Transcript BRT basics ELAN format

Bus rapid transit (BRT) –
the basics
Presentation originally by
Dennis Hinebaugh, Director
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute
(NBRTI), University of South Florida
http://www.nbrti.org
Presented today by Tom Rye,
Edinburgh Napier University
What’s wrong with normal buses?

Slow

Unreliable

Not always frequent

Take the long way around

Uncomfortable

Untrendy, not technologically appealing

Make you feel like a loser if you take one?

BRT – tries to solve these problems
How we treat BRT customers!
Well!
How we treat local bus customers!
Badly!
BRT Systems
United States:
World:
• Alameda, CA
• Albany, NY
• Boston, MA
• Charlotte, NC
• Cleveland, OH
• Chicago, IL
• Dulles Corridor, VA
• Eugene, OR
• Hartford, CT
• Curitiba, Brazil
• Brisbane, Australia
• Adelaide, Australia
• Ottawa, Canada
• Leeds, England
• Amsterdam
• Utrecht
• Kent, England
•Ipswich, England
• Rouen, France
•Jonkoping, Sweden
[
It’s no single trait, but the combination of
traits that make BRT systems successful!
]
Speed of BRTs in km/h
6
Infrastructure

Needs to give priority to bus

Does not all have to be the same –
one BRT can combine different types
of priority

Key: ensure speed and reliability –
bus protected from other traffic
Arterial Bus Lanes
London
Quality Bus Corridor
Boston: Silver Line
Arterial Median Transitway
Vancouver: 98B
The Balkan BRT – before and after
E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ ESKİ HALİ
E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ YENİ HALİ
Running Ways
Arterial Median Busway
Rouen, France: TEOR
LEEDS/BRADFORD Guided Busways
Elevated Sections
Runcorn, UK
Running Way Color, Markings
Auckland
Paris
Sao Paulo
Route Structures
• More direct than local service
• “Off-line” stations
• Anchored by major activity centers
• Major corridors
• Feeder routes
• Can operate in low-density residential
• Flexible
•High frequency, turn up and go
• Effect on Land use
• No map
Adelaide, Australia
ADELAIDE
CBD
Stations: Potential Characteristics
• Differentiated from regular bus stops
• Enhanced shelters and/or station design
• Designated passenger “platform,” possibly
raised
• Enclosed
• Can be multi-modal
• Other facilities (taxi stands, parking, etc.)
• Customer information (real-time)
• Joint-development/multi-use
• Facilitates quick boarding and exit
• Docking
• Disabled accessible
Vehicles
• Unique/distinct aesthetic design/look
• Environmentally friendly
• Variable propulsion systems
• High capacity (articulated, bi-articulated)
• Wide aisles, increased passenger comfort
• Low-floor
• Large window design
• Increased amenities (laptop connections)
• Multiple double-wide doors
• Dual-sided entry/exit
• LRT like
Range of BRT Vehicle Options:
Conventional Buses
Van Hool 300AG
Zuidtangent
Amsterdam;
York Rapid Transit
Toronto
New Flyer 60LF
Vancouver 98, 99B
Ottawa Transitways
Specialized BRT Vehicles
ATS Phileus
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Irisbus Civis
Las Vegas MAX
Well- Lit, Open, Quiet Interior
Los Angeles, CA
Signal Preemption and low floor vehicles aided in
a:
• 28 to 33% decrease in travel time
• 30% increase in ridership, 14% net new
• No appreciable impact on cross–street traffic
Faster Fare Collection
• Fast, efficient so as to speed boarding
• Simple to understand
• Minimal on-vehicle transactions
• Cashless
• smart cards (multi-use)
• pre-purchased tickets
• passes
• Proof of payment
• enter station
Off–Board Fare Collection Options
Proof-of Payment: TVM
York, On. Rapid Transit
Smart Card Fare Gates
TransMillenio, Bogota
Cost Effective
• Vehicles
• can be off-the-shelf
• No track or overhead wires
• “Travel Ways”
• construction and maintenance
• incrementally built (phases, flexible)
• existing roadway network (mixed traffic)
• Uses existing vehicle storage facilities
• Uses existing and simple signal systems
• Workforce composition
• using existing vs. acquiring new staff
• wage differential for BRT vs. LRT
Rapid Transit Mode Comparisons
Statistic
ROW Options
Station Spacing
Vehicle Seated Capacity
Average Speed
Rapid Transit Mode
BRT
LRT
Exclusive or Mixed Traffic Exclusive or Mixed Traffic
1/4 to 1 Mile
1/4 to 1 Mile
40 to 85 Passengers
65 to 85 Passengers
15-30 mph
15-30 mph
P/H/D (exclusive ROW)
Up to 30,000
Up to 30,000
P/H/D (arterial)
Up to 10,000
Up to 10,000
$0.2M to $25M/Mile
$20M to $55M/Mile
Capital ROW Cost/Mile
Capital Cost/Vehicle
$0.45M to $1.5M
Source: SpeedLink- A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit. June 2001.
O&M/SH
$65 to $100
$1.5M to $3.5M
$150 to $200
Rail-Like Vehicles $5-30 m
Another take on costs
Impacts on ridership, car use

Survey of 14 BRT systems around world

Typically 15-35% increase in system
ridership

10-25% of these people transferred from
car

Istanbul system carries 500,000
people/day of whom about 10% came
from car. 400% increase in total PT
riders

See
http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Re
s%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf
Conclusions
• BRT quick to implement – politically
attractive
• Does not always have to be heavily
engineered – can combine a range of
infrastructure
• Can be implemented incrementally
• Ultimately it’s about reliability,
directness, convenience, premium
service, good image
• Low cost, high capacity alternative to
rail
• Keep It Simple Stupid