MISC | Bus Rapid Transit

[Manila-X]

One trend that's happening in today's public transportation system is the use of BRTs or bus rapid transit. This is becoming a trend in major cities say, Curitiba, Lagos, Jakarta, Los Angeles, Beijing, etc.

What are your opinions on them? How effective are they? Will they work in your city/town?

[urbanfan89]

Vancouver has three so-called BRT lines which are actually express buses. All of them are constantly jammed, and they're pushing forward with replacing all three with metro lines asap. BRT turned out as a failure in the inner core of Vancouver, as a half-baked solution to an urgent problem. But a genuine BRT network is planned to link suburbs with rail stations to improve dismal service

Toronto doesn't have any BRT lines except for VIVA, a glorified suburban bus system to lure suburban snobs onto buses. But many city bus routes have headways of 3 minutes, bus lanes, and express service. They could market those as BRT, but they don't. Many of those express bus routes are targeted for conversion to light rail in the next few years.

More often than not, I see BRT as inadequate as a solution to rapid transit problems. If they do not have dedicated bus lanes and genuine stations, then they are just a glorified regular bus. If they do have those features, the additional cost of laying rail tracks is well worth the increased ridership from people who simply don't like buses.

The Bogota system is a major exception to my thoughts.

[adrimm]

Originally Posted by urbanfan89

Vancouver has three so-called BRT lines which are actually express buses. All of them are constantly jammed, and they're pushing forward with replacing all three with metro lines asap. BRT turned out as a failure in the inner core of Vancouver, as a half-baked solution to an urgent problem. But a genuine BRT network is planned to link suburbs with rail stations to improve dismal service

Toronto doesn't have any BRT lines except for VIVA, a glorified suburban bus system to lure suburban snobs onto buses. But many city bus routes have headways of 3 minutes, bus lanes, and express service. They could market those as BRT, but they don't. Many of those express bus routes are targeted for conversion to light rail in the next few years.

More often than not, I see BRT as inadequate as a solution to rapid transit problems. If they do not have dedicated bus lanes and genuine stations, then they are just a glorified regular bus. If they do have those features, the additional cost of laying rail tracks is well worth the increased ridership from people who simply don't like buses.

The Bogota system is a major exception to my thoughts.

I agree completely with urbanfan.

Bogota model = awesome, definitly a different something. It would work in my Canadian city.
typical Canadian model = glorified bus... I don't want it.

The problem with BRT is that the acronym "Bus Rapid Transit" is becoming a catchall "it" word that everyone is jumping on to describe their bus systems. It's sort of like the word "sustainable", which has now been rendered totally useless, becuase now suddenly everything can be sustainable.

This is a huge problem for the BRT concept. The complete BRT systems, the ones like what Bogota (7 Million), and many other Latin American cities have, work exceptionally well.. but in North America, despite much lipservice to alternatives, most so-called BRT systems have only a few of the features actually required to make it work at highest potential... therefore everyone has a very different idea of what BRT is.

I personally was totally opposed to it until I rode the Bogota system.. which literally blew me away, it's fantastic (ok maybe the routeing information could be better)... they clearly looked at it from a metro/subway perspective rather than improved bus when developing it. Now I am careful to make a distinction between what most North Americans call BRT and a full BRT system, such as what they have in Bogota, etc.

Anyone using the word BRT should have to append the city that comes to mind so we all know what their perception of BRT is.

aka Vancouver-model-BRT (= express bus)
Bogota-model-BRT (yes is a BRT).

It should come as no surprise that anyone who thinks of the current Vancouver model would be unhappy with it, while anyone who thinks of Bogota model would be happy with it.

The thing that pains me is that despite a globalising world, North American transit planners can't seem to look beyond our continent when designing BRT systems.. however planners in other areas do.... and guess what? They are *not* looking to North America for BRT inspiration. Goungzhou in China, and other Asian cities are looking to the south american systems, South Africa is looking to the south american systems. With no thanks to hollywood, there is an arrogance that prevents the general public in North America from accepting that there can be very progressive ideas coming from developing countries.

Although closed systems, turnstiles, etc all matter One of the most visible differences to me is in the stations, and this goes for any sort of rapid transit (rail or bus).. places that get winter and rains and unpleasant weather deserve a comfortable, enclosed professional looking environment.

Proper stations not only add to the accessibility for the elderly (and think of how many baby boomers there will be relying on transit as they get too old to drive), strollers, and to the attractiveness of the system and indicate the commitment to the develpment community. You can tear out a bus shelter, but once you put half a million dollars into a station, it's probably going to say "I'm not going anywhere". The stations can give BRT systems permanence. Bogota **has** seen shopping centres & malls spring up next to stations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4IR7PvO6I

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by adrimm

Proper stations not only add to the accessibility for the elderly (and think of how many baby boomers there will be relying on transit as they get too old to drive), strollers, and to the attractiveness of the system and indicate the commitment to the develpment community. You can tear out a bus shelter, but once you put half a million dollars into a station, it's probably going to say "I'm not going anywhere". The stations can give BRT systems permanence.

Absolutely. Another feature that can offer this 'perceived permanence of service' is the presence of trolleybus wires overhead. Even in places where there have been few other BRT-style elements, electric trolleybuses have been proven to attract passengers who would not otherwise travel by public transport.

Combine electric trolleybuses with BRT systems and you have a potential winner, with greater fuel-efficiency, no emissions on-street and quiet, smooth performance.

Here's a trolleybus-based BRT system in Merida, Venezuela:

[adrimm]

Wow, that is nice! Very attractive station design. Probably the nicest I have ever seen for median stations... it looks as though it serves *both* directions of traffic.

I may need to replace my sig link!!

[Augusto]

Originally Posted by Electric_City

Absolutely. Another feature that can offer this 'perceived permanence of service' is the presence of trolleybus wires overhead. Even in places where there have been few other BRT-style elements, electric trolleybuses have been proven to attract passengers who would not otherwise travel by public transport.

Combine electric trolleybuses with BRT systems and you have a potential winner, with greater fuel-efficiency, no emissions on-street and quiet, smooth performance.

Here's a trolleybus-based BRT system in Merida, Venezuela:

Too bad cities where a trolleybus network was already there like Tehran and Mexico City didn't use them for their new BRT

[Shado]

Originally Posted by urbanfan89

More often than not, I see BRT as inadequate as a solution to rapid transit problems. If they do not have dedicated bus lanes and genuine stations, then they are just a glorified regular bus. If they do have those features, the additional cost of laying rail tracks is well worth the increased ridership from people who simply don't like buses.

It does majorly depend on the quality of the system and the layout. Here (Brisbane, Australia) we have somewhat of a reverse, the trains are old and dirty and people don't really like them, the busses are new and clean and service the more expensive suburbs. (whereas in the outer city the areas surrounding the train stations is fairly poor and crime filled). - Inner city of course is different as the property prices there have really pushed out alot of people. That said the train stations are mostly 20-30 years old, while the bus stations are less than 10.

Here's the things that I think makes it better than light rail:

- Services begin and terminate off the BRT corridors, which means that you can get a much wider catchment
- People do not have to change modes, they get on the bus near their homes, and when it arrives at the start of our Busway the bus just keeps going, you would otherwise need to get off, and change to a tram
- Stations have a passing lane: ! - This is very important as it means that express services can run without being held up behind services that stop at all stops.
- If there was ever an accident, busses can still pass and will not get held up

Here are some of the things that it has that I think 'makes' the system need:
- Modern well lit stations, express services that are all pre-paid ticketing
- Total traffic seperation almost all of it is on a raised concrete roadway, or seperate roadway. It is 20 something KM long, and for the most part unsignaled (only signals at the city end for 3 intersections, with Bus priority).
- They are low-floored wheelchair accessable busses and stops

When it was first built the stop closest to the city was only 2 lanes (only stop without a passing lane) As it was the intention to allow for light rail at that stop later, at that time there were headways of 24 seconds, and it has since been upgraded to dual lanes. I can only imagine at the moment that headways at that stop are <10 seconds, the flow of busses is pretty staggering.

The main advantage this has had is that there are now alot more services and express routes. So many people can get on a at one of the city stops and have it power away at up to 90kph until it gets right to their stop. (It is actually faster than the train, as the train has 19 stops in the same distance the express bus can have as little as 3. The express rail services start from further out.)

The system originally started the furtherest stop had 15minute frequencies in peak, now it's getting frequencies of a just a few minutes (no more timetable needed). And of course so many of the services start from suburbs that are too sparse to have heavy rail, or even light rail.




^ That stop and the busway around it is actually enclosed with a mesh because it cuts past a golf course !

image hosted on flickr



This is one of the underground terminals in the city center, most services terminate here, it is right in the middle of the city under a large shopping centre / and pedestrian mall. It has apparently been much upgraded as they are connecting it to one of the northern busways directly underground (meaning that people will be able to come from the north right into the city without traffic lights on a bus) (the picture is old, I need to get one with the new upgraded station).

A new stop is also being built along the route of the tunnel under the square right next to city hall:



Hmm. All this shows me is that I need to go and take some more pictures myself, as it's hard to find up to date ones.

Some more images here:
http://www.dtarchitecture.co.nz/ta_01.htm

[Mekky II]

In Rouen, it works perfectly, it is joined in city centre by light metro ! Also each BRT line is well dedicated, and so separated from traffic jams ...







+

[adrimm]

Originally Posted by Mekky II

In Rouen, it works perfectly, it is joined in city centre by light metro ! Also each BRT line is well dedicated, and so separated from traffic jams ...

I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre.

To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority).

I for one would never dream of bestowing the label of BRT on a system that didn't have closed busways and some other BRT essentials.

[RawLee]

My city has some express routes, which only differ from normal line in that they have less stops on the same route. Some have buslanes,some dont,but the lanes are never separated form the rest of the traffic. These express buses usually traverse those routes where there should be at least trams. Most are result of the downgrade of the tram network in the commie era.
some of these lines have about 4-7min frequency in rush hour,and 7-10 minutes out of rush hour,but the majority has about 10 min frequency in rh. The most frequent(and most used)line will be replaced(hopefully) by the u/c metro.

[Mekky II]

Originally Posted by adrimm

I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre.

To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority).

I for one would never dream of bestowing the label of BRT on a system that didn't have closed busways.

T1, T2, T3 = BRT lines
M = light metro

Well, as you can see here there is as much stops as for the light metro here... in fact in beginning, rouen wanted a light metro east-west, the actual one is north-south, the problem is that in east and west of the city, there is hills, and it was economically very hard to do (there is only 500.000 inh.), and so they transformed light metro lines directly to BRT lines, with same distance for stops. I would like to add that a light metro is different from tramway (trolley) and light rail because it's running on exclusive right of way (that's surely why the combination of both systems here work well, they have exclusive ways, one on rails and the other on tires... eheh).

Rouen has another project that is for longer distances, it will use heavy rail and it will turn a light metro in cities centres.

[Shado]

Originally Posted by adrimm

I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre.

To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority).

The alternative we have to level platforms is low-floor busses (ie there are no stairs except at the back). So they are fully wheelchair accessable even using normal height stops. Signal priority is the case, but there are not many signals, for the most part it is entirely seperated and doesn't require them.
They are slowly moving exclusively to pre-paid tickets, previously while most people had pre-paid now on many services it is a requirement. (They also just got the tag-on /off cards launched too so that you don't need to even work out what fare/ticket you need, you just tag on and off and don't have to think about it)

One of the benefits is that so many of the services start from further away from the city than the busway runs, or even are feeder services, but then may simply continue on without stopping once they reach the busway. The alternative is feeder busses that stop 20+ times, then a core rail system that also stops 20+ times. I have a service locally than runs 30km and stops at most twice before it reaches my destination in the city center. This is great because it is actually faster than using the car (in peak). The local heavy rail service requires driving a car to the station, getting out, waiting for a train, then stopping 20 times on the way to the city. It takes twice as long as just driving.

That's what we need here locally, services faster than using the car, because pretty much everyone has one, and that is what public transport needs to be competitive with.

[deasine]

^Well Vancouver will have a major change in its BRT system with actual stations, HOV/Bus-dedicated lanes, Automated Messaging systems (will be installed in ALL buses by 2009), and other features that may be included such as WiFi.


Very Bad Image I took on the 99 B-Line Bus ("BRT" in Vancouver) - Picture by Me

This work (above) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License

99 B-Line exterior - Credits to Bill Wong

Viva system is beautiful, though yes it is highly glorified.

image hosted on flickr

Viva BRT - Source: Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Viva BRT - Source: Flickr

TransJakarta and Bogota comes to mind for the ideal Bus Rapid Transit. One of the most successful. Los Angeles has done pretty well too, but there has been a few problems with the LA one, such as traffic safety issues, and road maintenance issues. But at least they included features of an ideal BRT unlike many other systems, such as Vancouvers.


Los Angeles BRT - Source: Flickr

~~~

BRT systems need to be exactly like metro systems in order to perform well. In North America, there is a huge stereotype (sort of) about cheap people taking buses, when really that's not true. By making BRT systems look like Metro systems, this removes the fog and allows people to have a clearer understanding. BRT systems should have exclusive/dedicated bus lanes for most of the route, if not all, individual stations (not shelters), ticket machines, fare gates (checking fares in advance for fast boarding), all door boarding [Vancouver only just received all door boarding for 98 B-Line and had it for the 99 B-Line in the summer], and other luxurious features that drivers cannot. WiFi perhaps? Frequencies of the buses should also be fast, no less than 10 minutes at peek hours (every two to five minutes would be the ideal).

[adrimm]

Originally Posted by deasine

BRT systems need to be exactly like metro systems in order to perform well.

Exactly.. think of a surface version of Paris's metro (which is run on rubber tires) but then you get the people jumping all over the cost points.

This TRB report has a great graph comparing bang for buck with existing systems in North America. Page 36.. look at the ridership figures and the cost.

http://www.nbrti.org/media/documents...May%202006.pdf


Then look at costs for the Bogota copycat BRT in Periera. -. the primary costs in Bogota have been the massive portals or transfer stations that they have in the suburbs (they're massive). Periera with 500,000 people didn't need such expensive transfer portal systems that Bogota has so their system came out costing $ 2 million per km to build... and this is what it looks like:

[imgl]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1228/img1808rf5.jpg[/img]

[canadave87]

Well, Ottawa probably has the best BRT system in North America, and if you look at my Ottawa transit options thread in this forum, you can probably see that we now find ourselves struggling to replace it. It seemed like a great like idea when it was built, but now it's seen as a relic of the 1980s.

All that said, it is a good system, compared to most BRTs. The Transitway is grade separated with stations spaced-out fairly regularly. The major routes (the 95 and the 97) run with headways of 3-5 minutes during daytime hours, while the secondary routes (the 96 and the 101) run with headways of 15-20 minutes. Back door boarding is allowed on 60' buses, which are the majority running on the Transitway. The biggest problems are the fact that it becomes a surface route through downtown, in mixed traffic, slowing service, as well as the fact that station platforms are not POP zones.

[adrimm]

Originally Posted by canadave87

\ The biggest problems are the fact that it becomes a surface route through downtown, in mixed traffic, slowing service, as well as the fact that station platforms are not POP zones.

Those are some pretty major gaps... to me open "BRT" systems entirely defeat the concept of BRT. How on earth is it going to be smooth-functioning when portions get clogged in with mixed traffic? It defeats the cost if the separate ways. Ditto for POP.. what's the point if fare-paid stations aren't across the system.

Stations.. well I've already blabbed on about those. Rapid Transit anything passengers (Bus or Rail), deserves proper enclosed stations that deposit people right into the bus, especially in the land of snow or rain.

We're just not getting it right.

[mr.x]

Well, the Vancouver BRT's may not be as fancy as Bogota's but it does hold up with its ridership. One line sees 70,000 passengers daily, and the other 40,000.

[Svartmetall]

Auckland (NZ) has recently completed a new busway. It began operation in February 2008 and is 11km long with 5 stations on it.

It has the first integrated ticketing in Auckland in the form of the Northern Pass and (very poor, generally infrequent) feeder buses from the surrounding suburbs which the Northern Pass allows seemless connection to. It has park and ride facilities on a few stations (Constellation Dr and Albany to name the major ones) that are very well used.

The busway with two stations opened transported almost 1 million passengers a year, but this number is expected to grow now that all five stations are operational.

Service is every five minutes at peak (uni-directional so morning peak towards city 5 minute intervals and afternoon away from city at 5 minute intervals) and every 10 minutes off-peak. After 19:30 the service drops to every 15 minutes. After 20:30 service drops to every 30 minutes with service stopping at 11:15.

On Saturday and Sunday, most of the time the service is every 10 minutes, however, after 18:30 the timetable changes to every 15 minutes and becomes every 30 minutes after 20:00 with service ceasing at 23:00 (sat) and 22:00 (sun).

The Northern Express is by far the most frequent bus route in the whole of Auckland with most bus routes being serviced by 30 minute services** offering increased frequency on well trafficked routes during peak.

** NB: some services are as frequent as every 15 minutes, others run only hourly. Some services only run two or three times a day but these tend to be crosstown, low patronage routes.

[Xusein]

Hartford is getting a BRT line soon, it may start construction next year. It will be one line, going from our Union station downtown to New Britain, a satellite city which is about 15km to the southwest of Hartford.

I think that it's a half-hearted attempt that isn't ambitious enough because the state is too stingy. Ironically, the route will rip a large portion of abandoned rail (a large portion will be next to the railroad currently used by Amtrak), a la GM conspiracy style.

We're losing the opportunity to creating a light rail network. We have enough abandoned or rarely used ROW to create a genuine network that would connect plenty parts of the metro. We could even create a light rail connection to the Airport (a rail link is thought of, ATM).

Hopefully if ridership is decent, the new Department of Mass Transit thinks of converting the BRT to Light rail. I doubt that though, our state would rather spend billions on bridges or highways.

[adrimm]

There is a Youtube video of the Mexico city BRT system.. nice video, nice system.

Not as slick as Bogota (I really love the sliding glass doors in Bogota), but with the essential ingredients (busways, solid stations with turnstiles, level-platforms, busway). This video definitely makes a solid case that buses are more efficient than cars,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVRriKqXaIs