Implementation of bus rapid transit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This page is about the implementation of bus rapid transit in different countries.
[edit] Africa
[edit] Nigeria
- Lagos State Government is building a BRT system for the Lagos Mega City Area. The first phase of the project has been completed.
[1] [2] It is expected operate on eight routes on special BRT Lanes running through the city but will expand its operation.
First phase of the Lagos BRT to run from Mile 12 through Ikorodu Road and Funsho Williams Avenue up to CMS is now in operation (officially commissioned on March 17, 2008).
It is projected that the system will carry up to 10,000 passengers per direction per hour during peak travel hours.
The LAMATA BRT corridor is about 22 kilometres in length.
Two operators, NURTW Cooperative and LAGBUS, a Lagos State Government owned Asset Management Company are contributing about 180 high capacity buses for the implementation of the first phase Mile 12 to CMS BRT Lite system.
It is the cheapest to develop in the world costing only $1.6 million/km for the 22-km route. Cost of first corridor (Mile 12 to CMS): N4.5 billion (~US$35 million). This includes elevated segregation barriers, road repairs on bus and service lanes, desilting of blocked drainage channels and provision of bus stops.
[edit] Americas
[edit] Brazil
- Curitiba's pioneering BRT system (which influenced the construction of the Metro Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles and the Bogota's TransMilenio), Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT), 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, and discussion now abounds on converting some of it to subway in the mid-term. In the meantime, capacity will be upgraded in the main corridors by dislocating the tube station to allow the buses to overtake, as Transmilenio does. Maximum peak-load capacity attained under the present configuration is 22,500 passenger per hour in the South Axis.
- Goiania : BRT system with segregated bus lanes,
- São Paulo, mindful of how traffic has choked commerce in the city, has begun expansion of its subway system to complement bus services.
[edit] Colombia
- Bogotá has opened in 2000 a successful segregated four-lane BRT system, the TransMilenio. Maximum peak-load capacity reported is 40000 passenger per hour.
- Pereira, Megabús opened August 26, 2006 and is followed by 5 other similar systems which will be inaugurated soon (Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cartagena).
[edit] Venezuela
- Barquisimeto : Transbarca under construction,
- Merida : Trolmerida opened to public June 18, 2007 as expansion continues,
[edit] Panama
- Panama City will implement a BRT transport.[citation needed]
[edit] Ecuador
- Quito has three BRT lines, Metrobus, Ecovia, and Trole, which uses electric Trolley buses.
- Guayaquil has a BRT line, Metrovia, under construction.
[edit] Mexico
- Leon : is the first BRT system in Mexico even if some dedicated bus lanes exist in some of the biggest cities.
- Mexico City: Metrobús was officially opened to the public on 19 June 2005. The first line covers a distance of some 20 kilometres, running in a dedicated bus-lane built against the central reservation of Avenida de los Insurgentes. Avenida Insurgentes is the city's main north-to-south arterial route, constitutes a section of the Pan-American Highway, and is reputed to be the longest urban avenue in the world.
[edit] Guatemala
- Guatemala City: Transmetro first line finished (Villa Nueva to Guatemala City), second line (Mixco to Guatemala City) will be constructed in 2008.
[edit] Chile
- Santiago:The Transantiago is a system based in Bogota's Transmilenio and it has replaced the traditional bus system in the city since February 2007
[edit] Peru
- Lima:The Metropolitano is a system of line in construction, one station underground, will be one of the most modern transport systems
[edit] 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 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.
The Emerald Express, Eugene, Oregon's BRT system, opened in January 2007.
A BRT system is to opened in 2009 in Cleveland, Ohio along Euclid Avenue, known as the Euclid Corridor.
San Francisco's Muni is currently planning a BRT line for its 38-Geary line, which is currently the busiest line in the West Coast. However, this may only be a precursor to a light rail line.
Western Alameda and Contra Costa County's AC Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area has implemented 2 BRT lines with more in planning stages. They are the 72R along State Route 123 (San Pablo Avenue) between Contra Costa College and Downtown Oakland; and the 1R between UC Berkeley and Bayfair Mall and BART station.
[edit] Canada
[edit] BRT operating systems
- Calgary with Calgary Transit has operated one BRT route since 2004 but ridership has exceeded expectations, and as of 2007 the city was considering converting the west leg of the route to LRT as soon as possible. Calgary Transit operates the most successful LRT system in North America at over 230,000 riders per day, and states "LRT is considerably cheaper to operate when there is high passenger demand." It has estimated its LRT operating costs at 25 cents per ride, versus 89 cents for BRT. Calgary also has a severe labor shortage that makes it very difficult to hire bus drivers - in fact, in late 2006 the privately operated Calgary Airport service ceased operation because it could not find bus drivers, and hundreds of taxis were out of service due to lack of drivers.
- Ottawa, Ontario operates one of the largest BRT systems in North America, with over 200,000 daily riders on the Ottawa Transitway, achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction. This has been cited as an example of the efficiency of BRT systems. However, by early 2007 the Ottawa Transitway is operating over capacity with nearly 200 diesel buses per hour per direction traveling on its downtown section. This has caused numerous complaints from residents and businesses about traffic disruption, noise, and air pollution from diesel engines. No solution is in sight because even though the system was designed for conversion to light rail, the downtown portion is not, due to the fact that it is one bus-only lane per direction on public roads, and even if it were converted many other bus routes use the transitway, and building an underground busway through downtown Ottawa would be prohibitively expensive.
The cost savings of BRT have proven to be somewhat illusionary in Ottawa. The Transitway was estimated to cost $97 million when it was first proposed in 1976. However it experienced severe cost overruns and eventually escalated to $440 million. This is almost as much as it cost to build the Calgary C-Train, which is about the same size. Ottawa’s costs were about $14 million/km for BRT, while Calgary spent about $15 million/km for LRT. The Transitway was not significantly cheaper because the majority of it was cut in rock 9 metres below grade with the stations below grade, whereas most of the C-Train system was built at grade with stations at grade. Planners also assumed that BRT stations would be as cheap as LRT stations, but discovered that they needed additional passing lanes for the large number of buses, and overhead walkways for passenger safety. However, it should be noted that on large portions of the busway the service provided is almost equivalent to a light rail or rapid transit system, while providing significantly more flexibility. Ottawa is the only major Canadian city trying to handle such a large number of riders on a BRT system.
- Vancouver with TransLink operates three BRT lines, the 97 B-Line, 98 B-Line, and 99 B-Line. All three have been successful, but Vancouver estimates its Skytrain costs about 75 cents per ride compared to $1.04 to $2.22 on its BRT routes. As a result, Vancouver plans to convert all three to light rail or light rapid transit as funding permits. 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.
- York Region, Ontario, a region apart of the Greater Toronto Area has operated a BRT route since 2005. In response to escalating congestion on the region's roads, York Region's transit plan included a provision for a bus rapid transit (BRT) system along the Yonge Street and Highway 7 arterial corridors. This service, known as Viva.
Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the largest cities, have also metros and commuter rail systems in addition to BRT. Calgary, Edmonton, other large Canadian cities, have LRT systems in addition to BRT systems, Toronto also operates the largest remaining streetcar system in North America. As of 2007 the Calgary C-Train and Vancouver SkyTrain are carrying more riders than the Ottawa BRT system, with more capacity for growth, and users in these cities have shown a definite preference for LRT or Metro due to its more comfortable ride, speed and frequency of service. They operate BRT routes to build ridership to high enough levels to justify converting them to LRT. However, Ottawa's system was designed so that it could be converted to light rail when the city's population hit 1 million, although this has not yet happened.
[edit] Operating and maintenance costs
It is difficult to find operating and maintenance costs for Ottawa, but Calgary and Vancouver indicate that at high passenger volumes, their per-passenger LRT operating costs are much lower than their BRT costs. BRT requires one driver per bus (40 to 60 passengers), while the Calgary C-Train operates with one driver per 600-passenger train, and the Vancouver Skytrain is fully automated with no drivers at all. As a result of the oil price increases since 2003 and the low cost of electricity in Western Canada, diesel fuel costs about three times as much as electric power. Both Calgary and Vancouver get their power from non-polluting sources - the Calgary C-Train gets all its electricity from wind generators, while Vancouver is supplied by hydro-electric power.
[edit] Benefit analysis
A study [3] of the 98 B-Line BRT in Vancouver, British Columbia, 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.
Note that Canadian statistics are not necessarily comparable to other countries. Canadian cities have transit riderships two or three times that of comparable American cities, while their subsidies from national governments are much lower than American or European cities. As a result, they have to recover most of their operating costs out of the fare box.
[edit] Asia
[edit] India
The Government of the National Capital initiated the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme (at Indian Institute of Technology) and RITES Ltd., Delhi was entrusted the task for planning and designing this system. in its Report in 2001-2002, it recommended taking up 14 road corridors for implementation of Bus Priority Schemes. These were selected based on: • The available right-of way of major road/corridor and • The present level of bus services operated on such corridors,
Out of the initial 14 corridors, inter-se priority was worked out and five corridors were identified to be considered in the first phase. The first five priority corridors were almost a 100 km in length. This prioritisation has been carried out with a view to have a uniform distribution of these facilities through out the Delhi Urban Area and also avoid duplication of such facilities on roads which are parallel to MRTS/IRBT corridors. It would also ensure that the corridors, to the extent possible, have bus terminals at both ends.
[edit] Europe
[edit] Finland
- Helsinki : "Jokeri-linja" called system is made to make Helsinki public transport quality better. It is planned to be changed to light rail.
[edit] France
In service:
-
- Creteil : "TVM" operated by RATP is a tangential BRT linking southern Paris suburbs. It was the second BRT implemented in France in the 80s even though, in Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, for political reasons, there's still no right of way through this conservative city,
- Evry, one of the new towns built in the southern part of suburban Paris was probably the first Busway implemented in France in the late 70's . Still operating, it was completely segregated from other traffic in the central area by being elevated. Moreover this system is still operated with conventional buses and articulated buses and not branded. Also, ticketing is sold into the bus or in specific places but not at the stations.
- Nancy (260 000 Inh. served by CGFTE a Veolia Transport subsidiary) has got a kind of BRT system called TVR extending along 11 km which 7 km are dedicated. As it's run by TVR, a kind of articulated buses, there's a controversy to design it as a LRT or BRT sustem. 2 more routes are planned probably not using the TVR as previously planned and with parts not segregated from traffic.
- Nantes (about 600 000 Inh. in the built up area), was the second city to implemnt a BRT called BusWay at the end of December 2006 extending on 5 km with several P+R and a bus every 5 mn at peak. It's operated by specific branded articulated buses and ticketing machines are located at each station. The patronage was averaging 19 000 per day by December 2006.
- Rouen (about 400 000 Inh. in the built up area) with "TEOR" was the first real BRT system implemented in France in the late 90's and is still in extension in 2007 with new dedicated lanes in central city and partial dedicated lanes in the suburbs. It's made of 3 routes (70% bus only) and more than 15 km expecting transporting more than 53 000 persons a day in 2007.
Under construction or planned:
- Amiens : This city has been planning BRT routes for quite 10 years and has just built 2 km dedicated lanes eventually usable by a future partially BRT route 3. Two others routes are still at the planning stage with a great political concern for avoiding serving the CBD because of anti public transit shopping tenders lobbying,
- Douai (156 000 Inh. served by transit system) is also building a BRT system based on the "Phileas" already used in Eindhoven. 3 routes are planned even though it's not totally clear if "Phileas" is going to equip all the routes,
- Grenoble : A project is underway to transform route 1, a quite totally segregated traditional bus route into a Busway, the Transdev BRT brand as in Nantes route 4.
- Nice (500 000 Inh. served by "Ligne d'azur", a Veolia Transport subsidiary') partially in operation on an East/West axis but where most of the route is unlinked, which is very confusing for passengers. It will eventually be transformed on LRT 2 (Public inquiry underway) within several years with, maybe a new way allowing linking both directions in the same road.
[edit] Belgium
- Liege in Belgium also has a busway, which was featured on a video made by the UK Transport Research Lab. [4].
[edit] Netherlands
- Almere : City bus ststem based on dedicated lanes allowing buses to get to each central part of each quarter, cars having to bypass them,
- Eindhoven implemented a BRT system using the "Phileas" system and exclusive bus lanes,
- Schiphol : The tangential Zuidtangent-route linking the city of Haarlem and the southern part of Amsterdam outer suburbs to the airport has been successfully implemented with a quite continuous right of way.
[edit] Sweden
- Stockholm has four bus lines, named 1-4, with high regularity 5-10 minutes, and higher priority than other buses. The buses are blue painted while normal buses are red. The routes try to avoid congestion with cars.
- Gothenburg has four bus lines, named 16-19, with high regularity, about 3 - 10 minutes. The buses are marked on the tram map, not the bus map, and has some rules in common with trams, like all door available for entrance. The routes usually have their own busway, and generally try to avoid congestion with cars. One of the aims with the special bus network in both cities is to help people unused to the network by pointing out a few bus lines with high regularity.
[edit] United Kingdom
[edit] Oceania
[edit] Australia
Most of 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.
- Brisbane, Queensland in particular has placed an emphasis on heavy investment in public transport infrastructure with a mix of electric suburban train extensions to the outer suburbs and the Gold Coast and 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 five 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] References
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (May 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
|
||||||||
