Bus rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about high-capacity bus transit systems. For lower-capacity transit systems, see share taxi and bus; for rail transit systems see tram, light rail and rapid transit.
"Busways" redirects here. For the bus company operating in New South Wales, Australia, see Busways Bus Company, New South Wales.
The O-Bahn Busway in Adelaide, South Australia is the longest, fastest and most heavily patronised guided busway.
Enlarge
The O-Bahn Busway in Adelaide, South Australia is the longest, fastest and most heavily patronised guided busway.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a broad term given to a variety of transportation systems that, through infrastructural and scheduling improvements, attempt to use buses to provide a service that is of a higher quality than an ordinary bus line. Each BRT system uses different improvements, although many improvements are shared by many BRT systems. The goal of such systems is to at least approach the service quality of rail transit while still enjoying the cost savings of bus transit. The expression "BRT" is mainly used in North America; elsewhere, one may speak of Quality Bus or simply bus service while raising the quality.

Contents

[edit] Etymology

"Bus rapid transit" takes part of its name from "Rapid Transit" which describes a high-capacity rail transport system with its own right-of-way, its alignment often being elevated or running in tunnels, and typically running long trains at short headways of a few minutes. Because of the name similarity one tends to associate the merits of "Rapid Transit" also with the newer "BRT" expression.

The BRT term encompasses a broad variety of modes, including those known or formerly known as express buses, limited busways and rapid busways.

[edit] What makes a BRT

These bus systems can come in a variety of forms, from dedicated busways that have their own rights-of-way (e.g., Ottawa's Transitway or the Los Angeles LACMTA Orange Line) to bus services that utilize HOV lanes and dedicated freeway lanes (e.g., Honolulu's CityExpress) to limited stop buses on pre-existing routes.

An ideal bus rapid transit service would be expected to include some or all of the following features:

  • High-frequency, all-day service: Like other forms of rapid transit, BRT serves a diverse all-day market. Commuter express buses that run only during rush hours are not Bus Rapid Transit.
  • Bus-dedicated, grade-separated seggregated right-of-way: (separated from all other traffic and dedicated to bus use). Such right of way may be elevated; on rare occasions, the right of way may be modified rail right of way.
  • Bus streets and busways: A bus street or transit mall can be created in an urban center by dedicating all lanes of a city street to the exclusive use of buses.
  • Bus lanes: A lane on an urban arterial or city street is reserved for the exclusive or near-exclusive use of buses.
  • Bus signal preference and preemption: Preferential treatment of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon detection of an approaching bus. Intersection priority can be particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus lanes or streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene between buses and traffic signals.
  • Traffic management improvements: Low-cost infrastructure elements that can increase the speed and reliability of bus service include bus turnouts, bus boarding islands, and curb realignments.
Bus stop in Curitiba
Enlarge
Bus stop in Curitiba
  • Off-bus fare collection: Conventional on board collection of fares slows the boarding process, particularly when a variety of fares is collected for different destinations and/or classes of passengers. An alternative would be the collection of fares upon entering an enclosed bus station or shelter area prior to bus arrivals (similar to how fares are collected at a kiosk before entering a subway system). This system would allow passengers to board through all doors of a stopped bus.
  • Level boarding: Many BRT systems also use low floor buses (or high level platforms with high floor buses) to speed up passenger boardings and enhance accessibility.
Double articulated bus in Hamburg, Germany
Enlarge
Double articulated bus in Hamburg, Germany
  • Tram-like characteristics:

Recent technological developments such as bi-articulated buses and guided buses have benefited the set up of BRT systems. The main developments are:

  • improved riding quality (guided buses, electronic drivetrain control smoothing the operation)
  • increased capacity (bi-articulated or double decker)
  • reduced operating costs (hybrid electric power train)

Acceptance of BRT may increase using trolley-buses, because of the lower gaseous and noise emissions. The penalty of having additional costs for catenaries is outweighed by the increasing fuel prices.

[edit] BRT in metro tunnels

A special issue arises in the use of bus vehicles in metro structures. Since the areas where the demand for an exclusive bus right-of-way is apt to be in dense downtown areas where an above-ground structure may be unacceptable on historic, logistic, or environmental grounds, use of BRT in fully underground tunnels may not be avoidable.

Since buses are almost universally operated by internal combustion engines, bus metros raise ventilation issues similar to those of tunnels. In the case of tunnels, powerful fans typically exchange air through ventilation structures on the surface, but are usually placed in a location as remote as possible from occupied areas to minimize the effects of noise and concentrated pollution.

A straightforward way to deal with this is to use electrical propulsion in tunnels and, in fact, Seattle in its Metro Bus Tunnel and Boston in Phase II of its Silver Line are using this method in their respective BRTs. In the case of Seattle, dual-mode (electric/diesel electric) buses manufactured by Breda were used until 2004, with the center axle driven by electric motors obtaining power from trolley wire in the subway, and with the rear axle driven by a conventional diesel powertrain on freeways and streets. Boston is using a similar approach, after initially using electric trolleybuses to provide service pending delivery of the dual mode vehicles in 2005. In 2004, Seattle replaced its "Transit Tunnel" fleet with diesel-electric hybrid buses, which operate similarly to hybrid cars outside the tunnel and in a low-noise, low-emissions "hush mode" (in which the diesel engine operates but does not exceed idle speed) when underground.

The necessity for providing electric power in these environments brings the capital and maintenance costs of such routes closer to light rail and raises the question of building light rail instead. In Seattle, the downtown transit tunnel was closed in September 2005 for conversion to a shared hybrid-bus and light-rail facility in preparation for Seattle's Central Link Light Rail line to be operating in 2009.

[edit] Comparison with other forms of mass transit

BRT attempts to combine the advantages of a metro system (exclusive right-of-way to improve punctuality and frequency) with the advantages of a bus system (low construction and maintenance costs, does not require exclusive right-of-way for entire length).

Compared to standard bus service BRT systems with dedicated right-of-way and thus an increased average transport speed can provide more passenger-miles with the same number of rolling stock and personnel. They also offer the prospect of a more fluent ride than a normal bus immersed in stop-and-go traffic.

On a single route basis, the capacity of BRT and normal buses is smaller compared to tram (light rail, tram-train) and rapid transit (metro, mass transit). Typical buses are 12 metres (40 feet) long, articulated buses 18 metres (60 feet). The maximum length for a street-running tram consist (in Germany) is 75 metres (about 250 feet). Metro trains can be 240 m (about 800 feet) long. With similar dwell times in stations the capacity scales with the length.

However, many BRT systems such as OC Transpo Transitway, Ottawa and South-East Busway, Brisbane are based on multiple bus routes sharing a common dedicated busway to bypass congestion, especially to/from a central business district. In this form, the BRT system passenger capacity is limited by vehicle capacity times vehicle headway of the busway. As buses can operate at headways as low as 10 seconds between vehicles (compared to at least one minute headways for rail vehicles), actual busway capacity can reach passenger rail capacities. At the high end, the Lincoln Tunnel XBL bus lane carries 62,000 commuters in the 4 hour morning peak, more than any Light Rail Line.

The typical diesel engine on the bus causes noticeable levels or air pollution, noise and vibrations. Through developing buses as hybrid vehicles and the use of new forms of trolleybus BRT designers hope to increase ride quality and decrease pollution. As the energy use for acceleration is proportional to the vehicle mass, electric traction allows lighter vehicles, faster acceleration and energy that can be fed back into batteries or the grid through regenerative brakes.

In contrast to BRT, both light rail and rapid transit require the placement of rails for the whole line. The tram usually avoids the high additional costs for the engineering structures like tunnels that need to be built for metros. Rail tends to provide a smoother ride and is known to attract significantly higher passenger numbers than road-based systems. An advantage of BRT, however, is that its maintenance facilities can be located anywhere, whereas for rail there must be a facility for each separate line.

Many BRT designers have used the need to construct power conduit systems as an argument against light rail, but a new proposal, known as ultra light rail, would have trams carry their own power, much like a bus, at a significant energy savings due to lack of rolling resistance.

[edit] Controversies

Opponents of bus rapid transit initiatives argue that BRT is not an effective replacement for light rail or subway services. They argue that in order for BRT to have greatest effect, it must have its own right-of-way requiring space and often construction costs. In many cases, BRT does not, and shares the road with cars and other local buses. Buses run on an ordinary road surface, hence it is more difficult for BRT to claim exclusive street use. As a result, BRT operating in mixed traffic is subject to the same congestion, delays, and jarring and swaying rides as do ordinary city buses. Furthermore, signal priority systems, which are often the sole factor differentiating BRT from regular limited-stop bus service (most notably in Los Angeles' extensive "Rapid" system), might cause severe disruptions to traffic flow on major cross streets. Opponents argued that this merely redistributes, rather than reduces, the traffic congestion problems that BRT systems are designed to alleviate. On the other hand, many light rail systems also utilize signal priority system and railroad-style crossing gates to speed up service as well, and in the same time both BRT and light rail get more persons across a road junction than car traffic.

It should be noted that much of the controversy arises from the wide range of definitions of BRT. Many agencies make a clear distinction between a pure BRT, which is in exclusive lanes, and a more compromised form in mixed traffic. For example, the Los Angeles Orange Line runs entirely in an exclusive lane and therefore achieves speed and reliability comparable to rail. Because it is functionally equivalent to rail, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority presents this line as part of its rail transit system, distinct from its "Rapid" lines, which run in mixed traffic.

A study [1] of the 98 B-Line BRT in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada conducted by TransLink, Transport Canada and the IBI Group confirmed many benefits of that BRT system including increased ridership, reduced vehicle emissions, improved reliability, improved customer satisfaction. Analysis of the transit supportive signal timing and the transit signal priority system that supports the service confirmed a slight improvement in travel times and reliability for all vehicles in the corridor with negligible impact to traffic crossing the corridor. Having exceeded the capacity that can be handled efficiently on buses, the 98 B-Line will be replaced by a rail transit project, the Canada Line, in 2009.

[edit] Implementation in the United States

[edit] Development

Before it even had the name, bus rapid transit first got major backing in the United States with the rise of federal funding for urban mass transportation during the 1960s. The first exclusive busway in the United States was the El Monte Busway, an exclusive bus lane between El Monte and Los Angeles, California. It opened in 1973. Today, American BRT initiatives in receive a great deal of support from the Federal Transit Administration. Planned BRT lines are now eligible to be included in the FTA's New Starts program, which was formerly reserved only for rail projects.

That notwithstanding, the FTA, in announcing its New Starts for 2005, has rated the New Britain-Hartford Busway (Connecticut) "Recommended" but Phase III of the MBTA's Silver Line BRT project (referenced below) "Not Recommended" based on "MBTA's unreasonable operating cost assumptions." This implies that BRT will be subject to the same scrutiny as rail projects, though (also as with rail projects) the FTA will work with the localities to see if projects can be brought into compliance with requirements.

[edit] Perception

BRT suffers from the serious image problem of buses. Quite often buses of any kind are far less attractive to "choice" riders; i.e., riders who could take transit or drive automobiles but prefer transit for certain trips because of perceived amenities of speed, convenience and/or comfort often found in light rail and subway systems. Bus systems suffer not only from poorer speed and ride quality, but from the perception of buses as a social accommodation — a means of transportation used by those who have no other choice, called "transit dependent."

In the view of some, advocacy for buses among the lower classes contributes to the socioeconomic unattractiveness of BRT. For example, in California, a 1996 lawsuit by the Los Angeles-based Bus Riders Union (site), and litigation initated in 2005 by related groups in the Bay Area, have sought to force transit agencies to shift funds from rail and BRT construction to mixed-traffic bus projects.

While many BRT systems utilize state-of-the-art buses that differ substantially from traditional buses, light rail systems are perceived of still having a higher travel quality. Some put it bluntly as "a bus is still a bus". Routes that have been converted from BRT to light rail have often seen very large ridership gains.

[edit] Implementation in South America

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.

Curitiba's pioneering BRT system (which influenced the construction of the Metro Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles) has seen ridership fall since the mid-1990s as its city's middle class has burgeoned, with cars more readily available resulting in increases in traffic congestion. São Paulo, mindful of how traffic has choked commerce in the city, has begun expansion of its subway system to complement bus services. Bogota, Colombia has recently opened a successful segregated BRT system, the Transmilenio. In Venezuela, under construction are the Trolmerida Merida and Transbarca Barquisimeto. Quito has three BRT lines, the Metrobus, the Ecovia, and the Trole, which uses electric trolley buses.

[edit] Implementation in Europe

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This section has been tagged since November 2006.

Although Brazil was the first country to have a busway in a large city, the town of Runcorn, planned in the 1950s and built in the 1960s, can claim the invention of this ultra-modern transportation system. The Runcorn system has an elevated section that penetrates into a pedestrianised shopping area. The width of the elevated section is just 6.0 metres, around 2 m less than a guided busway or LRT. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Runcorn.pdf

The town of Liege in Belgium also has a busway, which was featured on a video made by the UK Transport Research Lab. [2]

There is a large number of public transport systems in European towns that fulfill several of the BRT criteria given above, but they are rarely designated as BRT. Bus lanes and exclusive use of key city-centre streets is commonplace, and bus priority on approach to traffic lights is quite frequent. All-door boarding is standard during daytime, ticket machines can often be found at bus stops and sometimes in the buses, ticket booklets can be pre-purchased with the passenger validating the individual ticket at time of boarding, and the use of travel passes is actively encouraged. Sometimes there are spot-checks only, particularly in the rush-hour.

Dedicated engineering structures for bus-only use are less frequent. If capacity demand is high enough to warrant these, there usually is also a case for the construction of a tram or light rail line, and so bus-only systems are more frequently found in small to medium-sized towns.

Examples of bus-only infrastructure in the UK can be found in Crawley (Crawley Fastway), Leeds, Bradford, Ipswich and Edinburgh, with a larger-scale system planned in Cambridgeshire to replace the disused Cambridge to St Ives, Cambridgeshire railway. In each of these cases the system is based around the concept of the guided bus. A scheme in Glasgow is due to be built in 2007, using dedicated buses which use, in part, a simply a separated bus-only road.

In larger towns and cities it is common for a right of way exclusive to public transport to be used by both tram and bus.

[edit] Implementation in Australia

Most of the major cities in Australia have some sort of BRT in place, albeit either short or to service a particular road corridor where it is not practical to build a freeway, tunnel or motorway. The city of Brisbane, Queensland in particular has placed a emphasis on heavy investment in public transport infrastructure of late, specifically the creation of a dedicated system of grade-separated busways, stretching across heavily used inner-city and suburban corridors. By 2012 it is expected that all 5 planned busways will be completed, linked through an underground hub in the CBD.

Generally, investment in BRTs is covered by state government transport agencies, rather than by corporations, since most major public transport services in the country are owned and operated by the same departments. Due to remarkably efficient state transport departments working with established private engineering and business firms, larger projects are generally planned and completed quickly with the full co-operation and support of the public. Rising fuel costs and congested roads have provided ample numbers of patrons who welcome ways to avoid peak hour traffic.

[edit] List of Bus Rapid Transit Systems

[edit] BRT systems in North America

The Table of Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America holds more comprehensive information.

[edit] Canada

[edit] Mexico

[edit] United States

[edit] BRT systems in South America

[edit] BRT systems in Asia

[edit] China

[edit] BRT systems in Australasia/Oceania

[edit] BRT systems in Europe

[edit] See also

[edit] External links


Sustainability and Development of Energy   Edit
Conversion | Development and Use | Sustainable Energy | Conservation | Transportation
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/s/Bus_rapid_transit.html"