Transportation Research Record 1841 ■ 1

Paper No. 03-4079

Bus Rapid Transit

Synthesis of Case Studies

Herbert S. Levinson, Samuel Zimmerman,

Jennifer Clinger, and James Gast

Bus rapid transit systems have grown in popularity in recent years. WHAT IS BUS RAPID TRANSIT?
Spurred by federal initiatives, the spiraling cost of rail transit, and mar-
ket realities, a growing number of cities have installed or are planning FTA defines bus rapid transit as a rapid mode of transportation that
bus rapid transit (BRT). There is a synthesis of current experience, “combines the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”
drawing on ongoing research conducted in a project for TCRP. The (E. Thomas, presentation at the ITE Annual Meeting, Chicago, Aug.
nature of BRT is described; where it operates; key features, such as 2001). A more detailed definition, which was developed as part of
running ways, stations, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, TCRP A-23, is that “BRT is flexible, rubber-tired rapid transit mode
and service patterns; performance in ridership, travel times, and land that combined stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and intel-
development; and the emerging implications for new systems. It is ligent transportation system (ITS) elements into an integrated sys-
important to match transit markets to rights-of-way; achieve benefits in tem with a strong positive image and identity. BRT applications
speed, reliability, and identity; minimize adverse impacts to street traf- are designed to be appropriate to the market they serve and their
fic, property access, and pedestrians; and obtain community support physical surroundings and can be incrementally implemented in a
throughout an open planning process. variety of environments.” In brief, BRT is an integrated system of
facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improve the speed,
reliability, and identity of bus transit.
Transportation and community planning officials throughout the In many respects, BRT is rubber-tired light rail transit but with
world are examining improved public transportation in address- greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital and oper-
ing urban mobility issues. Renewed interest in public transpor- ating costs. Often a relatively small investment in special guideways
tation reflects the concerns arising from environmental protection (or running ways) can provide regional rapid transit. The research
to the desire for alternatives to clogged highways and urban sprawl. conducted in TCRP A-23 indicates that
These concerns have prompted many transit agencies to re-
examine existing technologies and to embrace creative ways of • Where BRT vehicles (buses) operate totally on exclusive or pro-
improving service quality in a cost-effective manner. As a result, tected rights-of-way, the level of service provided can be similar to
bus rapid transit (BRT) systems have been built throughout the that of full metro rail rapid transit.
world. BRT systems have operational flexibility, and they can be • Where buses operate in combinations of exclusive rights-of-
built quickly, incrementally, and economically. These advantages way, median reservations, bus lanes, and street running, the level of
underlie the growing popularity of BRT in the United States. BRT service provided is similar to light rail transit.
development in this country has also been spurred by the FTA • Where buses operate mainly on city streets in mixed traffic, the
BRT initiative. service provided is similar to that of a tram or streetcar system.
TCRP A-23 was a project initiated in response to the need for bet-
BRT systems may provide line-haul transport, and they may serve
ter information on the role of BRT; and the features, designs, and
as feeders to rail transit lines. The principal features include running
implementation of BRT projects. Products from this study include
ways, stations, vehicles, route structure, fare collection, and ITS.
a brochure, “BRT—Why More Communities Are Choosing Bus
Carefully and collectively applied, these elements can improve
Rapid Transit,” a report on “Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit” that
speed, reliability, and identity.
is being published, and “Planning and Implementation Guidelines”
that is forthcoming.
This paper summarizes the key findings of the analysis conducted
Where Bus Rapid Transit Operates
for the case studies report (1). It describes the nature, features, and
effectiveness of BRT, as well as the planning, design, and opera- The locations, urban populations, rail transit availability, and devel-
tional implications of current BRT experience. The case studies opment status of the 26 case study cities are shown in Table 1. They
were selected to reflect geographic diversity and a range of BRT include 12 cities in the United States: Boston, Massachusetts;
applications. Charlotte, North Carolina; Cleveland, Ohio; Eugene, Oregon;
Hartford, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; Los
Angeles, California; Miami-Dade, Florida; New York; Pittsburgh,
H. S. Levinson, Transportation Consultant, 40 Hemlock Road, New Haven,
CT 06515. S. Zimmerman and J. Clinger, DMJM+HARRIS, 2751 Prosperity
Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington; two cities in Canada:
Avenue, Suite 300, Fairfax, VA 22031. J. Gast, DMJM+HARRIS, 1550 Wilson Ottawa, Ontario, and Vancouver, British Columbia; three cities in
Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209. Australia: Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney; three in Europe: Leeds,
2 Paper No. 03- 4079 Transportation Research Record 1841

TABLE 1 Case Studies: Locations, Availability of Rail Transit, and Development

Urbanized Area Population Rail Transit in City
City
(Millions)
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Boston2 3.0 X
Charlotte 1.4
Cleveland2 2.0 X
Eugene2 0.2
Hartford2 0.8
Honolulu 0.9
Houston 1.8
Los Angeles 9.61 X
Miami-Dade 2.3 X
New York City 16.0 X
Ottawa 0.73 X
Pittsburgh 1.7 X
4
Seattle 1.8
Vancouver 2.1 X
AUSTRALIA
Adelaide 1.1 X
Brisbane 1.5 X
Sydney2 1.7 X
EUROPE
Leeds, United Kingdom 0.7
Rouen, France 0.4 X
Runcorn, United Kingdom 1.7
SOUTH AMERICA
Belo Horizonte, Brazil 2.2 X
Bogotá, Colombia 5.0
Curitiba, Brazil 2.6
Porto Alegre, Brazil 1.3 X
Quito, Ecuador 1.5
Sao Paulo, Brazil 8.5 X
1 Los Angeles County only.
2 Under development.
3 Excludes Hull, Quebec.
4 Limited commuter rail service in Seattle.

United Kingdom; Rouen, France; and Runcorn, United Kingdom; with those factors in rail transit. Other reasons include that BRT is
and six in South America: Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Bogotá, Colom- a practical alternative to major highway reconstruction, it can be an
bia; Curitiba, Brazil; Porto Alegre, Brazil; Quito, Ecuador; and Sao integral part of the city’s structure, and it can serve as a catalyst for
Paulo, Brazil. Most of these BRT systems are found in cities with redevelopment. A 1976 study in Ottawa, for example, found that a
populations of more than 700,000. Many of the locations also have bus-based system could be built for half the capital costs of rail tran-
rail transit. Twenty-one systems are in revenue service, and five sit, and it would be 20% cheaper to operate (2). In Boston, BRT was
are under construction, under development, or planned. Nine of selected because of its operational and service benefits, rather than
the 14 systems in the United States and Canada are in urban areas its cost advantages alone.
near a downtown employment center that exceeds 85,000.

FEATURES
WHY IMPLEMENT BUS RAPID TRANSIT?
The main features of BRT include dedicated running ways, attrac-
According to input by transit agencies that have implemented BRT tive stations, distinctive easy-to-board vehicles, off-vehicle fare col-
systems, the main reasons reported for implementing BRT were its lection, use of ITS technologies, and frequent all-day service. Table 2
lower development costs and greater operating flexibility, compared provides a brief description of each system in the 26 cities analyzed,
 Levinson et al. Paper No. 03- 4079 3

TABLE 2 BRT System Features

Distinctive, Off-
Urbanized Frequent
Running Easy-to- Vehicle
City Area Facility Description Stations ITS All-Day
Way Board Fare
Population Service
Vehicles Collection
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Boston 3.0 Silver Line – Bus Tunnel, Lanes x x x x x x
Charlotte 1.4 Independence Blvd. Freeway Busway x x
Cleveland 2.0 Euclid Ave – Arterial Median Busway x x x x x
Eugene 0.2 Eugene-Springfield Arterial Median x x x x x
Busway
Hartford 0.8 Hartford-New Britain Busway x x x
Honolulu 0.9 City and County Express (Mixed Traffic) x x x x
Houston 1.8 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane System x c e
Los Angeles 9.6 Harbor Freeway HOV/Busway x x x x x
San Bernardino Freeway HOV/Busway
Wilshire-Whittier & Ventura Metro Bus
(Mixed Traffic)
Miami 2.3 Miami-S. Dade Busway x x x
New York 16.0 I-495 NJ, I-495 NY, Gowanus x x x
City AM Contra-Flow Lanes
Arterial Limited Stop Service
Ottawa 0.7 Transitway System (Busway, Bus Lanes) x x x x
Pittsburgh 1.7 South, East, West Busways x x x
Seattle 1.8 Bus Tunnel x x x
Vancouver 2.1 Broadway & Richmond “B” Lines (Mixed a x x x x
Traffic)
AUSTRALIA
Adelaide 1.1 O-Bahn Guided Busway x x x
Brisbane 1.5 South East Busway x x x x
Sydney 1.7 Liverpool-Parramatta Busway – Bus Lanes x d x d
EUROPE
Leeds (UK) 0.7 Superbus Guided Bus System b d x

Rouen (France) 0.4 Optically Guided Bus – Bus Lanes x x x g x x

Runcorn (UK) 0.1 Figure 8 Busway x x x

SOUTH AMERICA
Belo Horizonte 2.2 Avenida Christiano Median Busway x c x
(Brazil)
Bogotá 5.0 TransMilenio Median Busway x x x x x x
(Colombia)
Curitiba 1.6 Median Busway System x x x x x x
(Brazil)
Porto Alegre 1.3 Assis Brasil & Farrapos Median Busways x d
(Brazil)
Quito 1.5 Trolebus Median Busway x x x x x x
(Ecuador)
Sao Paulo 8.5 9 De Julho & Jaraquara Median Busways x f x
(Brazil)
a
Has a short median busway.
b
Queue bypasses at congested locations.
c
Four terminal stations.
d
Not specified.
e
Uses over-the-road coaches.
f
Median bus stops.
g
Limited.
h
Where all day limited-stop service is provided.
SOURCE: TCRP A-23, Final Case Study Report.

along with its principal BRT features. Table 3 summarizes the BRT Milenio, Curitiba’s median busways, and Quito’s Trolebus—have
features offered, grouped by continent (the 29 entries in the table all six basic features. Several systems under development (e.g.,
reflect the multiple systems in Los Angeles and New York). Most Boston, Cleveland, and Eugene) will have most BRT elements.
systems (more than 80%) have some type of exclusive running
way—either a bus-only road or bus lane; more than 75% provide
frequent all-day services; and about 66% have stations rather than Running Ways
stops. In contrast, only about 40% have distinctive vehicles or
apply ITS, and only 17% (5 systems) have or will have off- Running ways for BRT include mixed traffic lanes, curb bus lanes,
vehicle fare collection. Three existing systems—Bogotá’s Trans- and median busways on city streets; reserved lanes on freeways; and
4 Paper No. 03- 4079 Transportation Research Record 1841

TABLE 3 Number of Facilities with Specific Features

Australia/ South % (of 29
Feature U.S./Canada Total
Europe America Systems)
Running Way 13 5 6 24 83
Stations 12 4 3 19 65
Distinctive Vehicles 7 1 3 11 38
Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 1 0 3 4 14
ITS 7 1 3 11 38
Frequent All-Day Service 11 5 6 22 76
TOTAL SYSTEMS 17 6 6 29 100

bus-only roads and tunnels. Table 4 summarizes the various running Stations
ways, grouped by continent. Several key observations from the case
studies are as follows: BRT station characteristics and features include spacing, length,
bypass capabilities, platform height, fare collection practices, and
• Busways dominate North American and Australian practice, amenities. They vary widely from system to system.
whereas median arterial busways are widely used in South America.
Reserved freeway lanes for buses and carpools are found in the
United States and Canada. Spacing
• Existing bus tunnels in Brisbane and Seattle and a bus tunnel
Average station spacing by type of running way is shown in Table 5.
under construction in downtown Boston bring a major feature of rail
The spacing of stations along freeways and busways ranges from
transit to bus operations.
• Running ways are mainly radial, extending to or through the 2,000 to 21,000 ft, enabling buses to operate at high speeds. Spac-
ing along arterial streets ranges upward from about 1,000 ft (Cleve-
city center. A significant exception is a BRT line in Vancouver that
land and Porto Alegre) to more than 4,000 ft (Vancouver and Los
is anchored at the University of British Columbia.
• Running ways may include elements for optical or mechanical Angeles). The Runcorn Busway, which operates on an exclusive
1
busway that is partially elevated, has –4 -mi station spacing.
guidance, which may yield benefits in travel speeds, safety, and
precision docking.
Location
Bus lanes are typically 11 to 12 ft wide. Shoulders are provided
along busways where space exists. At busway stations, roadways are Most stations are located curbside or on the outside of bus-only
widened to about 50 ft. Busway envelopes are about 40 to 50 ft roads and arterial median busways. However, several systems have
between stations. At stations, the busway envelope (four travel lanes, center island platforms, including that of Bogotá, a section of Quito’s
plus station platforms) approximates 75 ft. Fences are provided along Trolebus, and Curitiba’s direct express bus service.
busway stations in Ottawa.
Arterial median busways in many South American cities provide
passing lanes around stopped buses at stations. Typically, the sta- Length
tion platform is offset, thereby resulting in a staggered three-lane
road section. Examples of typical curbside and median running Station length depends on bus volumes. Stations typically accommo-
ways are shown in Figures 1 and 2. date two to three buses, although busy stations may accommodate four

TABLE 4 Characteristics of Running Ways

Location Bus Tunnel Busway (Separate Freeway Bus Arterial Median Bus Lanes Mixed Traffic
Right-of-Way) Lanes Busways
North America Boston, Seattle Charlotte, Hartford, Houston, Los Cleveland, Eugene, Vancouver Honolulu, Los
New Britain, Miami, Angeles, New Vancouver Angeles,
Ottawa, Pittsburgh York City Vancouver
Australia Brisbane Adelaide1,
Brisbane, Sydney
Europe Runcorn Rouen2 Leeds1
South America Belo Horizonte,
Bogotá3, Curitiba3,
Porto Alegre,
Quito3, Sao Paulo
1
O-Bahn Guided Bus.
2
Guided bus with queue bypass.
3
Optically Guided bus—high platform station with fare prepayment.
Levinson et al. Paper No. 03- 4079 5

FIGURE 1 Martin Luther King Jr. South Busway, Pittsburgh, FIGURE 2 Median arterial busway, Richmond, British Columbia.
Pennsylvania. (Source: Port Authority of Allegheny County.) (Source: Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority.)

to five vehicles. Station lengths depend on the type of buses operated. sive space for fare payment. Curitiba’s distinctive tube stations have
Boston’s Silver Line, for example, will have 220-ft long platforms that become an internationally recognized symbol.
can handle three 60-ft articulated buses. Bogotá’s TransMilenio In Brisbane and Ottawa, as well as at busy stations in Pittsburgh,
busway has bus stations ranging up to 500 ft, but this is not typical. overhead pedestrian walks connect opposite sides of stations. Also,
Most BRT stations have low platforms, for many are or will be in some situations, access to both platforms is provided from road-
served by low-floor buses. However, Bogotá’s TransMilenio, Quito’s way overcrossings of the busway.
Trolebus, and Curitiba’s all-stop and direct services provide high
platforms that allow level passenger boarding and alighting. Each of
these systems also has off-vehicle fare collection. These stations Vehicles
function essentially like those along rail rapid transit lines. For exam-
ple, fare prepayment, along with the use of multidoor buses, reduced Conventional standard and articulated diesel buses are widely used
dwell time to about 20 s per stop in Curitiba. in BRT systems. However, there is a trend toward innovations in
vehicle design, pertaining to

Design Features • Clean vehicles,

• Dual-mode operations through tunnels,
Stations along the case study systems provide a broad range of fea- • Low-floor buses,
tures and amenities, depending on location, climate, type of facility, • More and wider doors, and
and available space. Some have simple, attractive canopies, such as • The use of dedicated and distinctively designed vehicles.
those along Miami’s Busway or Los Angeles’ Metro Rapid lines.
Others, like those along Brisbane’s South East Busway (shown in Examples of innovative vehicle designs include the following:
Figure 3), provide distinct and architecturally distinguished designs
as well as a full range of pedestrian facilities and conveniences. The • Los Angeles’s low-floor, red-colored compressed natural gas
high platform stations in Bogotá, Curitiba, and Quito, contain exten- (CNG) vehicles;

TABLE 5 Station Spacing, by Type of Running Way

Bus Tunnel Spacing Busway/ Spacing Arterial Busways/Bus Spacing
Location (feet) Freeway (feet) Lanes (feet)
North America Boston 2,170 L.A. - San Bernardino 21,200 L.A. - Ventura 5,630
Seattle 3,870 L.A. - Harbor Busway 7,200 L.A. - Wilshire-Whittier 4,580
Ottawa 6,980 Vancouver 4,190
Hartford – New Britain 4,200 Cleveland 1,230
Pittsburgh 4,200
Miami 2,890
Australia Adelaide 13,020 Sydney 2,870
Brisbane SE Busway 5,540
Europe Runcorn 1,390 Rouen 2,470
South America Bogotá 2,110
Curitiba 1,410
Porto Alegre 1,005
Quito 1,640
Sao Paulo 2,000
L.A. = Los Angeles
6 Paper No. 03- 4079 Transportation Research Record 1841

FIGURE 4 Irisbus Civis vehicle, Rouen, France. (Source: Irisbus

N.A.)
FIGURE 3 Griffith University BRT station, Brisbane, Australia.
(Source: Derek Trusler.)
ability to be optically guided, and a minimum 34-in. wide aisle
(shown in Figure 4); and
• Bogotá’s TransMilenio buses with trainlike styling and a
• Boston’s planned multidoor, dual-mode electric and CNG futuristic appearance.
buses;
• Curitiba’s double articulated buses with five sets of doors and Intelligent Transportation Systems
high-platform loading;
• Rouen’s Irisbus Civis vehicle—a “new design” hybrid diesel- Selected applications of ITS technologies in BRT operations are set
electric articulated vehicle with trainlike features, four doors, the forth in Table 6. The applications shown cover

TABLE 6 Application of ITS Technologies: Selected Systems

Passenger
Information
Automatic
Telephone Info/ Automated Real-Time Info Traffic Signal
City System Vehicle
Stations Station at Stations Priorities
Location (AVL)
Announcements
on Vehicle
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Boston Silver Line X X X X
Charlotte Independence Corridor X
Cleveland Euclid Ave. X
Hartford Hartford-New Britain Busway X X X
Los Angeles Wilshire-Whittier & Ventura BRT X X
Miami Miami-S. Dade Busway X Removed
Ottawa Transitway X X X X
Selected
X Some buses
Pittsburgh South-East-West Busways locations
Vancouver Broadway and Richmond “B” lines X X X
AUSTRALIA
Brisbane South East Busway X X X
Sydney Liverpool Parramatta BRT X X
EUROPE
Rouen Optically Guided Bus X X X
SOUTH AMERICA
Bogotá TransMilenio X
Curitiba Median Busway System X
SOURCE: TCRP A-23, Final Case Study Report.
Levinson et al. Paper No. 03- 4079 7

• Automatic vehicle location systems (AVL); lotte and in Houston’s high occupancy vehicle lanes also operate
• Passenger information systems (e.g., automated station without making intermediate stops.
announcements on vehicles, real-time information at stations); and
• Traffic signal priorities.
PERFORMANCE
BRT systems using AVL include Boston (under construction),
Hartford (under development), Los Angeles, Ottawa, Vancouver, The performance of BRT systems can be measured by passengers
Brisbane, Sydney (proposed), and Bogotá. earned, ridership growth, travel speeds, and travel time savings.
Systems with passenger information systems include Boston
(recently opened), Hartford (under development), Ottawa, Pittsburgh
(some buses), Vancouver, Brisbane, and Curitiba. Ridership
Systems having traffic signal timing priorities or special bus
phases include Cleveland (under development), Los Angeles, Van- Ridership for the various BRT case studies was reported in weekday
couver, and Rouen. The MetroRapid lines in Los Angeles, for exam- riders, peak-hour flows, and increases in ridership. The following
ple, can get up to 9 s of additional green time when buses arrive at paragraphs discuss the values and increases in ridership.
a signalized intersection. However, at major intersections, advanc-
ing and extending the green time for buses can take place only every
other cycle. Porto Alegre has a bus platoon dispatching system Weekday Riders
(Commonor) that is used to increase bus throughput.
The weekday ridership reported for systems in North America and
Australia are shown in Table 7. Ridership ranged from about 1,000
Service Patterns
in Charlotte to 40,000 or more in Boston, Los Angeles, Ottawa,
Service patterns reflect the types of running way and vehicles used. Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Adelaide.
Many systems provide an overlay of express (or limited stop) service, Daily ridership in South American cities is substantially higher.
as well as all-stop or local service, plus feeder bus lines at selected Reported values for specific facilities range from 150,000 in Quito to
stations. Service in most systems extends beyond the limits of about 600,000 in Bogotá. Total bus system riders exceed 1 million in
busways or bus lanes, which is an important advantage of BRT. Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, and Porto Alegre.
However, the Bogotá, Curitiba, and Quito systems operate only
within the limits of the special running ways because of door arrange-
ments, platform heights, and propulsion systems. These systems Peak-Hour Flows and Riders
actually function in a way similar to surface rail rapid transit lanes.
Busways, either along separate rights-of-way or within street The peak-hour, peak-direction bus volumes and riders at maximum
medians, have basic all-stop service with an overlay of express load points are shown in Table 8. Peak-hour, peak-direction bus flows
operations, mainly during peak periods. In a few cases, such as at (usually at the maximum load point) exceed 650 on the New Jersey
Cleveland and Curitiba, the arterial express service is (or will be) approach to the Lincoln Tunnel and the Midtown Bus Terminal.
provided along nearby parallel streets. A diagram of all-stop and Ottawa’s Transitway system reports volumes of 180 to 200 buses per
express services is presented in Figure 5. hour along downtown bus lanes. These volumes result from the high
BRT operations in mixed traffic, such as in Honolulu, Los Ange- use of passes, an honor fare system on the busway all-stop routes, and
les, New York City, and Vancouver, provide limited-stop service. use of multidoor articulated buses.
Local bus service is also operated along the streets as part of the nor- Peak-hour flows of more than 100 buses per hour are found in
mal transit service. Rouen’s TEOR BRT also provides limited-stop New York City’s Long Island and Gowanus Expressway contraflow
service along arterial streets. bus lanes. Most other facilities in the United States and Australia
Buses operating in New York City’s reverse-flow expressway bus have fewer than 100 buses per hour. Flows of about 50 to 70 buses
lanes run nonstop. Buses using median expressway lanes in Char- per hour are typical.
Station

Station

Station

Station

Station

Station

Station

Station

Station

Base

Express

Express

FIGURE 5 Example of all-stop and express service patterns. (Source: DMJM+Harris.)

8 Paper No. 03- 4079 Transportation Research Record 1841

TABLE 7 Reported Daily Ridership on Selected Reported travel time savings are
BRT Facilities
System City Daily Ridership • Busways, freeway lanes, 32% to 47%;
Bus Subways Boston 40-78,000 (e) 1 • Seattle’s bus tunnel, 33%;
Seattle 46,000 • Bogotá, 32%;
Busways Ottawa 200,000 • Porto Alegre, 29%; and
Brisbane 60,000 • Los Angeles Metro Bus, 23% to 28%.
Pittsburgh 48,000
Adelaide 30,000
Hartford 20,000 Busways on essentially grade-separated rights-of-way generally
Sydney 18,000 (e) save 2 to 3 min per mile. Bus lanes on arterial streets typically save
San Bernardino (L.A.) 18,000 1 to 2 min per mile. Savings are greatest where buses previously
Miami 12,000 experienced major congestion.
Harbor (L.A.) 9,400
Charlotte 1,000
Arterial Streets Wilshire (L.A.) 40,0002
BENEFITS AND COSTS
Cleveland 29,500 (e)
Vancouver 20,000-22,000
Ventura (L.A.) 9,0002 Largely owing to faster journey times, BRT systems have resulted in
lower operating costs, less fuel consumption, greater safety, and land
1
Higher values estimate for future. development benefits. Table 10 summarizes some of the benefits
2
Excludes local bus riders on same street.
(e) = estimated.
reported for selected systems.

The South American arterial median bus lanes with passing capa- Land Development
bilities at stations carry as many as 300 buses per h one way at the max-
imum load point. The Curitiba and Quito systems, which function in a Reported land development benefits are similar to those experienced
way similar to light rail, operate at 90-s headways or 40 buses per hour. along rail transit lines. An analysis of the Ottawa Transitway indi-
The heavier peak-hour, peak-direction passenger flows equal or cated that the system contributed to about $675 million (U.S. dollars)
exceed the number of rail transit passengers carried in many United in new construction around transit stations. Similarly, a study by the
States and Canadian cities. Port Authority of Allegheny County found that Pittsburgh’s East
Busway resulted in $302 million in new and improved development.
Property values near Brisbane’s South East Busway were reported to
Ridership Increases grow by 20%. In several cities, such as Ottawa, land development
policies have concentrated major activities along busways.
Reported increases in bus riders reflect expanded service, reduced
travel times, improved facility identity, and population growth. Here
are some examples of reported gains in ridership:
Costs
• Houston—18% to 30% of riders did not make trip before;
Facility development costs reflect the time, type, and complexity of
• Los Angeles—25% to 33% gain, of which one-third were new
construction. Reported median costs were as follows:
riders;
• Vancouver—8,000 new riders, of which 20% previously used
• $272 million/mi for bus tunnels (2 systems),
cars, and 5% represented new trips;
• $7.5 million/mi for busways (12 systems),
• Adelaide—76% ridership gain;
• $6.6 million/mi for arterial median busways (5 systems),
• Brisbane—42% ridership gain; and
• $4.7 million/mi for guided bus operations (2 systems), and
• Leeds—50% ridership gain.
• $1 million/mi for mixed traffic or curb bus lanes (3 systems).

Speeds and Travel Times Operating costs for BRT service are influenced by wage rates
and work rules, fuel and electricity costs, operating speeds, and
Operating speeds reflect the type of running way, station spacing, ridership. Operating costs for Pittsburgh’s East and South busways
and service pattern. Reported speeds by type of running way and averaged $0.52 per passenger trip (1989). Costs per trip for light
geographic area are shown in Table 9. Typical speeds are rail lines in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, and San
Diego averaged $1.31; the range was from $0.97 (San Diego) to
• Freeway–busway: $1.68 (Sacramento). These comparisons, although limited, sug-
–Nonstop: 40–50 mph, and gest that BRT can cost less per passenger trip than light rail transit
–All-stop: 25–30 mph; does (3).
• Arterial streets:
– Express, Bogotá, Curitiba, 19 mph;
–Metro bus, Los Angeles, Ventura Blvd., 19 mph; IMPLICATIONS
–Metro bus, Los Angeles, Wilshire Blvd. and Whittier Blvd.,
14 mph; Each city has a unique set of circumstances that will influence the
– All-stop—median busways, South America, 11 to 14 mph; need for BRT, as well as the planning, design, and operations.
and Within this context, many common lessons and implications emerge
–Limited-stop bus service, New York City, 8 to 14 mph. from an analysis of the case studies. Although several of these
Levinson et al. Paper No. 03- 4079 9

TABLE 8 Passenger Volumes and Bus Flows on Selected Facilities

City Facility Reported A.M. Peak-Hour Bus Flows and Passenger
(System) Volumes at Maximum Load Sections
UNITED STATES AND CANADA Bus Riders
Boston Silver Line Bus Tunnel/Lanes 75 4,500
115 8,600
Charlotte Independence Blvd. Busway
Cleveland Euclid Ave. Median Busway
Hartford Hartford-New Britain Busway 20-24 1,000 +/-
Houston HOV System KATY 48 2,100
I-45 North 63 3,300
Northwest 34 1,500
Gulf 21 1,200
Southwest 54
Easter 22 1,150
Los Angeles Harbor Bus HOV Way 40 (e) 1,800 (e)
San Bernardino Bus HOV Way 70 2,750
Wilshire-Whittier Metro Bus 30 1,500
Ventura Blvd. Metro Bus 15 (e) 750 (e)
Miami Miami- S. Dade Busway 20 (e) 800 (e)
New York City I-495 (NJ) Contra-Flow Lane 650-8301 25,000-35,000 1
I-495 (LI) Exp. Contra-Flow Lane 125 5,240
I-278 Gowanus Contra-Flow Lane 175 6,180
Ottawa Transitway System 180-200 10,000
Pittsburgh South Busway 50 2,000
East Busway 110 5,400
West Busway 40 1,700
Seattle Bus Tunnel 70 4,200 (e)
Vancouver Broadway “B” Line 15 1,000 (e)
Richmond “B” Line 15 1,000 (e)
AUSTRALIA
Adelaide O-Bahn Guided Busway 4,000
Brisbane South East Busway 150 9,500
Sydney Liverpool-Paramatta Busway/Lanes
SOUTH AMERICA
Belo Horizonte Avenida Christiano Machado
Median Busway N/A 16,000
Bogotá TransMilenio Median Busway N/A 27,0002
Curitiba Median Busway System 40 11,000
Porto Alegre Assis Brasil Median Busway 326 26,100
Farrapos Median Busway 3043 17,500
Quito Trolebus 40 8,000
Sao Paulo 9 de Julio Median Busway 220+ 18-20,000
Jabaquaro Median Busway
1
Facility operates only during a.m. peak
2
Total peak hour route ridership is 45,000
3
p.m. peak hour
(e) = estimated
N/A = not available

implications are common to rapid transit, many also apply to rapid State, regional, and local agencies should work together in plan-
transit in general, and most are unique to BRT. ning, designing, implementing, and operating BRT. This effort
requires the close cooperation of transit service planners, city traf-
fic engineers, urban planners, and police. Metropolitan planning
Development Process agencies and state departments of transportation should be major
participants.
BRT system development should be an outgrowth of a planning
and project development process that addresses the demonstrated
needs and problems, rather than stem from advocacy toward find- Market Considerations
ing solutions. An open and objective process should be undertaken
throughout all phases of BRT development. BRT should serve demonstrated markets. Urban areas with more
Early and continuous community support from elected leaders than a million residents and a central area employment of at least
and citizens is essential. Public decision makers and the general 80,000 are good candidates for BRT. These areas generally have suf-
community must understand the nature of BRT and its potential ben- ficient corridor ridership demands to allow frequent all-day service.
efits. BRT’s attractiveness to customers, operating flexibility, capac- BRT works especially well in physically constrained environments
ities, and costs should be clearly and objectively identified, usually where hills, tunnels, and water crossings result in frequent traffic
through an alternatives analysis. congestion.
10 Paper No. 03- 4079 Transportation Research Record 1841

TABLE 9 Bus Speeds (miles per hour)

Type of Facility City Express All Stop
Freeway or Busway United States/Canada
Hartford 38 30
Houston 54
Los Angeles
Harbor Busway 35
San Bernardino 43
Miami 18 12-14
New York City (N.J.)
I-495 Contra-Flow Lane 35
Ottawa 50 24
Pittsburgh (3 busways) 40 30
Bus Tunnel Seattle 13
Arterial Bus Lanes Cleveland 12
New York City (limited stops) 8-14
South America
Belo Horizonte 17
Bogotá 19 13
Curitiba 19 13
Porto Alegre 11-14
Sao Paulo 12-14

It is essential to match markets with rights-of-way. The presence Incremental development of BRT may often be desirable. Doing
of an exclusive right-of-way, such as along a freeway or railroad cor- so will demonstrate BRT’s potential benefits as soon as possible to
ridor, is not always sufficient to ensure effective BRT services. This riders, decision makers, and the general public, while enabling the
is especially true where the rights-of-way are removed from major expansion and possible upgrading of systems.
transit markets and stations are inaccessible. Ideally, BRT systems BRT systems should be reasonable in regard to usage, travel time
should be designed to penetrate major transit markets. BRT systems savings, costs, development benefits, and traffic impacts. However,
are flexible enough to allow for a service design that is pertinent to planners should not cut corners by eliminating key system elements
major transit markets. and their integration, just to attain minimal functionality of the bus
system.

System Development
Integration with Land Use
The key attributes of rail transit should be transferred to BRT wher-
ever possible. These include segregated or prioritized rights-of-way, BRT and land use planning in station areas should be integrated
attractive stations, off-vehicle fare collection, and easily accessible as early as possible. Adelaide, Brisbane, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and
multidoor vehicles, as well as service that is clear, frequent, and Curitiba have demonstrated that BRT can have land use benefits sim-
rapid. A successful BRT project requires more than merely provid- ilar to those resulting from rail transit. Close working relationships
ing a queue bypass, bus lane, or dedicated busway. It requires the with major developers may be necessary in addressing the issues of
entire range of rapid transit elements, that is, key attributes. Also, building orientation, building setbacks, and connections to stations.
the development of a unique system image and identity, and a sense Parking facilities should complement, not undercut BRT. Ade-
of permanence, speed, and reliability are essential. quate parking is essential at stations along high-speed transitways in

TABLE 10 Reported Benefits of Selected BRT Systems

City and Facility Benefits
Land Development Benefits
Pittsburgh East Busway 59 new developments within a 1,500-ft radius of station. $302
million in land development benefits of which $275 million was
new construction. 80% clustered at station.
Ottawa Transitway System $1 billion (Canadian) in new construction at Transitway stations.
Adelaide O-Bahn Guided Busway Tea Tree Gully area is emerging into an urban village.
Brisbane South East Busway Up to 20% gain in property values near busway. Property values in
areas within 6 mi of a station grew 2 to 3 times faster than those
at greater distances.
Other Benefits
Ottawa Transitway System 150 fewer buses, with $58 million (Canadian) savings in vehicle
costs and $28 million (Canadian) in operating costs.
Seattle Bus Tunnel 20% reduction in surface street bus volumes; 40% fewer accidents.
Bogotá TransMilenio Median Busway 93% fewer fatalities; 40% drop in pollutants.
Curitiba Median Busway System 30% less fuel per capita.
Levinson et al. Paper No. 03- 4079 11

outlying areas. It may be desirable to limit downtown parking space, plemented by an overlay of peak-period express service to and from
especially where major BRT investments are planned, or in service. specific markets. During off-peak periods, the overlay service could
operate as feeders or shuttles to BRT stations. BRT service can
extend beyond the limits of dedicated running ways where reliable,
Design and Operations relatively high-speed operations can be sustained. Outlying sections
of BRT lines and downtown distribution can use bus lanes or even
BRT should be rapid. This quality is best achieved by operating on operate in the general traffic flow.
exclusive rights-of-way wherever possible, and by maintaining wide
spacing between stations. Separate rights-of-way can enhance speed,
reliability, safety, and identity. They can be provided as integral CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS
parts of new town development or as an element of a transportation
network in areas that are still undeveloped. Bus tunnels may be The number of BRT systems throughout the world is growing. A
desirable where congestion is frequent, bus volumes are high, and review of their experiences indicates that BRT can reduce saving
street space is limited. Where possible, busways should be grade times, attract new riders, and induce transit-oriented development. It
separated, especially at major intersections. To have that done will can be more cost-effective and provide greater operating flexibility
improve both travel times and safety. than rail transit. BRT can also be a cost extension of rail transit lines,
The placement, design, and operation of bus lanes and median and it generally can provide sufficient capacities to meet peak-hour
busways on streets and roads must take into account and balance the travel demands in most U.S. corridors.
diverse needs of buses, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, and the gen- Yet there is a need for improvements in vehicle design and sys-
eral traffic flow. Curb bus lanes allow curbside boarding and alight- tem identity. Some elements are missing in many BRT systems,
ing, but they may be difficult to enforce. They also pose conflicts for often a result of cost-cutting measures made during the develop-
right turns and thus may not be practical for urban corridors with mental process. Other considerations include maintaining high aver-
many access points for adjacent land uses. age trip speeds. High speeds can be best achieved when a large
Median busways provide good identity and avoid curbside inter- portion of the service operates on separate rights-of-way. In addition,
ferences, but they may pose problems with left turns and pedestrian major BRT investments should be reinforced by transit-supportive
access. Moreover, they require wide streets, generally about 75 ft or land development and parking policies.
more from curb to curb. Median busways may be developed on nar- More cities can be expected to implement BRT systems in the
rower streets where left turns are limited, and where general traffic future. There will be a growing number of fully integrated systems,
is in a single lane each way. and even more applications of selected elements. These efforts will
Coordinated traffic engineering and transit service planning lead to substantial improvements in transit access and mobility.
are essential in designing running ways, locating bus stops and
turn lanes, applying traffic controls, and establishing traffic signal
priorities for BRT. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Vehicle design, station design, and fare collection procedures
should be coordinated. Stations should be accessible by bus and car, Some of the findings presented in this paper were the result of
and even by foot; they should provide adequate berthing capacity, research sponsored by TRB, through TCRP A-23: Implementation
passing lanes for express buses (or busways), and suitable amenities Guideline on Bus Rapid Transit. The authors also acknowledge the
for passengers. Buses should be distinctively designed and delin- help of Scott Rutherford of the University of Washington, and Keith
eated; they should also provide sufficient passenger capacity, mul- Hudson of DMJM+Harris.
tiple doors and low floors for easy access by passengers, and ample
interior circulation space. Off-vehicle fare collection is desirable, at
least at major boarding points. Achieving a design with these fea- REFERENCES
tures calls for changes in the operating philosophies and practices of
1. Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. Rutherford, J. Cracknell,
many transit agencies. More focus should be placed on reducing and R. Soberman. TCRP A-23: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Draft
dwell time. ITS and smart card technology applied at multiple bus Report. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May
doors may expedite onboard payment without a loss of revenue. 2002.
2. Bonsell, J. A. Transitways: The Ottawa Experience. Proc., 2nd National
Conference on High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Transitways
(A. Lancaster and T. Lomax, eds.), Houston, Tex., 1987, pp. 25–28.
Service and Design 3. Biehler, A. D. Exclusive Busways Versus Light Rail Transit: A Compar-
ison of New Fixed Guideway Systems. In Special Report 221, Light Rail
BRT services should be keyed to transit markets. The maximum Transit: New System Successes at Affordable Prices. TRB, National
number of buses during peak hour should meet ridership demands Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 89–97.
and simultaneously minimize bus–bus congestion. Generally, fre-
quent all-stop, trunk-line service throughout the day should be com- Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Bus Transit Systems.