1. Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics Presentation originally by Dennis Hinebaugh, Director National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), University of South Florida http://www.nbrti.org Presented today by Tom Rye, Edinburgh Napier University

2. What’s wrong with normal buses? Slow Unreliable Not always frequent Take the long way around Uncomfortable Untrendy, not technologically appealing Make you feel like a loser if you take one? BRT – tries to solve these problems Slow Unreliable Not always frequent Take the long way around Uncomfortable Untrendy, not technologically appealing Make you feel like a loser if you take one? BRT – tries to solve these problems

3. Well! Badly! How we treat BRT customers! How we treat local bus customers!

4. BRT Systems United States: Alameda, CA Alameda, CA Albany, NY Albany, NY Boston, MA Boston, MA Charlotte, NC Charlotte, NC Cleveland, OH Cleveland, OH Chicago, IL Chicago, IL Dulles Corridor, VA Dulles Corridor, VA Eugene, OR Eugene, OR Hartford, CT Hartford, CT World: World: Curitiba, Brazil Curitiba, Brazil Brisbane, Australia Brisbane, Australia Adelaide, Australia Adelaide, Australia Ottawa, Canada Ottawa, Canada Leeds, England Leeds, England Amsterdam Amsterdam Utrecht Utrecht Kent, England Kent, England Ipswich, EnglandIpswich, England Rouen, France Rouen, France Jonkoping, SwedenJonkoping, Sweden

5. It’s no single trait, but the combination of traits that make BRT systems successful! [ ]

6. 6 Speed of BRTs in km/h

7. Infrastructure Needs to give priority to bus Does not all have to be the same – one BRT can combine different types of priority Key: ensure speed and reliability – bus protected from other traffic Needs to give priority to bus Does not all have to be the same – one BRT can combine different types of priority Key: ensure speed and reliability – bus protected from other traffic

8. Arterial Bus Lanes Boston: Silver Line London Quality Bus Corridor

9. Arterial Median Transitway Vancouver: 98B

10. E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ ESKİ HALİE-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ YENİ HALİ The Balkan BRT – before and after

11. Running Ways Arterial Median Busway Rouen, France: TEOR

12. LEEDS/BRADFORD Guided Busways

13. Elevated Sections Elevated Sections Runcorn, UK

14. Running Way Color, Markings Paris Sao Paulo Auckland

17. Route Structures More direct than local service More direct than local service “Off-line” stations “Off-line” stations Anchored by major activity centers Anchored by major activity centers Major corridors Major corridors Feeder routes Feeder routes Can operate in low-density residential Can operate in low-density residential Flexible Flexible High frequency, turn up and goHigh frequency, turn up and go Effect on Land use Effect on Land use No map No map

18. ADELAIDE CBD Adelaide, Australia

20. Stations: Potential Characteristics Differentiated from regular bus stops Differentiated from regular bus stops Enhanced shelters and/or station design Enhanced shelters and/or station design Designated passenger “platform,” possibly raised Designated passenger “platform,” possibly raised Enclosed Enclosed Can be multi-modal Can be multi-modal Other facilities (taxi stands, parking, etc.) Other facilities (taxi stands, parking, etc.) Customer information (real-time) Customer information (real-time) Joint-development/multi-use Joint-development/multi-use Facilitates quick boarding and exit Facilitates quick boarding and exit Docking Docking Disabled accessible Disabled accessible

23. Vehicles Unique/distinct aesthetic design/look Unique/distinct aesthetic design/look Environmentally friendly Environmentally friendly Variable propulsion systems Variable propulsion systems High capacity (articulated, bi-articulated) High capacity (articulated, bi-articulated) Wide aisles, increased passenger comfort Wide aisles, increased passenger comfort Low-floor Low-floor Large window design Large window design Increased amenities (laptop connections) Increased amenities (laptop connections) Multiple double-wide doors Multiple double-wide doors Dual-sided entry/exit Dual-sided entry/exit LRT like LRT like

24. Range of BRT Vehicle Options: Conventional Buses Range of BRT Vehicle Options: Conventional Buses Van Hool 300AG ZuidtangentAmsterdam; York Rapid Transit Toronto New Flyer 60LF Vancouver 98, 99B Ottawa Transitways

25. Specialized BRT Vehicles Specialized BRT Vehicles Irisbus Civis Las Vegas MAX ATS Phileus Eindhoven, Netherlands

26. Well- Lit, Open, Quiet Interior

28. Los Angeles, CA Signal Preemption and low floor vehicles aided in a: 28 to 33% decrease in travel time 28 to 33% decrease in travel time 30% increase in ridership, 14% net new 30% increase in ridership, 14% net new No appreciable impact on cross–street traffic No appreciable impact on cross–street traffic

29. Faster Fare Collection Fast, efficient so as to speed boarding Fast, efficient so as to speed boarding Simple to understand Simple to understand Minimal on-vehicle transactions Minimal on-vehicle transactions Cashless Cashless smart cards (multi-use) smart cards (multi-use) pre-purchased tickets pre-purchased tickets passes passes Proof of payment Proof of payment enter station enter station

30. Off–Board Fare Collection Options Proof-of Payment: TVM York, On. Rapid Transit Smart Card Fare Gates TransMillenio, Bogota

31. Cost Effective Vehicles Vehicles can be off-the-shelf can be off-the-shelf No track or overhead wires No track or overhead wires “Travel Ways” “Travel Ways” construction and maintenance construction and maintenance incrementally built (phases, flexible) incrementally built (phases, flexible) existing roadway network (mixed traffic) existing roadway network (mixed traffic) Uses existing vehicle storage facilities Uses existing vehicle storage facilities Uses existing and simple signal systems Uses existing and simple signal systems Workforce composition Workforce composition using existing vs. acquiring new staff using existing vs. acquiring new staff wage differential for BRT vs. LRT wage differential for BRT vs. LRT

32. Rapid Transit Mode Comparisons Source: SpeedLink- A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit. June 2001.

33. Rail-Like Vehicles $5-30 m

34. Another take on costs

35. Impacts on ridership, car use Survey of 14 BRT systems around world Typically 15-35% increase in system ridership 10-25% of these people transferred from car Istanbul system carries 500,000 people/day of whom about 10% came from car. 400% increase in total PT riders See http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Re s%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf Survey of 14 BRT systems around world Typically 15-35% increase in system ridership 10-25% of these people transferred from car Istanbul system carries 500,000 people/day of whom about 10% came from car. 400% increase in total PT riders See http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Re s%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf

36. BRT quick to implement – politically attractiveBRT quick to implement – politically attractive Does not always have to be heavily engineered – can combine a range of infrastructureDoes not always have to be heavily engineered – can combine a range of infrastructure Can be implemented incrementallyCan be implemented incrementally Ultimately it’s about reliability, directness, convenience, premium service, good imageUltimately it’s about reliability, directness, convenience, premium service, good image Low cost, high capacity alternative to railLow cost, high capacity alternative to rail Keep It Simple StupidKeep It Simple Stupid Conclusions