Design and Assessment of BRT Stations - Mercedes S and Assessment of BRT Stations – Foreword III...

As

of 0

6/20

12

Desi

gn a

nd A

sses

smen

t of B

RT S

tatio

ns

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations Eliana Chila | Richard Mejía | Matthias Hoffmann

www.mercedes-benz.com/brt

EvoBus GmbH, Neue Straße 95, 73230 Kirchheim unter Teck

BRT Handbuch Umschlag neues CI.indd 2-3 17.05.13 10:56

Project Leader:

Dipl.-Ing. Richard Mejía ([email protected])

Authors:

Dipl.-Ing. Eliana Chila M.Sc.

Dipl.-Ing. Richard Mejía

Dipl.-Ing. Matthias Hoffmann M.Sc.

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations

Handbook

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – Foreword III

Foreword

The world is changing at rapid pace and the effects of global mega-trends such as expeditious

population growth and increasing urbanisation call for the provision of new, convenient urban

mobility solutions. Thus, solutions need to meet the individual demands of each city and its in-

habitants. Sustainable mobility enables access to education, employment, research, public life

and culture, leads to further personal, social and economic development, while preserving the

natural environment. In this context Daimler provides a wide range of concepts to improve life in

urban areas.

Bus Rapid Transit is viewed as the solution for large cities to improve their urban transport sys-

tems, which are often operating at their limits due to ever worsening road-traffic and increasing

demand for fast and convenient passenger transport. BRT systems are essentially determined by

dedicated bus lanes to ensure the prioritisation and fast operation of buses. Further key-

elements are: barrier-free boarding and vehicles optimised in terms of size and design.

Thus, the implementation of such BRT systems is characterised by high complexity as a result of

the numerous components influencing the planning process. Due to our commitment to sustain-

able development we - Daimler Buses – have been supporting cities worldwide in developing

environmental-friendly public transport solutions since the 1980s. Our experts provide assis-

tance through all stages, from planning to implementation, and advice on topics such as

transport planning, implementation, operation and aftersales.

This handbook has been developed by our transport experts and it focuses on transport planning

and BRT station design. I hope it provides you a useful tool during the planning or improvement

of your BRT systems. This handbook is also intended to create a common understanding and to

facilitate cooperation among stakeholders in the planning process, by compiling content of high

complexity and relevance to the process of creating highly efficient public transport systems.

I am sure with this work Daimler Buses is contributing to the development of top class public

transport systems with BRT to improve mobility and the quality of life in our cities.

Hartmut Schick

CEO Daimler Buses

Stuttgart, June 2012

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – Preface V

Preface

Cost-efficiency, environmental friendliness, quality of service and comfort: these key words

characterise clearly areas of conflict facing public transport system requirements nowadays.

These requirements should not constitute either/or decisions, but should rather be met as a

whole. Bus Rapid Transit systems have received widespread global attention in recent years as

they prove to be an effective alternative to expensive mass rapid systems like Light Rail Transit

(LRT) or metro. For more than 35 years BRT systems have been implemented or considered by

cities. Theory and practice have confirmed that beyond right of way, stations and station design

are the most crucial parts for assuring an efficient operation of these systems. Station capacity

impacts the capacity of an entire system and attractive stations can be decisive for users’ ac-

ceptance of a transport system. Although worldwide there are very successful examples of effi-

cient station design, achieving a functional, operational and attractive design of stations is fre-

quently underestimated.

This handbook develops a methodology for designing, planning and assessing BRT stations

worldwide. It is based on the review of station design criteria given in literature, following a com-

parative approach. Based on findings from the literature, a proposal for globally applicable levels

of service for station design assessment is derived and tested in the context of selected stations

from Istanbul’s Metrobüs BRT system. The results derived from the application of this work can

be suitable both in the planning process as well as in the ongoing review and improvement of

existing BRT systems. This handbook is intended to support transport planners, operators and all

other stakeholders involved in improving the quality of the decision-making process for BRT sta-

tion design. This handbook has its origins in the responsibility and approach of Daimler to pro-

vide eco-friendly technology as well as sustainable mobility solutions, promoting worldwide effi-

cient bus-based public transport solutions such as BRT.

I would like to thank all the people associated with this work, especially Mrs. Eliana Chila, for her

dedication in the preparation of this handbook, Prof. Bolze from the Technical University Darm-

stadt for his support and provision of strategic ideas, as well as Mrs. Christine Hofmann, Mr. Leif

Fornauf and Mr. Wolfgang Kittler for their constructive input and continuous support. Thanks to

Mercedes-Benz Türk, especially to Mr. Selim Dalli, for the support in the data collection in Istan-

bul. Furthermore I would like to thank Dr. Dario Hidalgo, Dr. Barghab Maitra, Mr. Paulo Custodio

and Dr. Arturo Ardila who shared their expertise and enabled many fruitful discussions.

I hope you enjoy immersing in the exciting world of designing BRT stations as one of the most

crucial parts of the cost-effective public transport system BRT.

Richard Mejía

Stuttgart, June 2012

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – The Authors VII

The Authors

Richard Mejía was born in Quito/Ecuador in 1971. He studied Transportation Engineering at the

Technical University Berlin, with a major in Planning and Operating of Transport Systems. Since

2008 Richard Mejía has been the head of the BRT Transport Planning team of Daimler Buses in

Germany. His focus and experience in the management of worldwide transport planning and ITS

projects including project evaluation, planning and technical and economic implementation are

the result of more than 13 years work in transport planning, ITS and consult in Germany, the

United Kingdom and Spain. He has long-standing planning expertise in the transport sector in-

cluding Bus Rapid Transit, public transport policy, traffic modelling, electronic toll collection and

traffic management systems, park-and-ride programmes and ITS.

Eliana Chila Vidaurre graduated in Civil Engineering from the University of Tarija/Bolivia and

obtained her MSc in Traffic and Transport from the Technical University Darmstadt/Germany.

Since 2002 her engagement has been directed towards transport infrastructure, ranging from

planning and supervision of key public road and railway projects in Bolivia to coordination of the

introduction of a ISO 9000 quality management system. At present Ms. Chila Vidaurre acts as

technical advisor for a large PPP transportation infrastructure project for the municipal authority

of Frankfurt/Germany. Her expertise includes the tender evaluation process of public investment

projects.

Matthias Hoffmann was born in Hanover/Germany in 1976. He holds a Dipl.-Ing. and B.Sc. in

Urban Planning from the Hamburg University of Technology as well as a M.Sc. and B.Sc. in For-

estry Sciences from the University of Goettingen. Matthias Hoffmann is an urban and transport

planning consultant at Daimler Buses in Germany with a focus on Bus Rapid Transit. Previously

he worked in research with a focus on modelling accessibility effects, traffic cost estimation,

urban design and planning, Bus Rapid Transit, urban development policy, capacity building and

gender issues.

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – Table of Contents IX

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Hanbook ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Structure of the Handbook ................................................................................................. 4

2 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ............................................................ 7

2.1 Definitions of BRT in Literature ........................................................................................... 7

2.2 Design Concepts .................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 8

2.3.1 Cost Advantages .................................................................................................................. 8

2.3.2 Environmental Benefits from BRT ....................................................................................... 8

2.3.3 Land Use and Land Value Potential .................................................................................... 9

2.3.4 Positive Social Impacts of BRT ........................................................................................ 10

2.3.5 Fast and Flexible Implementation ................................................................................... 10

2.4 Obstacles and Lessons Learned ...................................................................................... 11

2.4.1 Constraints to BRT Dissemination ................................................................................... 11

2.4.2 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................... 11

2.5 System Components ........................................................................................................ 14

2.5.1 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 14

2.5.2 Buses ................................................................................................................................. 21

2.5.3 Bus Configuration ............................................................................................................. 21

2.5.4 Operational Issues ............................................................................................................ 23

2.5.5 Intelligent Transport Systems .......................................................................................... 25

3 Elements of BRT Stations...................................................................................... 29

3.1 Platforms and Bus Loading Areas .................................................................................... 29

3.1.1 Platforms ........................................................................................................................... 29

3.1.2 Bus Loading Areas ............................................................................................................ 34

3.1.3 The Platform-Vehicle Interface ........................................................................................ 46

3.2 Integration with Other Transport Modes ......................................................................... 49

3.2.1 Pedestrian Access to/from the Station .......................................................................... 49

3.2.2 Parking Facilities ............................................................................................................... 57

3.2.3 Interface between BRT and other Public Transport Modes ........................................... 59

3.3 Architecture ...................................................................................................................... 59

3.3.1 Weather Protection ........................................................................................................... 61

3.3.2 Aesthetic Design ............................................................................................................... 62

3.3.3 Image and Identity ............................................................................................................ 64

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – Table of Contents X

3.4 Fare Collection and Verification ....................................................................................... 64

3.4.1 Fare Collection .................................................................................................................. 65

3.4.2 Fare Verification ................................................................................................................ 65

3.5 Passenger Information Systems at BRT Stations ........................................................... 66

3.5.1 Station Information ........................................................................................................... 67

3.5.2 Service Information .......................................................................................................... 68

3.5.3 Further Passenger Information ........................................................................................ 69

3.6 Security and Safety ........................................................................................................... 70

3.6.1 Security ............................................................................................................................. 70

3.6.2 Safety ................................................................................................................................. 71

3.7 Considerations for Passengers with Reduced Mobility .................................................. 72

3.8 Additional Considerations ................................................................................................ 73

3.8.1 Features ............................................................................................................................. 73

3.8.2 Maintenance and Cleanliness .......................................................................................... 74

3.8.3 Customer Service ............................................................................................................. 75

3.9 Summary of all Station Elements ..................................................................................... 75

4 BRT Station Design Process and Methodology .................................................... 79

4.1 BRT Station Design Process ............................................................................................. 79

4.1.1 Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 79

4.1.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................... 81

4.2 Level of Service Methodology .......................................................................................... 83

4.2.1 Availability ......................................................................................................................... 85

4.2.2 Comfort and Convenience ................................................................................................ 95

4.2.3 Summary of Level of Service Tables .............................................................................. 103

5 Case Study: Validation of the BRT Station Design Process ............................... 107

5.1 Description of the Conditions ........................................................................................ 107

5.1.1 Local Conditions ............................................................................................................. 107

5.1.2 Economic and Legal Framework .................................................................................... 107

5.1.3 The Metrobüs BRT System ............................................................................................. 108

5.2 Assessment of the Current Level of Service ................................................................. 109

5.2.1 Description of the Assessed Stations ........................................................................... 109

5.2.2 General Performance Parameters Measured at Stations ............................................. 113

5.2.3 Level of Service Assessed for Availability ..................................................................... 114

5.2.4 Level of Service Assessed for Comfort and Convenience ........................................... 124

5.2.5 Assessment of Comfort .................................................................................................. 126

5.2.6 Summary of the Level of Service Assessment .............................................................. 127

5.3 Recommendations for the Improvement of the Stations’ Level of Service ................ 128

5.3.1 Recommendations for the Improvement of Availability ............................................... 128

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – Table of Contents XI

5.3.2 Recommendations for the Improvement of Comfort and Convenience ..................... 136

5.3.3 Summary of the Recommended Measures ................................................................... 139

6 Conclusions and Outlook .................................................................................... 143

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – 1 Introduction 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Worldwide there is a recognised trend of

urbanization, eventually leading to a situation

where in 2030 about 60% of mankind will live

in cities (Fig. 1). In 2009, 50% of the world’s

population lived in urban areas with a growth

rate in developing countries of 4% from 2005

to 2010 (UNFPA 2009). In developed regions

such as Europe, in 2020 80% of the popula-

tion will live in urban areas, where car-based

trips account for 75% of the distances trav-

elled (UITP 2010).

This inevitable urban growth poses a chal-

lenge while at the same time offering oppor-

tunities for planners to manage growth so as

to contribute positively to economic ad-

vancement, reconciling it with ecologically

sustainable forms of development and reduc-

ing social exclusion (Hall 2007).

A crucial component of urban planning is the

transport sector, since unplanned demo-

graphic and economic growth of cities is

usually characterised by high traffic conges-

tion and externalities such as pollution (air,

water and noise), accidents and others.

Proper urban planning has the objective to

enable fluidity in travelling by introducing

priorities for sustainable transport modes

with high levels of interoperability, accessibil-

ity, safety, comfort, integrated ticketing, real

time information, etc.

Among the available sustainable transport

options, conventional urban bus systems

often underachieve and do not mobilise their

full potential, as a consequence of car-

oriented transport policies or a near lack of

professional public transport planning. Con-

sequently urban bus systems often are seen

as being inefficient, with low capacity and

poor service quality by politicians and the

public. Rail systems in contrary are thought

to enable higher speed and capacity, but due

to their higher investment and operating

costs rarely ever pay back and usually re-

quire substantial subsidies.

Figure 1: Global trends of rural to urban population growth from 1970 to 2030 (own illustration

based on UN HABITAT 2009)


In many developing and developed countries

there is renewed interest in finding ways of

providing efficient and effective public

transport that does not impose additional

risks to public budgets. Especially in times of

financial crisis, careful consideration must be

given to risks associated with debt service

and liabilities and budget deficits associated

with excessive spending on public transport

infrastructure. An increasing number of na-

tions are asking what type of public transport

system can deliver value for money. BRT1 is

an attractive, established solution, which can

combine the capacity and speed of rail sys-

tems at the moderate cost and flexibility of

bus systems. BRT can be understood as a

flexible, rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that

combines stations, vehicles, services, run-

ning ways and Intelligent Transport System

(ITS) elements into an integrated system with

a strong, positive identity evoking a unique

image (TCRP 2003a). One important element

of BRT is station design, as underlined by P.

Custodio (2008): “BRT capacity is the capaci-

ty available at the station.”

A study commissioned in order to assess the

extent to which BRT can equal the image of

rail-based transit systems concluded that:

“Full-Service BRT is capable of replicating

both the functionality standards (tangible

attributes) and image qualities (intangible

attributes) normally associated with Light Rail

transit, at least in the perception of the gen-

eral public” (FTA 2009b).

1 A variety of terms is available for “Bus Rapid Transit”: e.g. high-capacity bus system, high-quality bus system, surface metro, express bus system, busway systems, metrobus etc.

BRT represents a major trend in the devel-

opment of public transport systems around

the world (Hensher and Golob 2008). At pre-

sent over 130 BRT systems in Latin America,

Northern America, Europe, Australasia and

Asia are in operation and a lot more are in

construction, expansion and planning stages

(Daimler AG). This is based on successful

projects in South America that started in

Brazil in the 1970’s (GTZ and Castro 2008).

The above definition underlines the im-

portance of a comprehensive design concept

emphasising the high significance of BRT

stations. The Transit Cooperative Research

Program (TCRP) identifies station infrastruc-

ture as a major characteristic of BRT system

design and a key element in providing ade-

quate capacity (TCRP 2003a).

The Institute for Transportation and Devel-

opment Policy (ITDP) reports that in general,

the bottleneck of most BRT systems is vehi-

cle congestion at stations. Approaches that

help to decongest BRT station areas (Fig. 2)

and allow for rapid boarding and alighting of

passengers will be likely to return the great-

est dividends in terms of speed and capacity

(ITDP 2007).

Although there are very successful examples

of efficient station design worldwide, the

functional, operational and attractive design

of stations is frequently underestimated. The

consequences are manifold, ranging from

capacity problems to non-acceptance of the

transport system by the users. Considering

that stations are the first point of contact

between the passenger and the bus service,

their importance cannot be underestimated.


An example of less successful BRT station

design was exposed in the BRT system in

Jakarta/Indonesia, opened in February 2004.

Since its initial phase the BRT system experi-

enced problems with inadequate sizes of

stations and transfer terminals, resulting in

low capacity and speeds due to more delays

at stations and terminals, more buses, ser-

vice irregularities, higher fares due to in-

creased operating costs and lower quality of

service (Custodio 2005).

The design of BRT stations in Pune, India

causes inconvenience, too (Fig. 3). The circu-

lation of passengers on platforms is difficult

due to the presence of barriers, obstacles

(seats, columns) and narrow sections. There-

fore passengers are required to step down

from the platforms to reach the pedestrian

walkways at the intersection. Level boarding

has not been achieved as buses do not dock

close to the platforms, requiring passengers

to step down from the platforms to climb up

to the bus entrances. Insufficient loading

areas for buses create queuing at stations,

resulting in spillover effects. The information

system (maps, signs etc.) is scarce or vandal-

ized (Pai 2009).

The motivation for the development of a

handbook for the design and assessment of

BRT stations arose from the interest in im-

proving the quality of service provided at BRT

stations.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Hand-

book

In recognition of the importance of stations

for BRT systems’ operation and performance,

this handbook will develop a manual to assist

Figure 2: Station capacity problems at the BRT corridor in Istanbul/Turkey (Daimler AG)

Figure 3: Undersized stations in Pune/India (Daimler AG)


the process of the design and assessment of

such stations. This manual can be applied

worldwide and takes into account a wide

range of design alternatives. Supporting the

primary objective, secondary objectives

were:

Collection and review of relevant infor-

mation for the design and assessment of

the BRT station elements (research, plan-

ning guides, studies, reports about BRT

systems and the design of stations for

public transport in general). Assembling

and compressing the information into a

single document provides developers and

evaluators with a comprehensive and

compact reference document about BRT

stations.

Analysis of concepts for assessing the

capacity of BRT stations. Methodologies

relative to the design of conventional bus

stations and Light Rail Transit (LRT) sta-

tions are compared to experience gained

from actual BRT systems.

Introduction of quality of service concepts

for the design and assessment of BRT sta-

tions.

Optimisation and validation of this hand-

book through its application to a BRT sys-

tem in operation.

Following the purpose and scope of this

handbook, limitations are:

The location of a BRT station (along the

BRT corridors), and its placement (in rela-

tion to a road intersection and to a street

cross section) are conditioned on an ex-

amination of numerous on-site particulari-

ties, and assumed as a result of a prior

definition process. Therefore station loca-

tion and placement are not part of this

handbook and only a brief description

about their main characteristics is pre-

sented in Chapter 2.

The handbook is limited to design and

management capacity problems and oth-

er service requirements of the BRT sys-

tem that can only be influenced by solu-

tions emerging from the characteristics of

the stations’ elements. Design review of

routes, operation or other BRT elements

is not included.

1.3 Structure of the Handbook

Chapter 1 introduces the materials included

within this handbook.

A compact overview of the main characteris-

tics of BRT systems is offered in Chapter 2.

The design concept, main components (in-

frastructure, buses and operation system),

benefits and obstacles are briefly described.

Chapter 3 describes the elements of BRT

stations, classified in eight categories. The

elements' main characteristics, essential

functions and key design concepts are out-

lined. The analysis is supported by infor-

mation about conventional bus

stops/stations and rail-based stations. Plan-

ning guides and technical reports about BRT

systems worldwide and lessons learned from

currently operating BRT systems with em-

phasis on problems at stations, passenger

complaints about stations as result of sur-

veys, etc. also important feedback in this

chapter.


Once the station elements and their essen-

tial functions have been identified, the focus

in Chapter 4 is the BRT station design pro-

cess, as the core subject of this handbook.

The station design process is a complex in-

teraction between various condi-

tions/constraints and stakeholders’ re-

quirements for the station elements.

These conditions/constraints and require-

ments for the BRT station design are identi-

fied, described and categorized. However,

the stakeholders’ requirements are not al-

ways compatible with each other, thus to

reach a balance among all these variables, a

Level of Service (LOS) based methodology is

introduced. The LOS are designated ranges

of values for particular service measures

based on passenger perception but depend-

ing on operating decisions made by the plan-

ners and service providers within the given

conditions or constraints for the station.

Accordingly, individual passenger require-

ments are translated into comprehensive

service requirements to be achieved.

In the respective literature, quantitative crite-

ria are given almost exclusively for the defini-

tion of the LOS values for capacity. For ser-

vice requirements such as accessibility, in-

formation, safety and security, time saving,

comfort and customer service few if any

concrete references are available. Conse-

quentially they were developed from scratch

in this chapter.

In Chapter 5, the process and methodology

defined in Chapter 4 are applied at four sta-

tions at the Metrobüs BRT system in Istan-

bul/Turkey each with specific particularities

and conditions. The objective is the optimisa-

tion and validation of the defined LOS values

(and their relation to the station elements)

through their application and comparison to

concrete data resulting from on-site meas-

urements at operating BRT stations.

Finally, Chapter 6 summarises the key find-

ings of the handbook and provides recom-

mendations on critical aspects of BRT station

design and assessment, along with potential

improvements.

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations – 2 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 7

2 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

2.1 Definitions of BRT in Literature

Several literature sources deal with the defi-

nition of BRT and its main features (FTA;

Goodman et al. 1998; Kang and Diaz 2000;

Miller and Buckley 2001; TCRP 2003a; TCRP

2003b; Wright 2005; RISPO 2006). For this

handbook, one of the most recent and com-

prehensive has been chosen:

“BRT is a high-quality bus-based transit sys-

tem that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-

effective urban mobility through the provision

of segregated right-of-way infrastructure,

rapid and frequent operations, and excellence

in marketing and customer service. BRT es-

sentially emulates the performance and

amenity characteristics of a modern rail-

based transit system but at a fraction of the

cost” (ITDP 2007).

This definition sets BRT apart from conven-

tional bus service and tends rather to sug-

gest that BRT has far more in common with

rail-based systems, especially in terms of

operating performance and customer ser-

vice. Actually, the BRT concept provides

many aspects of LRT service and metro sys-

tems most appreciated by public transport

customers. The main difference is simply

that BRT can usually provide high-quality

public transport services with a focus on

customer service at costs most developing

cities can afford (ITDP 2007).

2.2 Design Concepts

The difficulty of providing a precise definition

of BRT systems arises from the wide variety

of systems currently in operation. Rather

than representing a discrete set of qualities,

the various BRT systems form more of a

spectrum of possibilities (Table 1).

The last several decades have seen a transi-

tion from basic bus lanes and prioritization

treatment to fully-featured BRT. Thirty years

ago the emphasis was on kerbside bus lanes,

freeway ramp queue bypasses, and physical

elements. BRT packages now include several

of the key BRT elements including busways,

attractive stations, distinctive vehicles, off-

vehicle fare collection, application of ITS

technologies, and a clear service pattern

(TCRP 2003a).

Table 1: Types of bus systems (own illustration based on ITDP 2007)


2.3 Benefits

Some of the benefits of BRT systems have

already been mentioned, but at this stage the

intention is to corroborate these benefits

through concrete data of BRT systems in

operation.

2.3.1 Cost Advantages

A handbook based on data of worldwide

public transport projects compared alterna-

tive transport modes such as BRT, LRT, ele-

vated rail and subway systems. The compari-

son clearly underlines the cost-efficiency of

BRT systems compared to transport modes

with comparable transport capacities (ITDP

2007). These findings were also confirmed

by a study comparing the hypothetical in-

vestment costs for a 20 km BRT and LRT

system, indicating that investment costs for

BRT would be significantly lower (Table 2)

(FGSV 2008).

Moreover, construction times of BRT sys-

tems tend to be much shorter than those of

other urban transport options, thus offering

quicker returns on investment and reduction

of financial risks. Subsidies for operational

BRT systems usually are not necessary, in

contrast to most metro systems around the

world (UNEP 2009).

2.3.2 Environmental Benefits from BRT

In comparison to other transport systems,

BRT reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

per passenger transported. This effect is

mainly achieved by using buses with high

capacity and state of the art, fuel-efficient

technologies operated at high passenger

occupancy rates. In the following some spe-

cific examples of BRT systems and their envi-

ronmental benefits are shown:

Metrobús, Mexico-City/Mexico: Annual

environmental benefits include a reduc-

tion of 100,000 tons of CO2 per year,

690 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX),

2.8 tons of fine particulate matter and

144 tons of hydrocarbons, which are as-

sociated with smog, acid rain, global

warming, and a variety of health problems

(CTS-México 2009; EMBARQ 2011). The

Metrobús BRT system in Mexico-

Table 2: Costs comparison for a 20 km long system with BRT-style buses and LRT (own illustration

based on FGSV 2008)


City/Mexico won Harvard University’s

2009 Roy Family Award for Environmental

Partnership.

Metrobüs, Istanbul/Turkey: The local BRT

system was awarded an honourable men-

tion at the 2009 Sustainable Transport

Awards in Washington, which recognise

projects that reduce greenhouse gases

and improve the quality of life in city cen-

tres of large metropolises worldwide.

The Janmarg BRT system in Ahmeda-

bad/India won this award in 2010, be-

cause it reduced carbon emissions and

improved resident access dramatically

(ITDP 2010a).

TransMilenio, Bogotá/Colombia: Trans-

Milenio’s phases II-III transport an aver-

age of 1.69 million passengers per day on

84 kilometres of exclusive bus lanes with

around 1200 articulated buses and more

than 500 large feeder buses. It reduces

annual CO2 emissions by around

250,000 tons (Grütter 2008). The Trans-

Milenio project is one of the first trans-

portation projects approved under the

Kyoto Protocol Clean Development

Mechanism (Grütter 2007).

United States: In US cities, BRT was

found to provide significantly greater CO2

reduction potential than LRT. The main

reason appears to be the technology used

for electric power generation and the en-

ergy mix used to power LRT. Electricity

generated from fossil fuels produces a

large amount of CO2. In the US, the elec-

tricity generation energy mix contains a

large share of fossil fuels. CO2 emissions

related to LRT therefore are comparative-

ly higher than those of BRT. The per pas-

senger mile CO2 emissions of a BRT sys-

tem are considered to be significantly

lower than those of LRT systems almost

everywhere in the country (Vincent and

Jerram 2006).

Differences in emission savings from BRT

arise from emission standard requirements

for the buses in BRT systems set by national

or local legislation. Some examples are: Is-

tanbul/Turkey requires Euro IV and V stand-

ards, Mexico Euro V, South Africa Euro IV

and Surat/India Euro IV (a brief description

of Euro norms is found in 2.5.2.6).

2.3.3 Land Use and Land Value Poten-

tial

Land valuation and accessibility in crowded,

congested, and land-constrained cities like

Seoul/South Korea are closely related. Im-

proved accessibility prompted property own-

ers and developers to intensify land use

along BRT corridors, mainly by converting

single-family residences to multi-family units,

apartments, and mixed-use projects. Moreo-

ver, land markets capitalised these accessi-

bility gains, particularly among parcels used

for condominiums and higher density resi-

dential uses. Land price premiums in the 5–

10% range were estimated for residences

within 300 metres of BRT stations. For retail

shops and other non-residential uses, im-

pacts were more varied, ranging from 3–26%

premiums over a smaller impact zone of

150 metres from the nearest BRT station

(Cervero and Kang 2009).


2.3.4 Positive Social Impacts of BRT

Lower operating costs allow BRT systems to

be self-financing at much lower fare levels,

providing services affordable to poorer popu-

lations. Further, many new systems have

focused on initial corridors for the lowest-

income neighbourhoods. This helps ensure

that new systems can play a role in improv-

ing access to jobs and public services as

indicated by examples from Colombia and

Indonesia (ITDP 2007).

In Colombia the population is differentiated

into six income groups (Fig. 4). Groups 1 and

2 are considered poor under Colombian law,

while groups 5 and 6 can be considered

rich. Figure 4 implies that in 2001 the

TransMilenio BRT system mainly served in-

come group 3. However, changes applied to

the system until 2003 led to the result of

better access of the poor to the BRT system.

Passengers save roughly US$ 134 per year in

travel costs and 325 hours per year in travel

time.

In the TransJakarta BRT system in Jakar-

ta/Indonesia, from a sample of 350 system

users, 40% of passengers were defined as

low-income based on proxy indicators. Some

87% of passengers said that their travel time

had been reduced.

2.3.5 Fast and Flexible Implementation

Planning and implementation of BRT systems

require significantly less time than those of

LRT or Metro projects. In Istanbul/Turkey,

the planning phase took less than 12 months

(Fig. 5) (Daimler AG). This underlines BRT’s

potential to be a highly flexible mass rapid

transit system compared to other options.

Figure 4: Income groups in Bogotá/Colombia, and their coverage by TransMilenio (own illustration

based on ITDP 2007)

3%

12%

48%

38%

3%

17%

67%

18%

5%

7%

42%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Rich: 5 & 6

4

3

Poor: 1 & 2

Inco

me g

roup

s

Percentage of users per income group

Bogotá Total Population

TransMilenio Users 2001

TransMilenio Users 2003


2.4 Obstacles and Lessons Learned

2.4.1 Constraints to BRT Dissemination

BRT faces several barriers to its wider dis-

semination: political will, existing operators,

institutional biases, lack of information, insti-

tutional and technical capacities, financing

and geographical/physical limitations.

Political will is by far the most important

ingredient in making BRT work. Overcoming

resistance from special interest groups and

the general inertia against change is often an

insurmountable obstacle (Wright 2005).

The main stakeholders influencing decisions

in BRT projects are:

Government: politicians, agencies, special

interest groups;

Bus operators: owners, managers, drivers,

unions;

Construction companies: lobbies, busi-

ness linkages;

Equipment and technology companies:

bus industry, ITS suppliers, fare collec-

tion;

Financial institutions: development banks,

private banks, public/semi-public and

non-governmental institutions, investors.

2.4.2 Lessons Learned

Analyses of the shortcomings of BRT sys-

tems in Quito/Ecuador, Bogotá/Colombia,

León/Mexico, México-City/Mexico,

Guayaquil/Ecuador, Pereira/Colombia, San-

tiago/Chile, Beijing/China, Jakar-

ta/Indonesia, São Paulo/Brazil and Curiti-

ba/Brazil were undertaken and lessons

learned by case studies (tables 3 and 4) (Hi-

dalgo, Custodio et al. 2007).

Dario Hidalgo, Senior Transport Engineer of

EMBARQ concludes in his 2009 presentation

“Key to Success in Bus Systems” that a good

BRT system is the result of strong leadership,

adequate coordination among stakeholders,

good technical planning, careful implementa-

tion, a systems approach (infrastructure +

vehicles + operations + technologies + edu-

cation) and quality assurance through per-

formance monitoring.

Figure 5: Implementation times of Metro and Metrobüs BRT systems in Istanbul/Turkey (Daimler

AG)


Table 3: Synthesis of findings from major bus system improvement projects in Latin America and

Asia (part I) (own illustration based on Hidalgo, Custodio et al. 2007)


Table 4: Synthesis of findings from major bus system improvement projects in Latin America and

Asia (part II) (own illustration based on Hidalgo, Custodio et al. 2007)


2.5 System Components

BRT is an integrated system, with all compo-

nents working together to optimise perfor-

mance. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution,

but rather an approach, tailored to a city’s

needs but with common features or princi-

ples. If certain features are left out of the

design, performance will decrease. Hence

planners may choose among component

groups to assemble systems that best meet

their city’s needs. There are three major

components of BRT systems:

Infrastructure: running ways, stations

(and facilities), terminals and depots

Buses

Operation: routing and service options,

fare collection and ITS, identity and im-

age.

2.5.1 Infrastructure

2.5.1.1 Running Ways

Running ways are the key element of BRT

systems around which all other components

revolve, as the running way defines where

BRT vehicles travel. The definition of running

ways for the BRT system has major impact

on the entire system. They are the most crit-

ical element in determining the speed and

reliability of BRT services. Moreover, the

construction of the running ways represents

approximately 50% of the total infrastructure

costs (FTA 2009a).

Running Way Segregation Types

The primary planning parameter for running

ways is the level of separation from other

traffic. Running way options range from gen-

eral traffic lanes to fully grade-separated BRT

busways. Table 5 summarises the range of

options.

Apart from physical separation, the effect of

running ways is also determined by two other

components: decisions have to be taken

regarding access and types of vehicles. If

there are no restrictions on operators’ ac-

cess or the types of vehicles allowed, run-

ning ways may perform inefficiently. As more

vehicles enter the busway, the resulting con-

gestion at stations and intersections will

gradually reduce average speeds and thus

increase customer travel times. Based on an

operating concept, limiting access up to an

optimum number of operators and vehicles

can help ensure the essential objectives of

BRT systems: speed, reliability, capacity as

well as identity and image. Considering the

organisation of BRT operation and infrastruc-

ture design, BRT systems could be defined as

open or closed systems (although the divi-

Table 5: BRT running ways classified by degree of segregation (own illustration based on TCRP

2003b)


sion is not clearly delineated). Both have

advantages and disadvantages regarding

impact on average vehicle speeds, customer

travel times and comfort.

Closed Systems

Systems that limit access to designated op-

erators are known as closed systems. Typi-

cally, access is granted to carefully selected

operators through a competitive selection

process. The busway is exclusively reserved

for BRT buses and separated from other traf-

fic by some form of physical barrier, such as

raised cement blocks or pylons. Busways can

be at-grade or grade separated. At-grade

refers to busways eventually crossing

through signalised intersections while grade-

separated systems are constructed in a

manner completely separating them from

potential conflicts with other traffic, e.g. via

overpasses, underpasses or – like the BRT in

Istanbul/Turkey – running separate from

other lanes along a highway (without inter-

sections). Closed systems tend to operate

high-capacity vehicles that will likely result in

service being provided every three minutes,

with average commercial speeds of

25 kilometres per hour or higher (ITDP

2007). The BRT in Istanbul even reaches an

average commercial speed of 40 kilometres

per hour. Closed systems have the ad-

vantage of creating a clear marketing identity

when using special buses, a simple metro-

like map of routes, and hence form a fully

separated system, usually served by feeder

buses. Due to the positive impact on cus-

tomer perception linked to these characteris-

tics, the BRT systems with the highest capac-

ity and operating speeds have all been de-

signed as closed systems.

Open Systems

The busways in open systems are designed

for the utilisation by BRT buses and eventual-

ly other public transport systems and special

groups (police, ambulances, etc.). Bus lanes

are separated from other traffic either by

painted lines or poor enforcement of pre-

venting traffic entering the system, which

can undermine free-flow movement of buses

and thus reduce travel time advantages.

Without any rationalisation of existing ser-

vices, open systems can lead to severe con-

gestion in the bus lanes. Open systems tend

to lack a clear marketing identity, and remain

unrecognised as a system by the general

public as usually normal buses that also op-

erate citywide are used.

Bus Lanes/Busway Configurations

The configuration of any particular bus lane

or busway depends on the width of streets,

the amount of mixed traffic, pedestrians,

bicycles and frequency of buses within and

outside the BRT system.

Basically, bus lanes and busways can be

placed either in median or kerbside posi-

tions:

Median lanes: this concept reduces turn-

ing conflicts, and provides more integra-

tion options with crossing busway-routes

in other streets. It is the most commonly

applied option for BRT systems world-

wide.

Kerbside lanes: this configuration only

functions well if at least one side of a


road has few turns and slip roads to adja-

cent properties (e.g. favourable situations

when a road runs parallel to a body of wa-

ter or large park) or comprises significant-

ly fewer lanes. Primarily, kerbside running

ways cause conflicts with turning traffic,

taxis, delivery vehicles and non-motorized

traffic stopping. Such conflicts inhibit sys-

tem capacity and reliability.

Streets exclusively for BRT: in situations

with narrow road widths, such as in cen-

tral business districts or historical cen-

tres, access is permitted for BRT buses or

non-motorized traffic only.

A standard vehicle lane width is typically

3.5 metres; however, lanes can be as narrow

as 3.0 metres. More narrow lanes tend to

reduce speeds and increase the risk of acci-

dents (ITDP 2007).

Bus Lanes or Busways at Stations

A further consideration is the configuration

of busways at stations. Under certain condi-

tions it is recommended that BRT corridors

should be equipped with passing-lanes:

In BRT systems with very high passenger

demand (over 10,000 passengers per

hour per direction [pphpd]) (Wright 2005);

In order to provide local and express ser-

vice (buses not stopping at every station);

When the station has more than a single

loading area in linear configuration, vehi-

cles should be able to pass one another

at the stations.

As shown in Figure 6, additional lanes may

exist either all along a corridor or be spatially

limited to the area of a bus station (ITDP

2007). Due to construction costs and the

additional space required for a second lane,

it is recommended that passing lanes be

provided only at stations. With an optimised

operational concept, buses then can com-

fortably overtake other buses.

Considering that at stations buses must re-

duce their speed to precisely and comforta-

bly dock at platforms, a running way width of

3.0 metres at stations can be considered

sufficient, when road width is constrained.

2.5.1.2 Stations

Stations used for BRT schemes vary from

system to system. However, they are gener-

Figure 6: Options for the design of BRT passing lanes as given in Bogotá/Colombia (Daimler AG)

Buses

BRT Lanes

Stations


ally of a more advanced nature than those

typically used for conventional bus services,

ideally combining state-of-the-art passenger

information technology with the comfort and

convenience of rail stations, along with im-

proved safety and fare collection systems.

Location

A key element in improving bus transit effi-

ciency, convenience and safety is the station

location. The selection of the location for a

station is the result of a rational analysis

process and in the course of this work as-

sumed to be a given condition. It involves the

analysis of origins and destinations of travel,

access to primary destinations such as

shopping complexes, residential or employ-

ment centres, educational centres, etc. The

integration with new or expanding commer-

cial and institutional developments should be

encouraged, too. Therefore, only a brief de-

scription of the factors to consider for the

selection of station locations is given here. A

wide-ranging description about station ele-

ments and design issues follows in chap-

ters 3 and 4.

After the ridership potential has been estab-

lished and the general location is decided

(Wright 2005), critical factors to be consid-

ered in finding station locations are safety

and other risks that could otherwise obstruct

passenger access to stations. This includes

connections to other public transport modes,

passenger walking distances, signal timing,

driveway locations, physical obstructions,

and the potential for implementing transit

preferential measures. The final decision on

a bus station’s location depends on several

safety and operating elements that require

on-site evaluation. In general, placing sta-

tions in prominent, visible locations will in-

crease their presence, security and utilisa-

tion. The optimum distance between stations

is a trade-off between demand at key loca-

tions and the time penalty incurred to the

total trip time. A standard distance between

stations is around 500 metres but can range

from 300 to 1000 metres (VDV 2001; ITDP

2007), depending upon local circumstances.

Another option is to define optimum station

distances by calculating catchment areas

measured in travel time. A walking time of

approximately five minutes is considered an

acceptable value for ensuring accessibility.

More detailed measures, particularly the

analysis and adjustment of service coverage,

usually require geographic information sys-

tem (GIS) software. Results can be used to

optimally match accessibility, spatial cover-

age and urban structures.


Placement in Relation to Road Intersections

Stations can be placed in three positions in

relation to road intersections and signals

(Fig. 7): nearside, farside and mid-block.

Nearside position: if a station is placed on

the nearside, queue jumpers are not

used, and buses merge with queue traffic

on the kerbside lane of the station. Con-

sequently, buses suffer delays of at least

one signal cycle.

Farside position: in BRT systems with

active signal priority and queue-jumpers,

stations are placed at the far side, allow-

ing effective use of these measures. Bus-

es are cleared through the intersection

with minimal delay.

Mid-block position: not commonly used,

however their location has no advantage

or disadvantage in terms of signal priority

and queue jumpers.

A summary of the advantages and disad-

vantages of different placement options can

be found in Table 6.

Placement of BRT Stations in Relation to

Street Cross Sections

The placement of BRT stations in street cross

sections can be in either median (Fig. 8) or

kerbside positions (Fig. 9).

Median Position

One central station facilitates passenger

boarding and alighting from buses in both

directions. Under these conditions, free

transfer between different routes in a pre-

payment system is easier at all stations as it

avoids the need to cross the busway, bus

lanes and other traffic.

Figure 7: Placement of stations in relation to road intersections (TCRP 2003b)


This configuration also allows easier integra-

tion between different busway routes, par-

ticularly when two routes cross on perpen-

dicular streets, by linking two median sta-

tions through overpasses or underpasses

contrary to linking four stations placed on

the sides of a roadway. Furthermore, a medi-

an station permits passengers to select mul-

tiple routing options from a single station

platform.

Kerbside Position

This configuration requires a separate station

for each direction of a busway. Consequently

the infrastructure costs in comparison to the

construction of stations in median position

increase. Station placement also creates

difficulty when trying to allow free-flow trans-

fer between perpendicular lines. A rather

elaborate set of overhead or underground

pedestrian passages would be needed to

keep the system closed and allow internal

transfers. In absence of special infrastruc-

ture measures, passengers would be forced

to walk across busy intersections and proba-

bly pay a second fare to enter a different

station/corridor.

Table 6: Comparative analysis of bus station locations (own illustration based on TCRP 1996)


BRT Station Types

There are many possibilities of classifying

BRT stations. In this handbook, the following

categorisation was applied:

Simple stations: located along trunk

routes and served by a single BRT line in

one or both directions without transfer

possibility to other routes. Passengers

must have a ticket to enter the BRT sys-

tem.

Interchange stations: located along trunk

routes and served by more than one BRT

line, permitting transfers between differ-

ent trunk lines as well as transfer be-

tween trunk and feeder lines. The objec-

tive of developing these stations focuses

on smooth, fast and effective transfer of

the passengers.

Main line stations/terminals: these sta-

tions are located at the end points of

trunk routes and serve more than one

BRT line. These stations act as transfer

points between trunk and feeder lines and

- if applicable - with other (public)

transport modes. Terminals are provided

with parking lots and other infrastructure

facilities.

Figure 8: Median-side station at median lanes (Daimler AG)

Figure 9: Kerbside stations: at kerb lanes (left) and at median lanes (right) (Daimler AG)

Buses

BRT Lanes

Stations

Buses

BRT Lanes

Stations


2.5.1.3 Depots

Bus depot areas are used to park and main-

tain buses that are not in use. Usually depots

comprise refuelling facilities, maintenance

areas and office space for bus operators. The

location of a bus depot is ideally within close

proximity of the actual system, since opera-

tors need to rapidly deploy buses either to

meet peak demand, provide replacements

upon vehicle breakdown or other unforeseen

events. However, since bus depots can con-

sume considerable space, site selection of-

ten depends on the economics of acquiring

sufficient property (Wright 2005).

2.5.2 Buses

Key considerations in the design of BRT vehi-

cles are: sufficient capacity, ease of passen-

ger boarding and alighting, improved com-

fort, adequate circulation space, reduced

noise and emissions (TCRP 2003a). Buses

are the core element of BRT systems, in

which customers spend most of their time,

and are one of the most visible system ele-

ments to non-customers. They can play an

important role in successful branding (FTA

2009a).

2.5.3 Bus Configuration

The primary vehicle planning/design param-

eters are represented by the combination of

length, passenger capacity, body type, and

floor height. All of these parameters affect

the vehicle’s ability to transport passengers

efficiently and with reasonable comfort.

High-capacity (e.g. articulated) buses on

heavily frequented routes can achieve an

optimum balance between frequent bus ser-

vice for passengers and efficient bus opera-

tions without having buses queuing at sta-

tions. Table 7 shows different vehicle types

and their corresponding capacities.

2.5.3.1 Aesthetic Enhancements

Above and beyond the basic vehicle type,

several aesthetic enhancements (FTA 2009a)

can be added to vehicles to increase their

attractiveness to passengers. Manufacturers

have responded to market demand for more

stylish vehicles, offering visually appealing

windshield and window treatments as well as

other exterior styling cues that suggest a rail-

like vehicle quality. Interior amenities such

as high-quality materials, better and more

energy-efficient lighting, climate control, and

sound reduction contribute to customers’

perception of comfort and service quality.

2.5.3.2 Passenger Circulation Enhance-

ment

Several enhancements can be added to vehi-

cles to accelerate passenger boarding and

alighting as well as circulation within the

vehicle. The provision of additional and/or

wider door channels, including median (left-

side) doors, can improve circulation. Further

measures are seat layouts, including those

allowing for wider aisles, and alternative

Table 7: Vehicle options and passenger

capacities (own illustration based on ITDP

2007)


wheelchair positions. The characteristics of

the BRT vehicle doors are a key factor for the

estimation of the station capacity in buses

per hour. Detailed considerations follow in

chapters 3 and 4.

2.5.3.3 Intelligent Vehicle Systems

Intelligent Vehicle Systems (IVS) comprises

technologies such as automated controls –

lateral (i.e. steering) and longitudinal (i.e.

starting, speed control, stopping) – for BRT

vehicles. They reduce the probability and

severity of crashes and collisions, running

and station dwell times by consistently

achieving small gaps at stations, facilitating

level boarding. Furthermore, precision dock-

ing and lane-assist technologies can help

reduce the lane width required to operate

BRT vehicles (Baltes 2007). Guidance sys-

tems can be mechanical (e.g. BRT systems in

Leeds/UK; Adelaide/Australia; Nan-

cy/France), optical (e.g. Rouen/France), or

magnetic (e.g. Eindhoven/Netherlands).

2.5.3.4

Propulsion System

Spurred by the evolution of clean air regula-

tions, the number of choices in vehicle pro-

pulsion systems is increasing. Technology is

evolving to provide new systems that use

cleaner, alternative fuels and new controls

on emissions, resulting in reduced pollution

and lower noise emissions. As new technolo-

gies are being introduced, market conditions

such as demand and production costs are

evolving.

2.5.3.5 Emission Standards for Heavy-

Duty Vehicles: Buses and Trucks

The EU has a leadership role in global envi-

ronmental policy. The emission standards are

defined in a series of European Union di-

rectives introducing increasingly rigorous

standards for road vehicles (Table 8). The

work on reducing emissions is in progress for

heavy duty vehicles (buses and trucks) with

the Euro VI standards (European Commission

2009; 2010a).

Table 8: EU emission standards for heavy duty diesel engines (own illustration based on European

Commission 2010b)


2.5.4 Operational Issues

2.5.4.1 Operational Procedures

Providing public transport service to all major

residential and commercial sectors of a city

can be challenging from a standpoint of sys-

tem efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Serv-

ing the densest portions of the city often

requires high-capacity vehicles, while lower-

density residential areas may be most eco-

nomically served with smaller vehicles. The

relationship between trunk line corridors and

feeder lines from smaller communities also

impacts BRT system routing. Matching route

structures to bus and throughput capacities

will affect system cost-effectiveness, bus

specifications and service frequency.

Trunk-Feeder Services

Larger buses service the principal corridors

and operate mostly in segregated running

ways. At the endpoints of these corridors,

integrated terminal stations allow the effi-

cient transfer to smaller feeder buses (oper-

ating in mixed traffic lanes) that continue

into smaller communities. The principal ben-

efit is an improved possibility to match bus

sizes and spatially differentiated passenger

demand; the disadvantage is that passengers

have to transfer. In addition, this type of

routing may result in longer trip times and

extra costs in case of absence of an inte-

grated ticketing system. Another disad-

vantage is the need to construct transfer

terminals or intermediate transfer stations,

which are likely to be more costly than

standard stations without transfer possibili-

ties.

Direct Services

Buses with different ultimate routes all run in

the same line corridor. At a certain point,

each of these buses leaves the main corridor

and continues into individual routes, with or

without segregated busways. The principal

benefit is that fewer passengers require

transfers between routes, making it possible

for vehicles to function both as feeder and

trunk service in one trip, carrying passengers

from residential areas directly into trunk

corridors. This technique provides a concen-

tration of service on high-demand corridors,

while permitting different bus types to enter

smaller communities without a need to trans-

fer. Thus terminal stations with transfer facil-

ities are not required. The disadvantage is

that it may produce an oversupply of bus

seating on the feeder portion of the route,

especially if large buses are utilized. If the

population density changes and the demand

between main and feeder lines is less varia-

ble, then the convoy technique (a group of

buses travelling together with similar opera-

tion) can be the better option.

Express and Limited Stop Service

A BRT service can also include an overlaid

express or semi-express operation as a sup-

plement to an all-stops service. This type of

operation can provide quicker service on

trips running longer distance but is usually

only justified when passenger demand is

high enough to support both types of ser-

vices operating at rapid transit frequencies.

Typically this service is provided during peak

hours only and can be applied to either a BRT

busway or bus lane. A passing lane at sta-


tions is required, to allow express vehicles to

bypass vehicles in all-stop operation at a

station not served by express service.

2.5.4.2 Fare Collection and Verification

One component influencing travel time and

system efficiency is fare collection and veri-

fication (ITDP 2007). Principally there are

two concepts of fare collection systems: off-

board and on-board.

In general the time required for on-board fare

collection slows bus operations significantly.

In BRT system design, fare collection policy

should therefore focus on bus dwell time and

passenger convenience. Moving all fare col-

lection off the bus offers the greatest poten-

tial to reduce dwell times. Consequently, fare

payment time is reduced to zero and all

doors of a bus docking can be used for load-

ing and unloading simultaneously.

Off-Board Systems: Controlled Access

One of the advantages of off-board fare col-

lection and verification systems is that when

entering an enclosed bus station, passengers

pay travel fares and stay within the system

as long as they travel on one of the desig-

nated vehicles. Once inside the station, a

quick boarding and alighting of BRT buses is

possible, as well as free transfer to other

buses that stop at the same station. Through

controlled access, transparency of the fare

collection process and generation of reve-

nues through passenger count at turnstiles is

enhanced.

Although off-board fare collection is not nec-

essarily the only way to reduce boarding and

alighting times, there are institutional rea-

sons why this approach in general is consid-

ered successful in developing countries, as it

can overcome the problem of ineffective

ticket control and enforcement. However, a

disadvantage of this system is the need to

construct and operate off-board facilities like

ticket vending machines, cashier counters,

fare verification devices and turnstiles, which

all require both investment and physical

space.

Off-Board Systems: Proof-of-Payment or Hon-

our System

Passengers board with either a pass or a

validated ticket, and can be asked by inspec-

tors to show proof of payment at any time.

Inspectors randomly board buses and give

fines to passengers who cannot show the

required pass or ticket. The major advantage

of this approach is that the construction and

operation of off-board facilities is not re-

quired. A major disadvantage though is the

higher risk of fare evasion and the need for

additional staff to perform the inspections.

On-Board Systems

With the introduction of on-board fare verifi-

cation and collection systems, passengers

still need to pay inside the bus or have their

tickets verified or validated by a bus driver.

This procedure increases the boarding time

compared to off-board systems. The principal

advantage of this system is that enclosed

stations are not needed and thus infrastruc-

ture costs and physical space consumption

are reduced.

However, for transfers, passengers might be

required to purchase new tickets after each

transfer. To solve the problem of additional

transfer costs, a free transfer system should


be introduced, for instance by introducing

smart-card ticketing systems or enclosed

stations.

An analysis of the fare collection system and

its integration into station design is given in

chapters 3 and 4.

2.5.5 Intelligent Transport Systems

ITS (FTA 2009a) applications are designed to

monitor bus performance, systematically

allow traffic signal priorities, provide real-

time passenger information, accelerate fare

collection, improve surveillance and security,

facilitate precise docking at BRT stations and

other related functions.

Signal Priority

In order to ensure rapid operation in urban

corridors, the signal priority function of an

ITS helps give ROW preference to BRT buses

at intersections or sections of roadways.

Signal priority improves schedule adherence,

reduces travel times and delays for passen-

gers and consequently may attract new rid-

ers. Further, the transit capacity is increased

and the quality of transit service improved. A

variety of signal priority treatments exist for

different applications with different effects

(Table 9).

Researchers examined the impacts of traffic

signal priority (TSP) on travel time, reliability

(schedule adherence), operating costs and

general traffic in several cities in the USA

and other countries, showing that benefits

vary, depending on the type and degree of

application (Table 10).

Table 9: Common signal priority treatments for public transport (own illustration based on TCRP

2003c)


Operations Management Systems

Public transport operations software applica-

tions of different complexity assist agencies

with functions like computer-aided dispatch-

ing, automatic vehicle location (AVL), auto-

mated scheduling and vehicle/crew assign-

ment, automated passenger counters and

vehicle component monitoring systems.

These systems offer the advantage of quick-

er response to service disruptions and emer-

gencies (FTA 2009a).

Passenger Information

Passenger information systems provide pas-

sengers with relevant information regarding

the status of the BRT and services. These

systems improve the passenger satisfaction

and reduce the subjective waiting time. Con-

sequently passenger information systems

increase the ridership potential.

Passenger information can be provided ei-

ther in static or real-time form. Another cat-

egorisation of information provision can be

made based on the location of the passenger

within the travel chain: pre-trip, en-route,

station/terminal, and in-vehicle. These sys-

tems disseminate information via a variety of

media including internet, wireless devices,

kiosks, dynamic message signs (DMS), on-

board electronic signs, public address sys-

tem, or interactive voice response (IVR) sys-

tem. A detailed discussion of passenger in-

formation at stations follows in chapters 3

and 4.

Electronic Fare Collection

Electronic fare collection technologies are

used to enable fast, cashless interfaces for

passengers to reduce dwell times and in-

crease the passenger convenience. Common

carriers are magnetic stripe cards and

smartcards.

Other Technologies

There are numerous other systems to sup-

port management, passengers and other

functions, for example, the use of archived

data and automatic passenger counts to

support management and planning efforts for

operating and optimising a BRT fleet. Silent

alarms and monitoring systems can improve

security functions and help to increase pas-

senger satisfaction.

2.5.5.1 Identity and Image

The negative image of existing general bus-

based systems is a considerable barrier to

overcome in promoting the BRT concept. The

Table 10: Reported initial estimates of benefits to buses from TSP (own illustration based on

Chang, Collura et al. 2003; TCRP 2003a; TCRP 2003c)


image of BRT and its attributes therefore

should be clearly expressed through the

marketing of its specific features and bene-

fits (FTA 2009b). Marketing should include

the consistent use of logos, colour and

branding throughout every component such

as vehicles, stations and maps. Marketing

should also emphasise the unique service

and properties of BRT such as speed, clean

vehicles, reliability, segregation from traffic

and community identity.

The BRT image is the consumer’s overall

perception of the style, aesthetics and com-

patibility of the system, determining its sta-

tus among other public transport options. To

increase BRT’s appeal to passengers, it is

important to establish an image and identity

clearly differentiated from the conventional

local bus services.

Attractive running ways and modern, com-

fortable vehicles and stations convey the

idea that BRT service provides the style,

amenities and capacity of rail. Image can

also be enhanced with distinct and highly

visible design features. Design that comple-

ments the brand identity of a BRT system

can strengthen the service’s image and rein-

force the core marketing message aimed at

passengers. Most BRT systems have stations

with design cues to distinguish BRT routes

from regular local bus service. Unique, eye-

catching architecture and design elements

can also be used to indicate where to gain

access to the system. Elements of BRT sta-

tions that may contribute to a positive image

are discussed in more detail in chapters 3

and 4.

If you are interested in the full version of the BRT handbook please contact:

[email protected]

As

of 0

6/20

12

Desi

gn a

nd A

sses

smen

t of B

RT S

tatio

ns

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations Eliana Chila | Richard Mejía | Matthias Hoffmann

www.mercedes-benz.com/brt

EvoBus GmbH, Neue Straße 95, 73230 Kirchheim unter Teck

BRT Handbuch Umschlag neues CI.indd 2-3 17.05.13 10:56

Date post:	31-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngonhu
View:	215 times
Download:	3 times

Design and Assessment of BRT Stations - Mercedes S and Assessment of BRT Stations – Foreword III...

Documents