. and Canadian cities. (The Ottawa Transitway system’s West Line, for example, carries more people in the peak-hour peak direction than most LRT segments in North America). Many BRT lines in South American cities carry peak-hour passenger flows that equal or exceed those on many U.S. and Canadian fully grade- separated rapid-transit lines. • At the ridership levels typically found in most urban corridors, BRT’s relatively low marginal fixed and main- tenance costs can offset variable driver costs to provide low net-unit operating and maintenance costs. • BRT is well suited to extend the reach of existing rail tran- sit lines. BRT can also provide feeder services to/from areas where densities are currently too low to support rail transit. • BRT, like other forms of rapid transit, can be integrated into urban and suburban environments. • The application of several ITS and other modern tech- nologies makes BRT even more attractive and practical than earlier bus-based rapid-transit systems. These tech- nologies include – “Clean” vehicles (e.g., those powered by electroni- cally controlled “clean,” quiet diesel engines with catalytic converters, compressed natural gas [CNG], hybrid-“clean” diesel electric, or dual power, such as trolley/diesel); – Low-floor vehicles that allow quick, level board- ing; and – Mechanical, electronic, and optical guidance systems. The main reasons cited in the case studies (presented in Volume 1 of TCRP Report 90) for implementing BRT were lower development costs and greater operating flexibility as compared with rail transit. Other reasons included BRT as a practical alternative to major highway reconstruction, an integral part of the city’s structure, and a catalyst for re- development. A 1998 study in Eugene, Oregon, for example, found that a bus-based system could be built for about 4% of the cost of rail transit. However, in Boston, BRT was selected because of its operational and service benefits rather than its cost advantages.

1-3. STATE-OF-THE-ART SYNTHESIS A synthesis of the experiences of 26 urban areas in North America, Australia, Europe, and South America follows (Levinson et al., 2002) Most of these systems are in revenue service; a few are under construction or development. 1-3.1. Location The locations, urban populations, rail transit availability, and development status of the 26 study cities are shown in Table 1-1. They include 12 urban areas in the United States (Boston, Charlotte, Cleveland, Eugene, Hartford, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles [3 systems], Miami, New York [2 sys- 1-3 tems], Pittsburgh, and Seattle); 2 cities in Canada (Ottawa and Vancouver); 3 cities in Australia (Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney); 3 cities in Europe (Leeds, Runcorn, and Rouen); and 6 cities in South America (Belo Horizonte, Bogotá, Curitiba, Porto Alegre, Quito, and São Paulo). 1-3.2. Features The main features of BRT include dedicated running ways; attractive stations; distinctive, easy-to-board vehicles; off- vehicle fare collection; use of ITS technologies; and fre- quent all-day service (typically between 5 a.m. and midnight). Table 1-2 summarizes BRT features by continent for systems in the 26 cities analyzed. TABLE 1-1 Case study locations CASE STUDY LOCATION URBANIZED AREA POPULATION (MILLIONS) RAIL TRANSIT IN METRO AREA? NORTH AMERICA Boston, MA 3.0 √ Charlotte, NC 1.4 Cleveland, OH 2.0 √ Eugene, OR (Lane Transit District) 0.2 Hartford, CT 0.8 Honolulu, HI 0.9 Houston, TX 1.8 Los Angeles County, CA a 9.6 √ Miami, FL 2.3 √ New York, NY 16.0 √ Ottawa, ON b 0.7 √ Pittsburgh, PA 1.7 √ Seattle, WA 1.8 Vancouver, BC 2.1 √ AUSTRALIA Adelaide 1.1 √ Brisbane 1.5 √ Sydney 1.7 √ EUROPE Leeds, United Kingdom 0.7 Rouen, France 0.4 √ Runcorn, United Kingdom 0.1 SOUTH AMERICA Belo Horizonte, Brazil 2.2 √ Bogotá, Colombia 5.0 Curitiba, Brazil 2.6 Porto Alegre, Brazil 1.3 √ Quito, Ecuador 1.5 São Paulo, Brazil 8.5 √ a Urbanized area population exceeds 15 million. bUrbanized area population exceeds 1 million when Hull, Quebec, is included.

Over 80% of the systems have some type of exclusive run- ning way—either a bus-only road or a bus lane. More than 75% provide frequent all-day services, and about 66% have “stations” rather than stops. In contrast, only about 40% of the systems have distinctive vehicles or ITS applications, and only 17% (five systems) have or will have off-vehicle fare collection. Three existing systems have all six basic features: Bogotá’s TransMilenio, Curitiba’s median busways, and Quito’s Trolebus. Several systems under development (e.g., in Boston, Cleveland, New Britain–Hartford, and Eugene) will have most BRT features. 1-4 1-3.2.1. Running Ways Running ways for BRT include mixed traffic lanes, curb bus lanes, and median busways on city streets; reserved lanes on freeways; and bus-only roads and tunnels. Systems nor- mally have a combination of running ways—for example, in North America, curb bus lanes and mixed traffic operations complement busways. Table 1-3 summarizes the principal characteristics of running ways by region. The case study data show that busways dominate North American practice, whereas median arterial busways are widely used in South TABLE 1-2 Number of facilities with specific features Feature US / Canada Australia & Europe South America Total Systems Percent of Total Running Way 13 5 6 24 83 Stations 12 4 3 19 66 Distinctive Vehicles 7 1 3 11 38 Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 2 0 3 5 17 ITS 7 1 3 11 38 Frequent All-day Service 11 5 6 22 76 Total Systems 17 6 6 29 100 SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003. TABLE 1-3 Running way characteristics by region TYPE N. AMERICA AUSTRALIA EUROPE S. AMERICA Bus Tunnel Boston Seattle Brisbane Busway (Separate Right- of-Way) New Britain– Hartford Miami Ottawa Pittsburgh Adelaide3 Brisbane Sydney Runcorn Busway in Freeway Median Charlotte Los Angeles Reserved Freeway Lanes Houston7 New York City8 Ottawa Median Arterial Busway Cleveland Eugene2 Vancouver Belo Horizonte Bogotá6 Curitiba9 Porto Alegre Quito6 São Paulo6 Bus Lanes1 Rouen5 Leeds4 NOTES: 1 Bus lanes are found in many cities with busways, freeway lanes, and median arterial busways, (e.g., Boston, Houston, New York City, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and Vancouver). 2 Electronically Guided Bus. 3 O-Bahn Guided Bus. 4 Optically Guided Bus. 5 Guided Bus with Queue Bypass. 6 Optically Guided Bus. 7 Reversible HOV Lanes. 8 Contra Flow Bus Lanes. 9 High-platform Stations with Fare Prepayment. SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003.

America. Reversible and contra flow lanes and HOV lanes along freeways are found only in the United States. Bus tun- nels, such as those in Brisbane and Seattle and the one under construction in downtown Boston, bring a major feature of rail transit to BRT. 1-3.2.2. Stations The spacing of stations along freeways and busways ranges from 2,000 to 21,000 feet, enabling buses to operate at high speeds. Spacing along arterial streets ranges upward from about 1,000 feet (e.g., Cleveland and Porto Alegre) to over 4,000 feet (e.g., Vancouver and Los Angeles). Most stations are located curbside or on the outside of bus-only roads and arter- ial median busways. However, the Bogotá system, a section of Quito’s Trolebus, and Curitiba’s “direct” (express) service have center island platforms and vehicles with left-side doors. Busways widen to three or four lanes at stations to enable express buses to pass stopped buses. South America’s arte- rial median busways also provide passing lanes. Stations and passing lanes are sometimes offset to minimize the busway envelope. Most BRT stations have low platforms because many are or will be served by low-floor vehicles. However, Bogotá’s TransMilenio, Quito’s Trolebus, and Curitiba’s all-stop and direct express services provide high platforms; some buses are specially equipped with a large ramp that deploys at sta- tions to allow level passenger boarding and alighting. Each of these systems also has off-vehicle fare collection. Rouen features optically guided Irisbus Civis vehicles that provide precision docking, which minimizes the gap for level board- ing and alighting. Stations provide a wide range of features and amenities depending on locations, climate, type of running way, patron- age, and available space. Overhead walks with fences between opposite directions of travel are provided along busways in Brisbane, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh. 1-3.2.3. Vehicles Conventional standard and articulated diesel-powered buses are widely used for BRT operations. There is, however, a trend toward innovation in vehicle design in terms of (1) “clean” vehicles; (2) dual mode (diesel or CNG/electric) operations through tunnels; (3) low-floor buses; (4) more and wider doors; and (5) distinctive, dedicated BRT vehicles. Examples of innovative vehicle designs include the following: • Los Angeles’ low-floor red and white CNG vehicles; • Boston’s planned multidoor, CNG, and dual mode diesel- electric vehicles; and • Curitiba’s double articulated buses with five sets of doors and high-platform loading. 1-5 Rouen’s Irisbus Civis—a “new design” hybrid diesel- electric articulated vehicle with trainlike features has four doors and a minimum 34-inch-wide aisle end to end. It can be optically guided to precision dock at stations, allowing gap-free boarding and alighting. 1-3.2.4. ITSs Applications of ITS technologies include automatic vehi- cle location (AVL) systems, passenger information systems, and traffic signal preference at intersections. The Metro Rapid bus routes in Los Angeles can get up to 10% of the cycle length in additional green time when buses arrive late at sig- nalized intersections. 1-3.2.5. Service Patterns Service patterns reflect the markets being served and impact of the types of running ways and vehicles utilized. Many sys- tems provide an “overlay” of express (or limited-stop) service, all-stop (or local service), and “feeder” bus services at selected stations. Service in most systems extends beyond the limits of busways or bus lanes—an important advantage of BRT. How- ever, the Bogotá, Curitiba, and Quito systems operate only within the limits of the special running ways because of door arrangements, platform heights, and/or propulsion systems. 1-3.2.6. Performance The performance of the BRT systems evaluated ranges widely, based on the configuration of each system. For the purposes of this report, performance was measured in terms of passengers carried, travel speeds, and land development changes. Ridership. Measured in terms of boarding, weekday riders reported for systems in North America and Australia range upward from 1,000 in Charlotte to 40,000 or more in Los Angeles, Seattle, Adelaide, and Brisbane. Daily ridership in Ottawa and the South American cities is substantially higher, exceeding 150,000 per day. Examples of the heavier peak-hour, peak-direction passen- ger flows at the maximum load points are shown in Table 1-4. These flows equal or exceed the number of LRT passengers carried per hour in most U.S. and Canadian cities and approach rail rapid-transit volumes. Reported increases in bus riders because of BRT invest- ments reflect expanded service, reduced travel times, improved facility identity, and population growth. Examples of ridership gains include the following: • 18 to 30% were new riders in Houston; • Los Angeles had a 26 to 33% gain in riders, one-third of which was new riders;

• Vancouver had 8,000 new riders, 20% of whom previ- ously used automobiles, and 5% of whom represented new trips; • Adelaide had a 76% gain in ridership; • Brisbane had a 60% gain in ridership; and • Leeds had a 50% gain in ridership. Speeds. Operating speeds reflect the type of running way, station spacing, and service pattern. Typical speeds are shown in Table 1-5. Speeds on arterial streets generally average less than 20 miles per hour; 14 miles per hour is typical. Speeds on busways or in freeway bus lanes can range up to 50 miles per hour depending on spacing of stops. Travel Time Savings. Reported travel time savings over pre-BRT conditions are illustrated in Table 1-6. Busways on dedicated rights-of-way generally save 2 to 3 minutes per mile compared with pre-BRT conditions. Bus lanes on arte- rial streets typically save 1 to 2 minutes per mile. The time savings are greatest along bus routes that previously experi- enced major congestion. Land Development Benefits. Reported land development benefits with full-featured BRT are similar to those experi- enced along rail transit lines. Ottawa reported about $675 mil- lion (U.S. dollars) in new construction around Ottawa Tran- sitway stations. Pittsburgh reported $302 million in new and improved development along the East Busway, and property 1-6 values near Brisbane’s South East Busway stations grew 20% faster than property values in the surrounding area. Costs. Facility development costs reflect the type of con- struction and its complexity, as well as the year of construc- tion. Reported median costs were $272 million per mile for bus tunnels (2 systems), $12.8 million per mile for dedicated busways (12 systems), $6.6 million per mile for arterial median busways (5 systems), $4.7 million per mile for guided bus operations (2 systems), and $1 million per mile for mixed traffic or curb bus lanes (3 systems). Comparisons of BRT and light rail operating costs suggest that BRT can cost the same or less to operate per passenger trip or passen- ger mile than LRT. 1-4. IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS Unique circumstances in each urban area influence BRT markets, service patterns, viability, design, and operations. Within this context, several key lessons, implications, and directions emerged from the case studies. Many of these lessons also can apply to rail rapid-transit planning and development. BRT system development should be an outgrowth of a planning and project development process that addresses demonstrated needs and problems. There should be an open and objective process through all phases of BRT development. Early and continuous community support from elected leaders and citizens is essential. Public decision makers and the general community must understand the nature of BRT and its potential benefits. BRT’s customer attractiveness, operating flexibility, capacities, and costs should be clearly and objectively identified in alternatives analyses that consider other mobility options as well. State, regional, and local agencies should work together in planning, designing, and implementing BRT. This requires close cooperation of transit service planners, city traf- fic engineers, state department of transportation (DOT) high- way planners, and urban land planners. Metropolitan planning agencies and state DOTs should be major participants. Incremental development of BRT will often be desirable. Incremental development may provide an early opportunity TABLE 1-4 Peak-hour, peak-direction passenger flows PASSENGER VOLUMES BRT SYSTEM New Jersey: Approach to Lincoln Tunnel Bogotá’s TransMilenio Porto Alegre Over 20,000 per hour São Paulo Belo Horizonte Ottawa Quito Curitiba 8,000–20,000 per hour Brisbane SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003. TABLE 1-5 Typical operating speeds Freeway-Busway Speeds Non-Stop 40–50 mph All-Stop 25–35 mph Arterial Streets Express, Bogotá, Curitiba 19 mph Metro Rapid bus, Ventura Blvd., Los Angeles 19 mph Metro Rapid bus, Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles 14 mph All-Stop—Median Busways, South America 11–14 mph Limited Stop—New York City 8–14 mph SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003. TABLE 1-6 Examples of travel time savings BRT System Reported Travel Time Savings Busways, Freeway lanes 32–47% Bus Tunnel—Seattle 33% Bogotá 32% Porto Alegre 29% Los Angeles Metro Rapid bus 23–28% SOURCE: Levinson et al., 2003.

to demonstrate BRT’s potential benefits to riders, decision makers, and the general public, while still enabling system expansion and possible upgrading. BRT systems should provide reasonable usage, travel time savings, cost, development benefits, and traffic impacts. The greater the number and sophistication of the elements constituting the BRT system, the greater the benefits. Parking facilities should complement, not undercut, BRT. Adequate parking is essential at stations along high- speed transitways in outlying areas. It may be desirable to manage downtown parking space for employees, especially where major BRT investments are planned. BRT and land use planning in station areas should be integrated as early as possible. Adelaide, Brisbane, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and Curitiba have demonstrated that BRT can have land use benefits similar to those resulting from rail tran- sit. Close working relationships with major developers may be necessary in addressing issues of building orientation, building setbacks, and connections to stations. BRT should serve demonstrated transit markets. Urban areas with more than a million residents and a central area employment of at least 75,000 are good candidates for BRT in North American cities. These areas generally have suffi- cient corridor ridership demands to allow frequent all-day service. BRT works well in physically constrained environ- ments where hills, tunnels, and water crossings result in fre- quent traffic congestion. It is essential to match markets with rights-of-way. The presence of an exclusive right-of-way, such as along a freeway or railroad corridor, is not always sufficient to ensure effective BRT service. This is especially true when the rights- of-way are removed from major travel origins and destina- tions and the stations are inaccessible. Ideally, BRT systems should be designed to penetrate major transit markets. The key attributes of rail transit should be transferred to BRT, whenever possible. These attributes include seg- regated or priority rights-of-way; attractive stations; off- vehicle fare collection; quiet, easily accessible, multidoor vehicles; and clear, frequent, all-day service. A successful BRT project requires more than merely providing a queue bypass, bus lane, or dedicated busway. It requires the entire range of rapid-transit elements and the development of a unique system image and identity. Speed, service reliability, and an all-day span of service are extremely important. Cor- ners should not be cut merely to reduce costs. BRT should be rapid. This is best achieved by operating on exclusive rights-of-way wherever possible and by main- taining wide spacing between stations. 1-7 Separate rights-of-way can enhance speed, reliability, safety, and identity. These running ways can be provided as integral parts of new town development or as an access frame- work in areas that are under development. They also may be provided in denser, established urban areas where right-of- way is available. Bus tunnels may be justifiable where con- gestion is frequent, bus and passenger volumes are high, and street space is limited. The placement, design, and operation of bus lanes and median busways on streets and roads must balance the diverse needs of buses, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, and general traffic flows. Curb lanes allow curbside boarding and alighting, but they may be difficult to enforce. Median busways provide greater identity and avoid curbside inter- ferences, but they may pose problems with left turns and pedestrian access. Moreover, they generally require streets that are at least 75 feet in width from curb to curb. Vehicle design, station design, and fare collection pro- cedures should be well coordinated. Stations should be accessible by bus, automobile, bicycle, and/or foot. Ade- quate berthing capacity, passing lanes for express buses (on busways), and amenities for passengers should be provided. Buses should be distinctively designed and delineated. They should provide sufficient passenger capacity, multiple doors, and low floors for easy passenger access. There should also be ample interior circulation space. Off-vehicle fare collec- tion is desirable, at least at major boarding points. Achieving these features calls for changes in operating philosophies and practices. ITS and smart card technology applied at multiple bus doors may facilitate rapid on-board payment without los- ing revenues. Coordinated traffic engineering and transit service planning is essential for BRT system design. It is espe- cially critical in designing running ways, locating bus stops and turn lanes, applying traffic controls, and establishing traf- fic signal priorities for BRT. BRT service can extend beyond the limits of dedicated running ways where a reliable, relatively high-speed oper- ation can be sustained. Outlying sections of BRT lines can use HOV or bus lanes or even operate in the general traffic flow. BRT services should be keyed to ridership. The maxi- mum number of buses during peak hour should meet ridership demands and simultaneously minimize bus-bus congestion. Generally, frequent, all-stop, trunk-line service throughout the day should be complemented by an “overlay” of peak-period express services serving specific markets. During off-peak periods, overlay services could operate as feeders (or shuttles) that are turned back at BRT stations.

1-5. PROSPECTS The case studies demonstrate that BRT does work. It can reduce journey times, attract new riders, and induce transit-oriented development. It can be more cost-effective and provide greater operating flexibility than rail transit, and it can serve as a cost-effective extension of rail transit lines. Generally, BRT systems can provide sufficient capacity to meet peak-hour travel demands in most U.S. corridors. One of the key lessons learned from the case studies is that BRT should be rapid. Reliably high speeds can be best achieved when a large portion of the service operates on separate rights-of-way. Major BRT investment should be reinforced by transit- supportive land development and parking policies. Because BRT has the potential to influence land use, it is desirable to incorporate considerations for BRT, as with other rapid-transit modes, into land use planning. It is expected that more cities will examine and implement BRT systems. There will be a growing number of fully inte- 1-8 grated systems and even more examples of selected BRT ele- ments being implemented. These efforts will lead to sub- stantial improvements in urban transit access, mobility, and quality of life. 1-6. CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES “BRT—Bus Rapid Transit—Why More Communities Are Choosing Bus Rapid Transit” (Brochure). Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC (2001). Levinson, H. S., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, J. Crack- nell, and R. Soberman. “Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit— Draft Report” (TCRP Project A-23). Transportation Research Board of the National Academics, Washington, DC (December 2002). Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, R. L. Smith, J. Cracknell, and R. Soberman. TCRP Report 90:Bus Rapid Tran- sit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2003). Thomas, E. Paper presentation at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL (August 2001).

Next: Chapter 2 - Planning Considerations »
Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines discusses the main components of bus rapid transit (BRT) and describes BRT concepts, planning considerations, key issues, the system development process, desirable conditions for BRT, and general planning principles. It also provides an overview of system types. Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit was released in July 2003.

March 29, 2008 Erratta Notice -- On page 4-11, in the top row of Figure 4-7, in the last column, the cross street green for the 80 sec cycle is incorrectly listed as 26 sec. It should be 36 sec.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!