TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference Luncheon BRT: Latin American Experience 12:10 – 1:20 p.m. William Millar President, American Public Transportation Association (Presiding)

TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference Gerhard Menckhoff Masters in Traffic Engineer, Ohio State University Independent Consultant to the World Bank for urban transport strategy review Member of World Bank (1981 – 2000), Senior Urban Transport Specialist in Latin America Project Director, Wilbur Smith and Associates (1963 – 1981) Member ASCE and ITE

BRT: Latin American Experience Using Lessons Learned Gerhard Menckhoff Urban Transport Consultant, World Bank Bus Rapid Transit Conference American Public Transportation Association Denver, May 5, 2004

Existing busways and BRTs in Latin America Brazil –Curitiba –São Paulo –Belo Horizonte –Porto Alegre –others Other Countries –Santiago (Chile) –Lima (Peru) –Quito (Ecuador) –Bogotá (Colombia) –Leon de Guanajuato (Mexico)

Conventional busways Bogotá (before TransMilenio) Lima -High passenger throughput -Operational control difficult -Chaotic and unattractive -OFTEN: BAD IMAGE São Paulo

Curitiba (Brazil) BRT Segregated Busways –First busway in 1974 –Five busways now, 37 miles –11-14,000 pass/hour/direction Operational Aspects –Integrated transport system –Trunk (bi-articulated buses), feeder, express services –High station platforms, fare prepayment –URBS distributes revenues to private bus companies Transport - Land Use Coordination –High-density development along busways –City services at transfer terminals –Maintain city center vitality

Bogotá (Colombia) TransMilenio Phase 1 ( ) –25 miles of busway, of which 16 are 2+2 lanes –57 stations and 4 transfer terminals (connecting with 39 feeder lines) –490 articulated trunk-line and 243 feeder-line buses –800,000 pass./day, maximum load point 35,000 pass./hour/direction Phase 2 ( ) –28 miles of busway, 60 stations and 3 terminals –335 articulated trunk-line and 170 feeder line buses Operations –Similar to Curitiba, but much higher volumes –Rapid implementation, reform of bus industry –Commercial success, excellent image

Quito (Ecuador) BRTs Trolleybus Busway (“El Trole”) –Started operation in 1996 –10 miles of busway, 32 right-hand stations + terminals with feeder buses –113 articulated Trolleybuses, Diesel standby motors, right-hand doors –High station platforms, fare prepayment –170,000 pass./day, maximum load point 8,000 pass./hour/direction Ecovías Busway (Diesel Buses) –Started operation in 2002 – 6 miles of busway –15 median stations + 2 feeder terminals –42 articulated buses, with left-hand doors –Only limited fare integration with Trole Miscellaneous Aspects –Trole: Government run -- Ecovías: private –Electric trole through historic city center –Further extensions planned for Trole+Ecovías (new 10-mile line to open in mid-2004)

Started operation in miles of busway 52 stations High station platforms Fare prepayment 120 articulated trunk-line buses (doors on left) 31 feeder routes with 209 conventional buses Leon de Guanajuato (Mexico) BRT

What do these BRTs have in common? Physically segregated busways Trunk-feeder operation Fare prepayment, flat fares, free transfers with feeder buses High station platforms Mostly operated by private bus companies High passenger demand Quick implementation Much lower cost than LRT or metro alternative BUT: Metro-like appearance Distinct identity and good image

What do these BRTs have in common? Physically segregated busways Curitiba Bogotá Quito

What do these BRTs have in common? Trunk-feeder operation Advantages of “open” operation - Fewer passenger transfers - No need for transfer terminals - Less bus route restructuring Advantages of trunk-feeder operation - Better bus control  higher capacity and   faster + more reliable flow - Special trunk-line buses can be used - Fare prepayment and faster boarding/alighting - Distinct (usually more attractive) image

What do these BRTs have in common? Fare prepayment Bogotá Quito

What do these BRTs have in common? High station platforms Bogotá - only BRT buses have access - rapid boarding and alighting - disability-friendly Quito Leon de Guanajuato

What do these BRTs have in common? Mostly operated by private bus companies TransMilenio (Bogotá) -- Phase 1 –4 trunk bus and 5 feeder bus companies, owned by investors and traditional bus operators –All buses (incl. 470 new articulated trunk buses, at $195,000/bus) privately financed –Investment and operation paid 100% from fares Quito -- Trole operated by municipality; Ecovías by private sector Curitiba -- 9 Privately-run area concessions; no Government subsidies

What do these BRTs have in common? High passenger demand Passengers on a typical weekday Bogotá (TransMilenio) 800,000 passengers 32,000 pass./mile of busway Quito (Trole) 170,000 passengers 17,000 pass./mile of busway ******************** Washington, DC (Metrorail) 700,000 passengers 7,000 pass./mile of metro

What do these BRTs have in common? Quick implementation Bogotá (TransMilenio) –From idea to commissioning of initial line (9 miles): 29 months –Total Phase 1 (additional 16 miles): +19 months –Phase 2 (additional 28 miles, ): +36 months TOTAL -- 7 trunk lines totaling 53 miles: 84 months (Metro Option: 1 line totaling 18 miles was planned to take >100 months) **************************** Washington, DC (Metrorail) 5 metro lines totaling 103 miles >360 months (>30 years)

What do these BRTs have in common? Much lower cost than rail alternative Bogotá –TransMilenio infrastructure investment (Phase 1) $240 million TransMilenio private investment $100+ million Total public investment $3.6 million/mile $0.34/pass. (3 years) –Rail Metro – was ready for bidding in 1998 (18 miles, $3.04 billion, 1.1million pass/day estimated for 2008) $167 million/mile $2.45/pass. (3 years) Quito (Trole Phase 1 – 7 miles) –Total investment $57.6 million, i.e. $3.2 million/mile of which 80% for trolley buses and electrical equipment. –Non-electrical investment ($11.3 million) $0.6 million/mile

What do these BRTs have in common? BUT: Metro-like appearance Curitiba Bogotá

What do these BRTs have in common? Distinct identity and good image Curitiba Bogotá Choice of name Quito Distinct logo New type of buses Attractive stations Bogotá

BRT systems being (or soon to be) implemented Guayaquil (Ecuador) Santiago (Chile) Lima (Peru) Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cartagena, Medellín, Pereira (Colombia) San José (Costa Rica) San Salvador (El Salvador) Others?

BRT systems being implemented Santiago (Chile) Integrated Transport System -Full-scale reform, to start in mid Covers 100% of public transport -Full ticket and fare integration - Bus-Bus and Bus-Metro Institutional and Operational Aspects - Transantiago: Overall management role - Metro de Santiago: Government operated - Buses: Private concessions (trunk and zonal) Busways - Alameda (see left) -Pajaritos and Santa Rosa in Other busways to be added in subsequent years, incl. existing Av. Grecia busway (see bottom left) -Some trunk bus lines extend beyond busway -Low-floor buses, doors on the right -On-bus fare control - contact-less cards

BRT systems soon to be implemented Lima (Peru) Proposed BRT System –18 miles of exclusive busway, 35 stations –31 miles of feeder bus routes –Construction scheduled for –Total investment: $134 million, including complementary works, goods and services Segregated Busways –First busway (Vía Expresa -- built in ), will be incorporated in system –Main adaptation: extra passing lanes at stations, to increase busway capacity –2+2 lanes on most other busway sections Operational Aspects –Trunk and feeder services –High station platforms, fare prepayment, bus doors on left –520,000 passengers per day (forecast for 2007) –Protransporte distributes revenues to private bus companies

BRT systems soon to be implemented Colombian cities (in addition to Bogotá) Barranquilla 2006 – 9 miles – 2 busways – maybe CNG Bucaramanga 2005/6 – 5 miles Cali 2005 – 31 miles – replaces previous LRT plan – maybe underground busway section Cartagena 2005 – 9 miles – maybe CNG - buses to be designed by local artists Medellín 2006 – 5 miles – feeder to metro Pereira 2005 – 9 miles All are expected to have high station platforms and fare prepayment

Can we learn from these experiences? Key advantages when compared to rail alternatives –Less costly to implement and (often) operate –Often: quicker to implement BUT: Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT –BRT (as opposed to LRT) would not attract car users –BRT is slow –BRT has a low capacity –BRT pollutes and creates a barrier effect –No development impact with BRT

Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT BRT (as opposed to LRT) would not attract car users  not so in Latin America! Curitiba: –City has relatively high income per capita and car ownership is second highest in Brazil –BUT: gasoline consumption per capita is lower than any other comparable city Bogotá: –About 15% of passengers previously traveled by private car

Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT BRT is slow  not so in Latin America! If at-grade, with intersections: - slower than Metro - same as LRT If grade separated -- faster than rail - express services can overtake at stations Commercial speeds (mph) BRT: Bogotá Quito: LRT: Tunis 8-13 Metro: Hong Kong 21São Paulo: 18

Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT BRT has a low passenger capacity  But its throughput is generally higher than LRT! See regularly achieved volumes (observed passengers/hour per direction) Conventional busways (with at-grade crossings) - Belo Horizonte 16,000 - São Paulo 20,000 - Porto Alegre 20,000 Bus Rapid Transit (with at-grade crossings) - Bogotá (2+2 lanes) 36,000 - Quito (1+1) 8,000 - Curitiba (1+1) 14,000 Light Rail Transit (with at-grade crossings – 1+1 track) - Alexandria El Rami 13,000- Tunis 9,000 Rail Rapid Transit (fully grade separated – 1+1 track) - Hong Kong 81,000 - Mexico City 65,000 - Washington, DC 17,000* * Blue/Orange Line – highest RRT volume in the US, outside New York City

Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT BRT pollutes and creates a barrier effect Yes, much more than underground metro Somewhat more than at-grade LRT –Even clean Diesel creates more local pollution than electricity electric Trole in Quito, CNG in buses in Cartagena, “clean” buses in Santiago –Long bus stations in Bogotá, “wall of buses” in São Paulo Bogotá Frankfurt Environmental problems caused mostly by cars

Commonly voiced doubts when considering BRT No development impact with BRT BUT Bogotá: New shopping center at TransM. terminal AND Curitiba

Conclusions Curitiba’s BRT (1970s) used to be considered a “special case ” Quito (1997) and Bogotá (2000) demonstrated that, yes, this concept could be replicated elsewhere Latin America has become a fantastic laboratory for innovative urban transport solutions Now: dozens of new BRTs are being considered, in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the USA –BRT starts to be taken seriously as a mass rapid transit mode in the USA –US [and European+Japanese] consultants are associating with Latin American experts when advising other countries