Bus Rapid Transit: An Urban Form of Mobility...a healthier tomorrow. Where do we begin? I argue we must start with something that is embedded into the activities of everyday life—transportation

b r tan urban form of mobility

m a y a n k p a t e l

2 0 0

9

university of california, davis | landscape architecture | senior project

2

bus rapid transitan urban form of transportation

A senior project presented to the faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelors of Science in Landscape Architecture.

Accepted & Approved By:

_______________________________________________________________________Mark Francis, Faculty Senior Project Advisor & Committee Member

_______________________________________________________________________Stephen Wheeler, Faculty Committee Member

_______________________________________________________________________Richard Coss, Committee Member

ByMayank PatelJune 12, 2009

3

The transition into the 21st century places us in a precarious situation. With rapid global changes in progress, smarter planning, sustainable practices, conscious applications, and a modified lifestyle become necessities. Transportation is one of the primary contributors to harmful global change. The objective of this project is to examine a particular form of transportation, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and analyze whether or not it addresses current issues (congestion) and at the same time, serves as a promising measure for the future. The significance of this study is to a) realize the impact transportation and transportation systems have in urban planning and design, and b) learn how public transportation influences or dictates social welfare. The project is divided into four parts. First, I discuss BRT to provide a comprehensive understanding of the functionality and application of the system. Thereafter, in order to grasp what may or may not be successful, I refer to existing case studies of cities (Curitiba & Los Angeles) that have implemented BRT. Then, I discuss the lessons learned about BRT, as a system and its application, in an effort to answer the question: How is BRT successfully employed? And finally, I propose a set of general design guidelines tailored for novice planners and designers, which can help with the implementation of BRT.

5

a b s t r a c t

my success is the result of Your blessingmaharaj & swami

committee

faculty

family

friends

your guidance, advice, and insight got me through this endeavor

you are more than teachers, you are educators

you are the backbone that supports my every move

you are the memorable experiences and lessons outside the academic walls

i

a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

abstract -- acknowledgements itable of contents iilist of figures iiipreface ix introduction 1 what is bus rapid transit? 2chapter 1 | major elements 5 1.1 | running ways 7 1.2 | stations 13 1.3 | vehicles 21 1.4 | service 28 1.5 | intelligent transportation system (ITS) 31chapter 2 | case studies 39 2.1 | curitiba, panara-brazil 40 2.2 | los angeles, california-united states 46chapter 3 | lessons learned 51 3.1 | community involvement 53 3.2 | cooperative planning 54 3.3 | long-term vision 55 3.4 | ensuring safety & security 56chapter 4 | design guidelines 57 4.1 | running ways 60 4.2 | station stops/shelters 62 4.3 | hypothetical design 64 & 65conclusion 67 summary 68 the greater cause 69definitions 71references 75

ii

t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

cover page cover page figure Original: http://www.ozebus.com.au/OzeBusPage?pn=OzeBusBusRapidTransit

Modified by: Mayank Patel

prefacefigure 01 http://www.sorta.com/hybrid_images/hybrid_photo_model_full.jpg

chapter 1 | major elements

1.1 | RUNNING WAYfigure 1.11 http://www.embarq.org/en/project/shanghai-bus-rapid-transit-plan

figure 1.12 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/civis/civis.htm

figure 1.13 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/Orlando/Orlando.htm

figure 1.14 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/newpits/pittsburgh.htm

figure 1.15 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/Phileas/Phileas.htm

figure 1.16 Embarq: http://www.embarq.org/en/node/28

figure 1.17 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/civis/civis.htm

1.2 | STATIONSfigure 1.21a http://www.bayareavision.org/corridors/spa/spa-plans.htm

figure 1.21b http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/mills.pdf

figure 1.21c http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/busway/busway-pics.htm

figure 1.21d http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-oct-the-ottawa-transitway-north-

americas-largest-busway-system

iii

l i s t o f f i g u r e s & figure source

[all figures, images, diagrams, charts, etc. are created by mayank patel, unless noted otherwise]

figure 1.22a Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (2004)

figure 1.22b Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (2004)

figure 1.22c Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (2004)

figure 1.23a http://www.mdot.state.md.us/Planning/Bus%20Rapid%20Transit/BRT%20

Components

figure 1.23b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/Vancouver/Vancouver.htm

figure 1.23c http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/mdt-5-03.pdf

figure 1.24a http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/la/la.htm

figure 1.24b http://www.wired.com/autopia/2007/09/rails-new-com-3/

figure 1.25a http://hundredyearshence.blogspot.com/2007/03/anything-they-can-do.html

figure 1.25b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/pitsgal/pittsburgh.htm

1.3 | VEHICLESfigure 1.31a http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/la/la.htm

figure 1.31b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/Denver/Denver.htm

figure 1.31c http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VIVA_5206_Newmarket.JPG

figure 1.31d http://www.metrostlouis.org/crossroads/metroExpansion.asp

figure 1.31e http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/10/brt-comes-out-ahead-of-light-rail-again/

figure 1.32a http://www.bristolstreets.co.uk/news/2009-02/bus-rapid-transit-bid-feb-09.php

figure 1.32b http://www.chinapage.com/transportation/brt/bjbrt.html

figure 1.32c http://allaboutbuses.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/world-debut-for-wrights-hybrid-

streetcar/

figure 1.33a http://www.metro.net/news_info/metroorangeline.htm

figure 1.33b http://www.chinapage.com/transportation/brt/bjbrt.html

figure 1.34a http://www.stvinc.com/project.aspx?id=184&i=1

figure 1.34b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/civis/civis.htm

figure 1.34c http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2211

iv

1.4 | SERVICEfigure 1.41a http://thecityfix.com/category/brt/

figure 1.41b http://www.urbanjacksonville.info/category/transit/

figure 1.42a http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/canadaline/index.htm

figure 1.42b http://www.i-595.com/improve.aspx

figure 1.42c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_(bus_rapid_transit)

1.5 | INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS)figure 1.51a http://lmr-mc-database.daap.uc.edu/brt2/what.php

figure 1.51b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/busway/busway-pics.htm

figure 1.51c http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/Vancouver/Vancouver.htm

figure 1.52a http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Research/Featured/111805/ITS-WOCO.html

figure 1.52b http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/vegas/maxset.htm

figure 1.52c http://www.fta.dot.gov/assistance/technology/research_4333.html

figure 1.53a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Downsview_Vivastation.jpg

figure 1.53b http://www.citytransport.info/Buses03.htm

figure 1.54a http://www.weatheredkings.com/downloads/directions.php

figure 1.54b http://www.citytransport.info/Buses03.htm

figure 1.54c http://www.service2media.com/home/news/5487

figure 1.54d Screen shot taken by Mayank Patel

figure 1.55a http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/vegas/maxset.htm

figure 1.55b http://www1.messeberlin.de/vip8_1/website/MesseBerlin/htdocs/www.innotrans.

de/en/Ausstellerservice/InnovationReport2008/index.jsp

v

chapter 2 | case studies

2.1 | CURITIBA, PANARA-BRAZILfigure 2.11 Curitiba, Brazil-BRT Case Study

figure 2.12 Curitiba, Brazil-BRT Case Study

figure 2.13 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wei/2087024782/in/photostream/

figure 2.14 http://www.embarq.org/en/city/curitiba-brazil


figure 2.16 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Bus_Stops_3_curitiba_brasil

figure 2.17 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bus_Stops_5_curitiba_brasil.jpg


2.2 | LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA-UNITED STATESfigure 2.21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orange_Line_Transitway_Map.png

figure 2.22 http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a-4.htm

figure 2.23 http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/TTC_BRT_Orange.htm

figure 2.24 http://laist.com/2007/08/27/metro_orange_line_bus.php

figure 2.25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nohostation.jpg

figure 2.26 Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit-The “Quickway” Model as a Mode

Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”

chapter 3 | lessons learned

3.1 | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTfigure 3.11 http://www.nbrti.org/Clevelandwrkshp.html

3.2 | COOPERATIVE PLANNING figure 3.12 http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-07-27/?status=301.html

3.3 | LONG-TERM VISION figure 3.13 http://interface-studio.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/10_potential-bus-rapid-

transit-960x564.jpg

vi

chapter 4 | design guidelines

4.1 | RUNNING WAYSfigure 4.11 http://www.nbrti.org/media/gallery/civis/civis.htm

figure 4.12 http://richmondva.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/more-on-richmond-transit-

improvements/

figure 4.13 http://english.sina.com/p/1/2008/0115/141848.html

figure 4.14 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/24/brt-rail-and-new-york-city-a-conversation-

with-walter-hook/

figure 4.15 http://richmondva.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/more-on-richmond-transit-

improvements/

figure 4.16 http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/26/brt-and-new-york-city-part-3-ingredients-of-

a-great-brt-corridor/

figure 4.17 http://english.sina.com/p/1/2008/0115/141848.html

figure 4.18 http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/press-releases/2008/jan/cyclists-

pedestrians-and-passengers-can-co- exist-on-shared-path.en

4.1 | STATION STOPS/SHELTERSfigure 4.21 http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2007-may-bus-rapid-tragedy-strikes-

again

figure 4.22 http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-07-27/?status=301.html

figure 4.23 Bus Rapid Transit-Stations & Shelters










vii

The advent of exponential global climate changes

and the energy crisis calls for extensive discussion regarding

the impact that civilization will leave on the planet. It is

clear that the world cannot afford to continue to blindly

embrace the idea of the “American Dream.” And those

of us who do dare dream it, awake to the bleak reality

of our circumstances. Change is overdue. Now, we must

take control of the reins and use our education to plan for

a healthier tomorrow.

Where do we begin? I argue we must start with

something that is embedded into the activities of everyday

life—transportation. The global economy depends on

the movement of people and goods from one location

to another. The ease at which people and goods are

transported is the hallmark of a developed state, thanks

to the “snap-of-the-finger” availability of fossil fuels. Our

effort to modify transportation systems and provide the

public with more transportation options can have a drastic

effect on our environment, which can ultimately lead to a

healthier lifestyle. If we can improve our form of mobility—

in all its aspects—we hold a better chance at minimizing

our ecological footprint, and potentially, prolonging the

lifespan of our planet. Stepping back to examine daily

urban activities we see a pattern that depends heavily

on transportation. It is safe to say that these activities are

the leading cause of climate change, and transportation

takes credit for being the largest energy user.

Reports, scientific findings, and statistics all

acknowledge that automobiles and other forms of

transportation are the leading contributors of green-house

gases (GHG), but we should also remember that vehicles

do not operate on their own (Chisholm-Smith, 2009). Today,

we witness car companies making an effort to create fuel-

efficient, “eco-friendly” cars in hopes of saying, “Look, we

can be green too!” But, that is not enough. If we really want

to help reduce GHG, we ought to step out of our cars and

hop onto a bus, ride a bike or simply walk. Unfortunately,

we are devoutly wedded to our cars. The automobile is

an enduring icon of the American culture; for that reason,

I feel Americans fear a change in their individual travel

behavior because it a) asks us to forgo certain luxuries

and b) requires us to build patience. The shift to a lifestyle

oriented around public transportation might be bumpy at

first, but once we learn the road, the ride is pleasurable.

ix

p r e f a c e

Individual travel behavior starts with planning,

policies, and design. Our decision of how much to drive,

where to drive, and when to drive is contingent on the

surrounding environment, available transportation

options, and land-use policies. It is rare to find individuals

who live, work, dine, shop, and recreate in close proximity.

New urbanism and smart growth principles promote

compact, mixed-use developments that fully integrate

pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities to better serve the

public. Adapting such models can serve as an incentive

for an environmentally conscious community. However

as Chisholm-Smith (2009) argues, if “funding policies favor

road capacity expansion and single-use development with

plentiful parking over compact mixed-use developments

and public transportation, then higher levels of single-

occupancy vehicle use are inevitable” (Chisholm-Smith,

2009, p. 2). As this report supports, there is a clear relation

between transportation and land use planning; proper

administration and coordination regarding the two can

channel positive results. Therefore, it is critical for planners,

designers, and legislature to work cohesively in order to

establish a well-functioning community.

Figure 01The push towards using public transportation as depicted by the

specialized logos and livery on a low-boarding BRT vehicle.

x

1

PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

i n t r o d u c t i o n

Sitting in traffic is not a picnic. During those

gruelinghours spent in traffic, Iwish teleportingwere

an option. Although such technology has yet to

be invented, we must tackle the problem of traffic

congestion in a creative, yet practical way using

the technology we possess today. Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) is a viable response to the problems we face

with traffic congestion. A well-designed BRT system

takes into consideration many variables including

populationgrowth,commuterdemands,ridersafety,

time efficiency, accessibility, and environmental

responsibility.

What exactly is BRT? The Transportation

ResearchBoarddefinesBRTas“a rubber-tired rapid-

transitmodethatcombinesstations,vehicles,services,

running ways, and Intelligent Transportation System

(ITS)elementsintoanintegratedsystemwithastrong

positiveidentitythatevokesauniqueimage”(Levinson,

et al., 2003, p. 9). The Federal Transit Administration

viewsBRTas“anenhancedbussystemthatoperates

onbuslanesorothertransitwaysinordertocombine

the flexibility of buses with the efficiency of rail”

(UnitedStatesDepartmentof Transportation, Federal

Transit Administration, 2008). Some even see BRT as

simply “light rail on rubber tires.” What is important

to note is that BRT donsmany definitions relative to

the individualdescribing it,be itaplanner,designer,

engineer,orpolitician.Forthepurposeofthisproject,

IgiveBRTatwo-folddefinition: A) Inpractice,BRT is

an efficient, cost-effective hybrid transit system that

incorporatesaspectsoflightrailandtheconventional

bus system while integrating technology, aesthetics,

efficiency, reliability,andconnectivity topedestrians

andbicyclists,andB) In theory,BRT isan impetus for

positive change towards remediating environmental

andsocialconditions.

ManyregardBRTasaforeignconceptanda

fairly recentphenomenon.However, the ideaofbus

rapid transit is not new. It just so happens that over

these past couple of decades, the idea of BRTwas

“re-discovered” and has induced new inspiration as

a result. The notion of using rubber-tired vehicles to

provide rapid transit service originated in the 1930s

(Levinson, et al., Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case

StudiesinBusRapidTransit,2003).TheCityofChicago

proposed rudimentary BRT plans in 1937 and others

cities like Washington D.C. and St. Louis developed

BRT plans in the mid-to-late 1950s. (Levinson, et al.,


BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY

what is bus rapid transit?

2

BusRapidTransit,Volume1:CaseStudiesinBusRapid

Transit, 2003). Even so, the first implementation of a

“BRT”occurredoutsideoftheU.S.

Asmentioned,theconceptsrevolvingaround

BRThavebeenaround formanyyears. Today, ideas

like express services, dedicated runningways, faster

traveltime,reduceddwellingtime,signalpriority,and

ITSareattheheartoftheBRTplanningandadvocacy.

Despite this shared vision, there is still uncertainty in

understandingofBRTintheplanningandtransportation

arena.Becauseofthatdisunity,thequestionof“what

isBRT?”becomesdifficulttoanswer.Inaddition,BRT’s

extensive nature and malleability to its surroundings

addstothedifficultyofprovidingjustonedefinition.


INTRODUCTION|WHATISBUSRAPIDTRANSIT?

3

5


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS

c h a p t e r 1 | m a j o r e l e m e n t s

TheidentityandqualityofBRTisatthemercy

ofahandfulofelementswhichencouragetherapid

aspectofrapidtransit.Authoritieslistalittlelessthan

a dozen elements, however, for the purpose of this

project, I focus on five elements that I see as most

important. Below, I discuss the five major elements

(seeDiagram1) that increasethe favorabilityofBRT.

Theinformationcomesfromanumberofsourcessuch

as the Transportation Research Board (http://www.

trb.org/default.asp), Federal Transit Administration

(http://www.fta.dot.gov/research_4240.html), and

theNational BRT Institute (http://www.nbrti.org/). But

theprimary source Iuse toexplain the information is

the Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-

Making,compiledbyRoderickB.Diazandteam.

Youwillfindthatsomeoftheareas intertwine

both descriptions and suggestions/guidelines.

However,Chapter3onlyprovidesasetofguidelines.

Althoughallfiveelementsarecrucialtotheprinciple

and practice of BRT, designers may prioritize them

differently. I examine these elements as a designer,

thus some elements are discussed in greater length

morethanothers.

Diagram 1: Five Major BRT ElementsAllfiveelementsneedtoworktogetherinorderforBRTtofunction

asasuccessfulunit.

*NOTE: For a quick and complete overview, please refer to the following page, which shows the network of BRT elements.

1

1. RUNNING WAYS

2. STATIONS 2. STATIONS

3. VEHICLES 3. VEHICLES

4. SERVICES

5. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM (ITS)

1. RUNNING WAYS

2. STATIONS 2. STATIONS 4. SERVICES

5. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM (ITS)


BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY

6

t h e f i v e e l e m e n t s

ELEMENTS OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Running Ways

Stations

Platform Height

Standard Curb

Raised Curb

Level Platform

Platform LayoutExtended Platform with Un-Assigned Berths

Single Vehicle Lenght Platform

Extended Platform with Assigned Berths

Passing CapabilityBus Pull Outs

Passing Lanes Station AccessPedestrian Linkage

Park & Ride Facility

Station Type

Simple Stop

Enhanced Stop

Designated StationInternational Terminal/Transit Center

VehiclesVehicle Configuration

Conventional Standard

Stylized StandardConventional Articulated

Stylized ArticulatedSpecialized BRT Vehicles

Aesthetic Enhancement

Specilized Logo

Enahnced Lighting

Enhanced Interior Amenity

Passenger Cirulation EnhancementAlternative Seat Layout

Additional Door Channels

Propulsion

Internal Combustion Engines

Trolly, Dual Mode, & Thermal-electric Drives

Hybrid-electric Drives

Services

Route Length

Route Structure

Single Route

Overlapping Route

Integrated/Network System

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Vehicle Prioritization

Signal Timig/Phasing

Station & Lane Access Control

Transit Signal Priority

Assit & Automation Technology

Collision Avoidance/Warning

Precision Docking

Vehicle Guidance

Fare Collection

Passenger Information

Tavel Information At Stations

Traveler Information on TravelerTraveler Information on PersonTrip Itenery Planning

Safety & Security Silent AlarmsVoice & Video Monitoring

Lateral Guidance

Mechanical Guidance

Electromagnetic Guidance

Optical Guidance

Running Way Marking

Signage & Striping

Raised Curb Delineators

Alternative Pavement Color/Texture

Degree of Segregation

Mixed-Flow Lane

Designated Arterial Lanes

At-Grade Transitways

Fully-Grade Separated Exclusive Transitways

Service Span

Service Frequency

All Day Service

Peak Hour Service

Automobilesdependonroadways.Railtransit

systems depend on tracks. What does BRT depend

on?Theanswerisrunningways.Runningwaysareone

ofthemostdistinguishingandexpensiveelementsof

BRT.Aspectssuchasreliability,travelspeeds,andthe

identityof BRTheavily relyon runningways.Running

ways should attempt to avert interference from the

general traffic bymarking a strong, clear presence.

Theprimarypurposeofa runningway is toestablish

an environment free of delays (Levinson, et al.,

Implementation Guidelines, 2003). There are three

primarycharacteristicstorunningways:1)degreeof

segregation, 2) running waymarking, and 3) lateral

guidance (Diaz, et al., 2004). The Characteristics of

Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (CBRT) report

discusses the threecharacteristics in great length.A

summaryisshownbelow.

CHARACTERISTIC 1: DEGREE OF SEGREGATION

TheseparationbetweenregulartrafficandBRT

vehicles significantly impacts the success, reliability,

and favorability of BRT. However, separation is not

mandatory.AmarketabletraitofBRTliesinthenumber

ofoptionsregardingitsrunningwaystypes.Decision-

makers have the freedom to choose what is most

appropriatebasedontheirfinancialcapacity,general

plan guidelines, potential development opportunity,

demand,feasibility,andconstituentapproval.Typical

BRT runningwayoptions consist ofmixed-flow lanes,

designated arterial lanes, at-grade transitways, and

fully grade-separated exclusive transitways (Diaz, et

al.,2004).

Option 1: Mixed-Flow Lanes

Type A- Unimproved mixed-flow lanes

WewitnessandexperiencetypeAonaday-

to-daybasis. This typeofmixed-flow lane is themost

elementaryformofaBRTrunningway.Duetothelack

of recognizable segregation between regular traffic

and BRT vehicles, travel delays, and perhaps even

congestion,areinevitable.

Type B- Improved mixed-flow lanes consisting

of queue jumpers

Aqueuejumperis“adesignatedlanesegment

or traffic signal treatment at signalized locations or

otherlocationswheretrafficbacksup.Transitvehicles

use this lane segment to bypass traffic queues (i.e.,

trafficbackups).Aqueuejumpermayormaynotbe


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.1RUNNINGWAYS

7

1 . 1 | r u n n i n g w a y s

sharedwithturningtraffic”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.254).

Typically,queuejumpersworkbestinthecompanyof

signalpriority.ThiscombinationgrantsBRTvehicleswith

access through intersections prior to other vehicles

with thehelpof special signals. Incorporatingqueue

jumpers does not necessarily eliminatedelays, but it

definitelyreducestraveltimethroughbusyintersections

duringpeakhours.Iffacedwithalimitedbudget,this

option isbeneficialbecause itallowsBRTvehicles to

bypasscongestedareas.

Option 2: Designated Arterial Lanes

Designated BRT lanes may be a better

alternative to mixed-flow lanes when circumstances

permit. This option works especially well in corridors

that house existing arterial roadways. Designated

arterial lanesprohibitnon-BRTvehiclesfromusingthe

BRTassigned lane.However, thequestionof,“how is

this regulated”arises. Thereareacoupleofways to

enforcethisscheme.Thefirstiswithbarriers(concrete,

or otherwise). And the second is to have police

monitorandcite violators. However, the FTA reports

afewcaseswherespecifiedclassesofvehicleshave

been allowed to share the lane with BRT vehicles.

AllocatingdesignatedlanesforBRTvehiclesisofutmost

importance.Lane(s)dedicatedtoBRTvehiclesnotonly

helpreducetraveltime,buttheyavoidcongestion.As

aresult,theoverallreliabilityofBRTstrengthens.



8

Figure 1.11: Mixed Flow Traffic Lane in China

Figure 1.12: Designated Arterial Lanes

Option 3: At-Grade Transitways

At-gradetransitwayscallforroadwaysexclusive

to BRT vehicles and that is what makes this option

costly. But, if new development or the construction

ofinfrastructureisoutonthehorizon,citiesmaywant

to take advantage of the opportunity to integrate

transitways intothoseparticularplans.However, ifno

suchplansare inplay, if budgetconstraints exist, or

ifright-of-wayscanonlyaccommodateforacertain

amount of space, modifications can be made. For

instance,abi-directionallanecanbeagreatsubstitute

forastandardlaneonatransitway(Diaz,etal.,2004).

A bi-directional lane is a single lane that supports

BRT vehicles traveling in either direction. This works

essentially in thesamefashionasastandard laneat

lowfrequencies.Athigherfrequencies,“sophisticated

signal systems and coordinated schedule may be

required to ensure safe and unimpeded operation

of BRT vehicles” (Diaz, et al., 2004, p. 47). At-grade

transitways significantly increase speed and safety

sincebarriers/markingsdonotallowthegeneraltraffic

topenetrateintothetransitway.This,inturn,reassures

the reliabilityofBRT service. Thoughabitpricey,at-

gradetransitwaysareawonderfulassetforBRT.

Option 4: Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways

Thisisthemostexpensivemeasurebecauseit

offers thegreatestdegreeandmostdistinct levelof

separation. Usually, fully grade-separated exclusive

transitways take one of two forms: stand-alone

transitways or transitways onmajor freeways. Stand-

alone transitways can evolve from unused railroad

tracks. That is, cities can utilize space occupied by

idle railways to instate BRT transitways to savecosts.

Transitwaysonmajorfreewayscanrunparalleltothe

freeway,alongthemedian,onelevatedstructures,or

underground.Areasthatexperiencehighfrequencies

mayrequiremultiplelanestoincreasecapacityand/



9

Figure 1.13 At-Grade Transitway in Orlando

orallowotherBRTvehiclestopass.Exclusivetransitways

ensure thegreatestdegreeof safetyalongwith the

mostreliableandfastesttraveltime.

CHARACTERISTICS 2: RUNNING WAY MARKING

Running way markings indicate the travel

pathofBRTvehicles. Theirprimarypurpose is tohelp

commuters, other vehicles, and the general public

identify where BRT services operate. Running way

markings can be expressed in a variety of ways

including “pavement markings, lane delineators,

alternate pavement texture, alternate pavement

color,andseparate rights-ofways”(Diaz,etal.,2004,

p.45).However,therearethreedominanttechniques

forrunningwaymarkings:signageandstriping,raised

lane delineators, and alternate pavement color/

texture.

Technique 1:Signage and Striping

Thisismostbasicofrunningwaymarkings.This

technique uses “diamond” shaped symbols to avert

thegeneraltrafficfromusingtheBRTservicelane.For

majorstreets/arterials,signageatinteractionsisanice

waytodifferentiateBRTlanesfromregulartrafficlanes.



10

Figure 1.14: Grade-Separated Transitways in Pittsburgh

Figure 1.15: Simple Signage & Striping in Phileas

Technique 2: Raised Lane Delineators

Bumps,bollards,coloredline,orraisedcurbsall

representaformofdelineators.

Technique 3: Alternate Pavement Color/Texture

Theapplicationofcoloredortexturedasphalt

servesas themostconspicuousmeans todistinguish

adifferencebetweengeneraltrafficandBRTservice

lanes. Therefore, this technique further reduces

potential conflicts between BRT vehicles and the

generaltraffic.



11

Figure 1.16: Raised Lane Delineators in Mexico City Figure 1.17: Alternative Pavement Color

CHARACTERISTIC 3: LATERAL GUIDANCE

Lateral guidance “controls side-to-side

movementofvehiclesalongtherunningwaysimilarto

howatrackdefineswhereatrainoperates”(Diaz,et

al.,2004,p.49).MostBRTservicesrelyonanindividual

tooperateandsteerthevehicle.Nonetheless,where

needsanddesiresaredifferent, theoptionof lateral

guidance is taken into consideration. Although later

guidanceiscostly, itallowsforno-stepboardingand

alighting,reducesright-of-wayrequirements,provides

smoother rides, and facilitates “precision-docking”

at stations (Diaz, et al., 2004). The type of lateral

guidancecorrespondstothetechnologybeingused,

sodependingonthetechnology,theguidancetype

canbemechanical,electromagnetic,oroptical.

Type 1: Mechanical Guidance

AsdefinedbyCBRT(2004):

Mechanical guidance requires the highest runningwayinvestmentofallguidanceoptions,butthelowestrequirementforcomplexvehiclesystems.Vehiclesareguided by a physical connection from the runningwaytothevehiclesteeringmechanism,suchasasteelwheelonthevehiclefollowingacenterrail,arubberguide wheel following a raised curb, or the normalvehicle front wheels following a specifically profiledgutter next to stationplatforms (Diaz, etal., 2004,p.49).

Type 2: Optical Guidance


Optical guidance systems involve special opticalsensorsonthevehiclesthatreadamarkerplacedonthepavementtodelineatepathofthevehicle.Inthisguidance option, the only runningway requirementis tohave largedouble striped lines in thecenteroftherespectivelanes.Complexelectronic/mechanicalsystems are required for each vehicle (Diaz, et al.,2004,p.49).

Essentially, optical guidance involves the use

of vision cameras to “read” and recognize painted

surfacesinordertokeepthevehicleswithinbounds.

Type 3: Electromagnetic Guidance


Electromagneticguidanceinvolvestheplacementofelectric ormagneticmarkers in the pavement suchasanelectro-magnetic inductionwireorpermanentmagnetsinthepavement.Sensorsinthevehiclereadthesemarkerstodirectthepathofthevehicle.Thistypeof guidance requires significant advanced planninginorder toembed themarkersunder thepavement(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.49).



12

StationsinfluencehowindividualsperceiveBRT

andpublictransitsystemsingeneral.Becausestations

and their components represent the public face of

BRT,theirdesigncallsforcloseattention.Thepurpose

ofBRTstationsistobolsterconnectivityamongtheBRT

system itself, itscustomers,andother formsofpublic

transportation. Spacing between stations can vary

greatly,andisaffectedbythetypeofrunningwayand

the context. For instance, spacing between stations

on a freeway or busway can range from 2,240ft. to

5,540ft.;alonganarterialstreetormajorcorridoritcan

rangefrom1,000ft.to4,000ft.(Levinson,etal.,BusRapid

Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit,

2003). Typically, the spacing between BRT stations is

greater than that of conventional bus stations. The

Transportation Research Board recommends greater

distancebetweenstationsinordertolimittheamount

ofstopsrequired.Oneconsequenceofhavinglimited

stopsisgreaterconcentrationofpassengersatthose

particularstations.Thecombinationoflongerdistance

betweenstopsandlimitedamountofstationsprevents

delays and allows vehicles to maintain high travel

speedsbetweenstationsmoreconsistently.Fasttravel

time is emphasized in order to compensate for the

timerequiredtowalkordrivetotransitstations(Diaz,

etal.,2004).

Inaddition, stationsalsooffer theopportunity

todesignBRTwaitingareas such that their identity is

distinguishedfromothermeansoftransportation.This

isaccomplishedbydesignatingathemeandpalette

ofcolorandmaterialsthatbothstationsandrunning

wayfurnishingsadhereto.Whileresearchtellsusthat

station design clearly affects the aesthetics of the

environment, italso impacts itsuserspsychologically.

Therefore, it is in the best interest to install weather-

protectedwaitingareaswithseatingthatcreatesan

ambiance of comfort and safety.More importantly,

whileitisadvisedtoestablishawell-defined,consistent

identityforBRT,itiscrucialthatBRTstationscorrespond

to the larger urban fabric. Cautious integration of

BRT into the urban realm initiates the opportunity to

enhance the streetscape. Decision-makers can also

take advantage of proposing greenbelts or trails,

which connect to BRT services. Successful stations

demandahigh-qualitydesigncoupledwithqualitative

amenities. Both the Transportation Research Board

and the Federal Transit Administration recommend

addressingahandfulofaspectswhendesigningBRT


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.2STATIONS

13

1 . 2 | s t a t i o n s

stations.Theyare:1) stationtype,2)platformheight,

3)platformlayout,4)passingcapability,5)andstation

access.

STATION TYPE

Forthemostpart,BRTservesmajorarterialsor

demandingcorridorsandthenumberofstopsonthe

route is limited. Giventhe limitedamountofstops, it

makessensethatthenumberofcustomersusingeach

stopwouldbeconsiderablyhigherthanaconventional

busstop.AccordingtotheCBRTreport,BRTstopscan

rangefrom“simplestopswithwell-litbasicsheltersto

complex intermodal terminalswithamenitiessuchas

real time passenger information, newspaper kiosks,

coffee bars, parking, pass/ticket sales and level

boarding”(Levinson,etal.,ImplementationGuidelines,

2003,p.55).Figures1.21A-1.21Dhighlightthedifferent

classificationofstopsasmentionedbyCBRT.



14

Figure 1.21B: Enhanced StopInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Busstopsdesignedtoholddistinctidentityandstandoutamongstothertransitstops

• Enhancedsheltersequippedwithhigh-qualityfinishesandbettermaterials,oftenglassorsomeformoftransparentmaterial

• Amenitiesconsistofseating,lighting,payphones,trashcans,etc.

Figure 1.21A: Simple StopInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Mostbasic,“off-the-shelf,”typeofstop• Offerspassengersashelteredwaitingarea• Leastamountofamenities



15

Figure 1.21D: Transit CenterInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Mostcomplexandcostlystationtype• Providesahostofamenities• AccommodatestransfersfromBRTservicestoformsofpublic

transportationsuchas,railtransitandlocalorinner-citybusservices

Figure 1.21C: Designated StationInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Formsconnectionbetweenplatformswheregradeseparatedrunwaysoccur

• Includeslevelpassengerboardingandalighting• Amenitiesrangefromretailservicetopassengerinformation• Ridershipdictatesthesizeofthestationandscopeofservices

offered

PLATFORM HEIGHT

Platform height plays a vital role in the

accessibilityofpassengers,especially thosewhoare

mobility-impaired. Traditionally, passengers board

vehiclesbyclimbingthestepsofthevehicle.Recently,

however, vehicles that require steps to board have

become practically obsolete. Instead, a huge shift

towards adopting low-level/floor-level vehicles is in

placeinordertomakeboardingeasierforpassengers.

The CBRT (2004) notes that if the platform height

matches the vehicle’s floor height, a reduction in

dwell times is likely. It is safe toassumethat the“no-

gap,no-step”principlewillalsoincreasethesafetyof

passengerswhenboardingthevehicle.Figures1.22A,

1.22B,and1.22Cprovideavisualofplatformheights.



16

Figure 1.22A: Standard CurbInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Causesverticalgapbetweenstationplatformandfloor/entrystepofvehicle

• Requirespassengerstousestepsinordertoboardorexitthevehicle

• Standardcurbsareusedwhenthestationright-of-waycannotbealtered



17

Figure 1.22B: Raised CurbInformationbelowbasedisonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Closesinontheverticalgapbetweenstationplatformandvehiclefloor/step

• Raisedcurbshouldnotbemorethan10”abovetheBRTrunningwayorthearterialstreetonwhichBRToperates

• Preferredtreatmentoverstandardcurb

Figure 1.22C: Level PlatformInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Safest,easiest,mostefficientmethodforcustomerboarding• Approximately14”abovethepavementforlowflooring

vehicles• Idealtreatmentbecauseitcreatesaseamlesstransitionfor

passengers

PLATFORM LAYOUT

Platformlayouthelpsaccomplishacoupleof

things.First,ithelpsidentifywhereandhowpassengers

are to arrange themselves in order to board the

vehicle. Second, platform layout represents the

berthingarea for vehicles. The length andextent of

platforms depends on the volumeof buses and the

lengthofthebus.Thus,platformlayoutdesigncontrols

how many vehicles (simultaneously) can serve one

particular stop. Please refer to Figures 1.23A, 1.23B,

and1.23Cforplatformlayouttypes.



18

Figure 1.23A: Single Vehicle Length PlatformInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• MinimumlengththatallowsBRTvehiclestoenter/exitoneatatime

Figure 1.23B: Extended Platform Without Assigned BerthsInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• AccommodatenolessthantwoBRTvehicles• AllowmultipleBRTvehiclestoload/unloadpassengers--

simultaneously

Figure 1.23C: Single Vehicle LengthInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Reapsthesamebenefitsastheextendedplatformwithoutassignedberths

• AssignsBRTvehiclesaberthingpositionbasedonspecificroutesthebusesrun

• Longestplatformlayoutoption

PASSING CAPABILITY

Passing capability plays an integral role in

reducingdelays.Theimplementationofpassinglanes

maximizestravelspeedandreducesdelays,namelyat

stationpoints.Passing lanesareespecially important

wherethereisahighfrequencyofvehiclesandwhere

travel times fluctuate immensely. Passing lanes are

alsoimportantwheremultipletypesofroutessharea

commonrunningway.AccordingtotheCBRTreport,

passingcapabilitiescanbeintegratedinseveralways.

Figure1.24Aand1.24Billustratethesemeasures.



19

Figure 1.24A: Bull PulloutsInformationbelowbasedisonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Permitsbusestopulloverandstopatstationswithoutblockingtherunningway

• Enablesothervehiclestopass

Figure 1.24B: Passing Lanes at StationsInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Allowsexpressservicevehiclestopassthroughstationswithoutreducingtheirspeed

• Givesvehiclesthefreedomtopass/overtakeparkedvehicles

STATION ACCESS

Station access translates into ridership. If

access to BRT services is poor, chancesare ridership

willbelowtoo.Thus,accesscorrelateswithpassenger

use. Depending on the marketing strategy and

whom decision makers wish to target, access can

be geared towards the local community, or it can

try to capture the regional population. Land uses

adjacenttoBRTservicewillhelpestablishwhereand

howtoformpedestrianconnections.Landuseshould

alsobeanalyzed todetermine the formandextent

ofparkingfacilities.Makingsureparking isofferedat

the appropriate locations (stations) can save travel

time for customers. As summarized in Figures 1.25A

and 1.25B, the Transportation Research Board and

theCBRT report focuson two stationaccessoptions

in particular: pedestrian linkages and park-and-ride

facilities.



20

Figure 1.25B: Park & Ride FacilitiesInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• ParkandridefacilitiesallowBRTtoextenditsserviceataregionallevel

• Especiallybeneficialtostationsthatarenotanchoredarounddevelopedareas;parkandridewillhelpattractpassengersfromoutsidelocations

Figure 1.25A: Pedestrian LinkagesInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Sidewalks,overpassesandotherformsofpedestrianconnectionsareimportanttoBRTservicesandadjacentuses

Theprocessofvehicleselectionshouldnotbe

desultory.Vehiclesnotonlyimpacttheattractiveness

of BRT services, but theyalso impact operatingand

maintenancecosts.Themostsubstantialreasontobe

selective towards vehicles is their ability to influence

public perception of BRT. Reports state that if the

public perceives BRT positively, ridership is likely to

increase.Thus,publicperceptionofBRTandridership

has a direct correlation. It is also important to note

thatvehiclesmakean impressiononboth,usersand

non-users(orpotentialcustomers).And,fornon-users,

vehiclesarethemostvisibleofallBRTelements(Diaz,

etal.,2004).

BRTvehiclesshouldalsorespecttheenvironment

in termsofemissions.Ensuring fast travel speedsand

avoidingdelayshelpsachieve this. For instance, the

lesstimeavehicleremains“stuck”onarunningway

(e.g.,intrafficcongestion,orexperiencingdelays),the

lesspollutantsitemitsintotheatmosphere.Oneofthe

core ideasbehindBRT is toprovidefrequentservice.

Toupholdthataim,sometransitwayshaveasmanyas

150-200BRTvehiclesservicingcertainroutesorsections

perhour(Levinson,etal.,ImplementationGuidelines,

2003).This ismoreoftenthecaseforcentralbusiness

districts.Thattypeofhighfrequencydemandsspecial

measurestomaintainlowlevelsofemissionandnoise.

Thiscanbecomeagreatdifficulty,butbothEuropean

andAmericanmanufacturershavetakenresponsibility

to design vehicles that will have a softer touch on

the environment (Levinson, et al., Implementation

Guidelines,2003).

Vehicle noise, vibrations, “grooming,”

aesthetics, cleanliness, maintenance state, and

emission levels should also be taken into great

consideration. It is safe to assume that passengers

spendamajorityoftheirtimeonvehicles(compared

to the restof theBRTelements). For that reason, it is

criticalthatBRTvehiclesaddressandmeetpassenger

needsatareasonablelevel.Below,Iexaminethetop

fourcharacteristics(assuggestedbytheCBRTreport)

that make for sound BRT vehicles. They are vehicle

configuration, aesthetic enhancement, passenger

circulationenhancement,andpropulsionsystems.


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.3VEHICLES

21

1 . 3 | v e h i c l e s

VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

Vehicleconfigurationincludestheshape,size,

and type of a bus; it defines the physical structure

of a BRT vehicle. Vehicle configuration can vary,

dependingon the typeofmarketbeingcatered to.

Things such as demand, ridership, and frequency

canguidevehiclechoice.Forthemostpart,BRTbus

lengths comes in two-options: 40ft-45ft, which is the

mostcommonoption,anda60footarticulatedbus,

whichisusedforrouteswithgoodpatronage(Kittelson

&Associates, Inc.; Herbert S. Levinson Transportation

Consultants; DMJM+Harris, 2007). Other sizes include

30-35 feet buses that serve as feeder buses, and

someas largeas80 feet,whicharecoineddouble-

articulatedbuses. TheflexibilityofBRTmakes iteasy

to switch between bus sizes (if or when necessary).

Figures1.31Athrough1.31Eillustratethedifferenttypes

ofvehicleconfiguration.



22

Figure 1.31A: Conventional StandardInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• 40-45’inlength,andpossessa“boxy/squarish”shape• Lowfloors,14”abovepavement• Consistsof2doors&adeployableADAramp• Capacity:40’Bus:35-44sitting,50-60sitting/standing;45’Bus-

32-52sitting,60-70sitting/standing

Figure 1.31B: Stylized StandardInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• 40-45’inlength,andpossessamodern/aerodynamicdesign• Lowfloors,14”abovepavement• Consistsof2doors&adeployableADAramp• Capacity:40’Bus:35-44sitting,50-60sitting/standing;45’Bus-

32-52sitting,60-70sitting/standing



23

Figure 1.31C: Conventional ArticulatedInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Longerinlength• Consistsof2-3doors• Highercarryingcapacity;upto50%more;holdsanywhere

from31-65people(80-90sitting&standing)dependingontheamountofdoors

Figure 1.31D: Stylized ArticulatedInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Longinlengthlikeconventionalarticulated• Hasatleast3doors• Low-levelboardingwith2doublestream&quickdeploy

ramps• Modern,sleekdesignaimstocutdwellingtimes

Figure 1.31E: Specialized BRT VehiclesInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Designstrivestoemulaterailvehicleswithamodern,aerodynamicbody&structure

• Employssophisticatedpropulsionsystems&incorporatesadvancetechnology

AESTHETIC ENHANCEMENT

As stated earlier, aesthetic enhancement is

integraltoincreasingridership.Aestheticenhancement

requires the “beautification” of BRT vehicles in terms

of their physical structure. A modern and futuristic

body type is highlyencouraged. In somecases, the

front end of the bus is configured to resemble rail

vehicleswiththeapplicationofcone-shapeddesign.

The interior design of buses demands just as much

attention. It is beneficial to include large-frameless-

windows in order tomaximize light and visibility. On

the other hand, sun guards and/or tinted windows

will keep the sun off the eyes andprovidea cooler

ride.Other ideas includecomfortable seatingwitha

high back design, small, foldable worktables, wider

aisles,addedlegroom,andawell-litinterior(Kittelson

&Associates, Inc.; Herbert S. Levinson Transportation

Consultants;DMJM+Harris,2007).Overall,highquality

materials and finishes balanced with nice amenities

willgeneratea lotofpassengerappreciation.Figure

1.32A,1.32B,and1.33Cemphasize severalmeasures

thatleadtoaestheticenhancement.



24

Figure 1.32A: Specialized Logo & LiveryInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Usedtoestablishuniqueidentityrecognizablebythepublic• Usesspecialcolors,materials,logos,andthemestocreatea

“positiveimage”

Figure 1.32B: Enhanced LightingInformationbelowbasedisonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Objective:enhancefeelingofsecurity;provideanopenatmosphere

• Method:Providelargewindowsandamplelightingtoseeinandoutofthevehicle

PASSENGER CIRCULATION ENHANCEMENT

Passenger circulation can either boost or limit

the aesthetics of a BRT vehicle. Implementing a design

that proposes wider door channels, additional doors,

seating space, and sufficient space for wheelchairs to

maneuver and secure themselves, are key provisions

to make. More specifically, it is better to apply an

alternative seating arrangement scheme. Although

seating along the length of the bus (perpendicular to

the aisle) offers greater carrying capacity, variation

is appreciated and beneficial. Gaps, breakage, and

diversity of orientation between seats maintain, or

perhaps even increase, the comfort level of passengers.

In fact, psychology studies show that face-to-face

interaction is avoided in crowded situations. If this is

true, individuals are more likely to stand perpendicular

to one another on a bus, especially when it is crowded.

Figures 1.33A and 1.33B shows examples of alternative

seat layout and additional door channels respectively.


CHAPTER 1 | MAJOR ELEMENTS | 1.3 VEHICLES

25

Figure 1.32C: Enhanced Interior AmenitiesInformation below is based on the data contained in CBRT (2004).

• Provides comfortable seating and storage space with high-quality materials and finishes

• Better construction with abundant lighting

Figure 1.33A: Alternative Seat LayoutInformation below is based on the data contained in CBRT (2004).

• Seating along the side of a bus increases aisle space• Gives the impression of a larger, more open space• Side layout of seating allows for more standing space; thus

more passengers

PROPULSION SYSTEM

Propulsion systemscancome inanumberof

varieties.Theycontrolaspectslikespeed,acceleration

ability, fuel consumption, and most importantly,

emissions.Propulsionsystemscanbeavaluableasset

forpassengers,butareoftenoverlookedbyindividuals

because of their complexity and hidden presence.

Theimportanceofqualitypropulsionsystemsisrealized

oncethepubliclearnsthatpropulsionsystemscontrol

thelevelofvehiclenoise,smoothnessofride,vehicle

operation and maintenance costs, and of course,

reliability.Thetypeofpropulsionsystem(Figures1.34A

through1.34C)adoptedwilldeterminenotonlyBRT’s

reliability and dwell times, but also the comfort and

experienceofitspassengers.



26

Figure 1.33B: Additional Door ChannelsInformation below is based on the data contained in CBRT (2004).

• Decreasesdelays• Passengershavemultipleoptionsofalighting• BoardingincreasesBRTflexibility,dependingonthetypeof

running-way



27

Figure 1.34A: Internal Combustion EngineInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Mostcommonformofpropulsionsystem• Fueledbyultra-low-sulferdiesel(USLD)/compressednatural

gas(CNG)withautomatictransmission

Figure 1.34C: Hybrid Electric DrivesInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Reducesemissionsbyofferingbetterfuelusage(savesupto60%)

• Incorporateson-boardenergysystem• Providesasmootherride,withquickeraccelerationand

“efficient”braking

Figure 1.34B: Trolly, Dual Mode, & Thermal Electric DrivesInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Usesoverheadcatenary-deliveredpowertofunction• UsuallyusedintunnelBRTsystems

Theamountandqualityofservicessignificantly

impactcustomerapproval.TheroleofBRTservices is

toeffectivelymovepassengers fromonedestination

toanother. That iswhy it is important forBRT tooffer

frequent, direct, and distinct services. Marketing

strategies should depict BRT as a distinguished form

of transportation that provides its passengers with

properamenitiesandexcellent service.At the same

time, decision makers should not hesitate to shape

marketingtacticsthattrytoadapttoanyadditional

or special constituent demands. The flexibility of BRT

permits service plans to meet the specific needs of

each BRT environment and the variety in the public

desires.AmajoradvantageforBRTserviceisitsabilityto

offer“one-seatrides”(Levinson,etal.,Implementation

Guidelines, 2003). Thismeans that unlike rail systems,

BRTdoesnotservelargeunits,whichmakesiteasierfor

BRTservicestoprovidefrequenttripsthathaveminimal

transferrequirements.Below,wetakealookatroute

frequency, span, length and structure, the primary

characteristics that make BRT services comfortable

and convenient, rapid and reliable, and safe and

secure.

ROUTE LENGTH

Route length informs passengers how far BRT

extends its service. It also tells them whether or not

transferring at specific stations is necessary. Market

demands and the urban context influence route

length, therefore route lengths may vary across

differentareas.TheFTArecommendsthatlongroutes

shouldbeavoidedbecauselongroutesrequiremore

capital, but they also reduce transfer rates. On the

other hand, short routes increase reliability but also

increase the amount of transfers required. Before

constructing routes, it is important to compare the

difference in distance between regular roadways

andBRT runningways.ThedistanceofaBRT running

wayshouldnotexceedmorethan20%oftheregular

roadwaysonwhichautomobilesoperate.Forinstance,

ifacarandbusaretravelingfromthesamelocation

(pointA)toreachthesamedestination(pointB),the

bus running way should not be significantly longer.

Round-trips should takeabout twohours, but should

definitely not exceed three hours (Levinson, et al.,

ImplementationGuidelines,2003).Routesthatadhere

tothatrecommendationrangefrom10-20miles.



28

1 . 4 s e r v i c e s

SERVICE FREQUENCY

Service frequency conveys waiting time. It

tellspassengers how longor little theyhave towait.

Usually,frequencyisdeterminedbythecontextalong

andaroundwhereBRToperates,meaningareassuch

as central business districts will tend to have higher

frequencies than residential areas. Moreover, higher

frequencies give the impression of a more reliable

service(Diaz,etal.,2004).

SERVICE SPAN

Service spanmeans the range of hours that

BRToperatesand is used to inform thepublicwhen

and how long BRT operates. The services can run

eitheroneoftwoways:alldayorpeakhoursonly(see

Figures1.41A&1.41B).Thetargetedmarketisagood

indicatorofwhattypeofservicespantoapply.Peak

hourservicemight limit theamountof ridership,as it

willnotconsiderpassengerswhomightuseBRTbefore

orafterpeakhours(e.g.,individualswhoworkswingor

graveyardshifts).Ontheotherhand,alldayservices

donotdiscriminateagainstvaryingschedules,thusall

dayservicesmightattractmorepassengers.


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.4SERVICES

29

Figure 1.41A: All Day ServiceInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Runsallday,frommorningtoevening(eveninghourscanvary)

• Maintainssameheadways,irrespectiveoftimeofday• Beneficialtoofferweekendservices

Figure 1.41B: Peak Hour ServiceInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Offershighquality&highcapacityserviceonlyduringpeakhours

• Regularservicemaytakeplaceduringoff-peakhours

ROUTE STRUCTURE

Routestructureentailstheactualconfiguration

of the routeand theshapeand formof thepathof

travel. The more clear and direct a route structure

is, the easier it is for passengers to comprehend the

service. Successful BRT routes are structured to run

throughtheheartofurbanareassuchasdowntown,

business districts, and commercial districts. Simple,

linearroutesusuallyworkthebest.Thefollowingfigures

depictthedifferenttypesofroutestructure.



30

Figure 1.42B: Overlapping Route with Express ServiceInformation below is based on the data contained in CBRT (2004).

• Advantageofexpressorskip-stopservice• Worksbestwithpassinglanesatstations• Maybeconfusingforpassengers

Figure 1.42C: Integrated or Network SystemInformationbelowbasedisonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Mostcomprehensiveroutestructure• Mostlikelytoprovide“one-seatride,”butalsolikelytocause

confusionwiththehierarchyofsystems

Figure 1.42A: Single RouteInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Simplestandeasiesttounderstand• Worksbestalongmajorcorridorsthathavehighactivity

Intelligent transportation system has a very

broadspectrumandisusedacrossavarietyoffields.

However,forthepurposeofthisproject,weexamine

ITSintermsofitsrelationtoBRT.OfthefivemajorBRT

elements, I find intelligent transportation systems

(ITS) to be the most intriguing. Although aspects of

it are complicatedand technical, it fosters theway

BRT functions. I feel ITS is theelement that gives BRT

amodern, sophisticated look; it is the “icing on the

cake.” The goal of BRT is to provide fast, reliable,

and convenient service that is comfortable and

easily comprehended by passengers; BRT utilizes ITS

to accomplish that goal. The integration of ITS into

BRT accommodates a number of useful things. For

instance, ITS is very useful to chart the location and

timingofbuses,monitorvehiclestoensuresafetyand

security,andexpeditetraveltime.Howexactlydoes

ITS work? Well, first, ITS uses complex technological

systems to gather and process information. It then

transmits the data to dedicated communication

networks/servers, which then relay the information

back tooperatingagencies, vehicle operators, and

mostimportantly,passengers(Diaz,etal.,2004).Itmay

beeasier to thinkof ITSasa toolboxandthevariety

of technologies thatmake up ITS as the tools inside

that toolbox. Decision makers then have an option

ofwhichtool(s)tochooseinordertoconstructaBRT

system that best meets their needs. However, some

“tools”areusedmorefrequentlythanothersandwe

explorethosetoolsbelow.Thelistincludes:automatic

vehicle location, vehicle prioritization, assist and

automation technology, fare collection, passenger

information,and safetyandsecurity. It isessential to

use a combination of these technologies or “tools”

collectivelyandeffectively.

AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION (AVL)

AVL can be thought of as an advance

notificationsystem.InorderforAVLtofunctionproperly,

itmandatesthreethings:“1)amethodfordetermining

vehicle location, 2) ameans of communicating the

vehicle’s locationtoamaincenter,and3)acentral

processor to store and manipulate the information”

(Levinson,etal., ImplementationGuidelines,2003,p.

139). Although it is mainly used to pin-point vehicle

location, AVL also serves many other purposes.

For example, AVL makes it possible for bus drivers

to communicate with personnel at the central


CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.5INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS(ITS)

31

1 . 5 | i n t e l l i g e n t t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m s

operating agency or hub, to inspect and survey

mechanical conditions of vehicles, and to re-route

vehicles in the case of dilemmas.More importantly,

AVLpresentsdynamic,real-timescheduleupdatesat

stations,on the Internet,andoncellphones (incase

buses experience delays, accidents, or mechanical

problems). AVL’s highest appreciation comes in the

event of an emergency, in which case AVL acts

immediately and allows for a quicker response.

Currently,alotoftransitoperatorsanddecisionmakers

are embracing AVL not only because it significantly

contributes to the transit rider’s experience, but also

becausethecostof installingAVL is rapidlydropping

(UnitedStatesDepartmentof Transportation, Federal

TransitAdministration,2008).

VEHICLE PRIORITIZATION

VehicleprioritizationisusedtogiveBRTvehicles

a preference, or “priority,” at intersections or areas

where they encounter signals. The purpose behind

prioritization is to reduce travel time and delays by

means of traffic signals. Vehicle prioritization allows

BRT to better abide by the assigned schedule or

headways.Figures1.51A,1.51B,and1.51Clookatthe

differentoptionsforvehicleprioritization.



32

Figure 1.51A: Signal Timing/PhasingInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Involvesandrequireslotsoftrafficstudies,anunderstandingoftrafficpatterns,andsimulationofmodels

• Optimizestrafficsignalsalongtravelpathtotakeadvantageofgreenlights

Figure 1.51B: Station & Lane Access ControlInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Involvescontrolgates,controlsystems,andsignsthatallowBRTvehiclestoenterandexit

• Requiresmonitoringorsurveillance

ASSIST & AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGY

(A & A TECHNOLOGY)

Assist and automation technology is an ITS

featurethathelpsoperatorscontrolandmaneuverBRT

vehicles.Thesetechnologiescanhelpguidevehicles

along runningwaysorallowforprecisiondocking.A

& A technology is especially useful because it can

beutilizedasneeded.A&Atechnologycanalsobe

installedalongthewidthoftherunningwayoritcan

be used at narrow points of running ways, specific

stations/stops, or through tunnels. A&A technology

consists of collision avoidance technologies which

increase the level of safety considerably in terms of

accidents and collisions. Figures 1.52A, 1.52B, and

1.52Csummarizeafewofthesetechnologies.



33

Figure 1.51C: Transit Signal Priority (TSP)InformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• TSPisdifferentthansignaltiming/phasing• TSPgivesBRTvehiclespriority,notpreemption• TSPadjuststotrafficsignalstobetteraccommodateBRT

vehicles• Greattooltoreducetraveltime,maintainconsistency,

improvetransitefficiency

Figure 1.52A: Collision Avoidance/WarningInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Collisionsensorhelpsavoidrunningintoobstacles• Systems(infrared,cameras)insidevehicleinformsdriverof

pedestrian,vehicle,orotherobstacleinterference

FARE COLLECTION

Farecollectionsystemsaregivenconsiderable

attentionsincetheyaregenerallyoneoftheleading

determinants of how fast or slow passengers board

vehicles. Successful fare collection systems support

rapidboardingandmultiple streamboardingwhere

servicedemandishigh.Inotherwords,farecollection

systems should be direct, clear, and user-friendly.

Most of all, fare collection systems should process

information efficiently since passengers appreciate

systemsthatarenottimeconsuming.

According to CBRT, fare collection systems can be

manual,mechanical,orelectronic.CBRTalsomentions

threekey featuresof farecollectionsystems. Thefirst

is the farecollectionprocess (Figures1.53A&1.53B),

whichdetermineshowpaymentsaremade.Common

farecollectionprocessesincludeon-boardpayments,

conductor-validatedsystems,barrierenforcedsystems,

and barrier free/proof of payment systems. Design

playsamajor role in the latter twooptionsbecause

aesthetics(lookandfeel)andcomfort(easytouse)are

animportantcriterionforcustomers.Thetypeoffare

collectionprocessemployedcaninfluenceoperating

costs,andofcourse,dwellingtime.Thesecondfeature

isfaremedia,whichdefineshowthefaretransactions

takeplace.Typicalfaremediaoptions includecash,



34

Figure 1.52B: Precision DockingInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Assistsdriverstodockvehiclesappropriatelyandpreciselyatplatformsorstationusingeithermagneticoropticalguidance

• Requiresmarkingsonpavement(paint/magnet)thatvehicles“read”

Figure 1.52C: Vehicle GuidanceInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Allowsvehiclestomaintainhighspeedsinacontrolledfashion• Guidanceoptionsinclude:optical,magnetic,andGPS-based• Requiresspecialtreatmentonpavingandvehicles(paint,

magnets,sensors[ontopofthebusinimageabove])

papermedia,andmagneticstripecards.However,a

not-so-typicalformoffaremediaisgainingpreference,

one that is knownas“smartcards.”Smartcardsare

replacing stripe cards simply because smart cards

havemoretooffer.Smartcardsresemblecreditcards

and, asCasey, R.F. describes it, are “equippedwith

aprogrammablememorychipthatperformsseveral

functions: holding instructions, holding value, self-

monitoring,andcreatinganelectronicbillingrecord”

(Levinson,etal., ImplementationGuidelines,2003,p.

151).Thelastkeyfeatureisfarestructure.Farestructure

denoteswhethertheservicewillimplementaflatrate

policyoronethatvariesbasedonthedistanceofthe

trip.Factorssuchaspublicdemand,ridership,network

type, and long-term plans/goals help resolve fare

structure(Diaz,etal.,2004).



35

Figure 1.53A: Pre-Boarding Fare Collection System

Figure 1.53B: On-Board Fare Collection System

PASSENGER INFORMATION

Any transportation service must necessarily

keeppassengersinformed.However,themethod(s)in

whichinformationisdispensedtocustomersmayvary.

For example, some services may only offer printed

pamphlets that include the schedule and timing;

othersmaygoasfarasprovidingup-to-dateaudible

announcements.Inordertotrulyemulaterailsystems,

ITSandpassengerinformationneedtobeappliedand

emphasized, respectively. ITS increases the feasibility

ofprovidingdynamicinformationtoBRTpassengersat

multiplepoints(atstations,onthevehicle,andatstops).

As the technological age continues to strengthen,

expandingBRTserviceinformationsuchasschedules,

updates, special announcements, etc., to the

Internetandmobiledeviceshasbecomeincreasingly

advantageous. Nonetheless, awell-designed system

with a conscious passenger information structure

utilizes both static (telephones, kiosks) and dynamic

(electronic signage, radio/television broadcasts, cell

phones) methods (Levinson, et al., Implementation

Guidelines,2003).Theavailabilityoftravelinformation

throughmultiplemeanspresentspassengerswiththe

opportunity to plan and schedule trips accordingly.

Figures 1.54A through 1.54D display the different

passengerinformationoptions.



36

Figure 1.54A: Travel Information at StationInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Providespassengerwithbusinformation• Requiresmethodstopredictbustiming/delays/arrival

Figure 1.54B: Travel Information on VehicleInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Providespassengersonvehicleswithexpectedarrival,nextstop,vehicleschedule,etc.

• Requiresmethodstopredictbustiming/delays/arrival

SAFETY & SECURITY

Safety and security are the predominant

concerns of an individual deciding to take public

transportation. As a young child living in downtown

Atlanta,Georgia, public transportationwasmyway

ofgettingaround;Ihatedwaitingatbusstopswhere

fights brokeoutand ridingonabus thatwas full of

drunk people. It was a nerve wrecking experience

each and every time. In those moments, the only

thing I cared about was reaching home safely. To

preventthetypeofexperiencesIencountered,safety

and securitymust beplacedat the forefront of the

decision making process. It is imperative for policy

makersanddesigners tounderstandthatsafetyand

securityareessentialingredientstoasuccessfulpublic

transportationrecipe.

As service providers, transportation agencies take

responsibilityfortheirpassengersbecauseasinglesign

of uncertainty can inevitably reduce an individual’s

willingnesstousetheirservice(Loukakos&Blackwelder,

2000). A large list of undisciplined actions classifies

as “transit crime.” Loukakos and Blackwelder refer

to Synthesis of Transit Practice 21, Improving Transit

Security in order to give us a better explanation.

“Crimescommittedintransitsystemsincludedisorderly

conduct,publicdrunkenness, non-paymentof fares,

Figure 1.54C: Travel Information on PersonInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• ProvidespassengerswithbusschedulesontheInternetandmobiledevices

• Requiresspecialsoftwaretoimplement

Figure 1.54D: Trip Itinerary PlanningInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Allowspassengerstoplantrips• Allowspassengerstospecifyspecialneeds/equipment



37

theft,harassment/threat,narcotics,weaponsviolation,

pursesnatching,simpleassaultsandbatteries,robberies

and attempts, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults,

rapes and attempts, and homicide and attempts”

(Loukakos & Blackwelder, 2000). Based on that

information,weknowthatindividualsarevulnerableat

stationsandonboardvehicles.Becausethenatureof

“crime”isextensiveandcanunfoldinmanyways,itis

obligatorytointegrateadvancetechnologieswithBRT

inordertomonitormisconduct.ITSoffersacoupleof

preemptivetoolsthatmightincreasethelevelofsafety

andsecurityas indicated inFigures1.55Aand1.55B.

Chapter 3 examines and discusses other measures

anddesignaspectsthatamelioratetheenvironment

intermsofsafetyandsecurity.



38

Figure 1.55A: Silent AlarmsInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Allowdrivertotriggeralarmincaseofemergency/danger• Messageslike“Call911”displayontheexteriorofvehicles

Figure 1.55B: Voice & Video MonitoringInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).

• Camerasandmicrophonesprovidesurveillance• Transmitsdatatooperationscenter/hub

In thischapter, Idiscuss twocities (Curitiba,Panara-Braziland LosAngeles, California-United States) that have launched BRT; thesetwocitieswereidealpointsoffocussincebotharethequintessenceof functional and pragmatic BRT design. To learn about theimplementation process, I refer to and summarize existing casestudiesconductedonthesetwocities.Unlikethepreviouschapter,thischapterdoesnotcovertechnicalaspects.Instead,thischapterconcentrates on thedesign schemeof runningways and stationstops.At theendofeach section, Igivemyopinionandpresentothers’ opinions about whether or not the discussed design hasbeensuccessfullyemployedandeffectivelyutilized.

39


CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES

c h a p t e r 2 | c a s e s t u d i e s

Curitiba,the“poster-child”cityofBrazil, takes

muchofthecreditfortriggeringthe“busrapidtransit

phenomenon.” Curitiba’s transportation scheme is

highly revered among designers, planners, and city

leaders. As such, Curitiba is largely responsible for

causing the surge for bus rapid transit as a viable

transportationmodelforcitiesaroundtheglobe.

BACKGROUND

Situated in the mountains of southern Brazil,

Curitiba is the capital city of Panara. Compared to

othercities inBrazil,Curitibaenjoyshigherper-capita

income and a relatively a higher standard of living

(LeroyW. Demery, 2004). The city is also recognized

for its cleanlinessand innovativeplanning strategies,

whichiswhymanyareattractedtoCuritiba.Curitiba

experiencedtremendouspopulationgrowthbetween

the 1940s-1970s and the rapid raise in population

calledforanewplanninginitiative.AlthoughCuritiba

hadaplansetoutsincethemid1940s, theplandid

not fulfill thedemandsof thechanges takingplace.

Then, in 1964, the City of Curitiba adopted a new

plan—thePreliminaryUrbanDevelopmentPlan—that

later evolved to become the Curitiba Master Plan

(TransportationResearchBoard,2003).Tothisday,the

CuritibaMaster Plan serves as the leading guide for

developmentandplanningprojects.Theplanfollows

an integrated, enlightened approach for sensitive

issues such as environmental regulations, housing

policies,socialconcerns,andtransportationmeasures.

A little over thirty-five years ago, Curitiba

city leaders faced a huge dilemma in deciding

what type of transportation system to implement.

In1972,JamieLerner, theMayorofCuritiba(andan

architect by trade), proposed an “above ground

subwaysystem.”Originally,city leadersandplanners

hadbeenprobingthe ideaofdevelopingasubway

system, the construction of which would have cost

over$90millionperkilometer,versusonly200,000per

kilometerforLerner’sproposedBRTsystem(Grossman).

Compared to the subway system, BRT served as a

highly economical solution. Decision makers quickly

actedontheirdecisiontoimplementtheBRTsystem,

and the first BRT service became effective in 1974

(Transportation Research Board, 2003). The following

sectiondiscusses the successful aspectsofCuritiba’s

transportationsystem.



40

2 . 1 | c u r i t i b a , p a n a r a - b r a z i l

DESIGN

In this section, Iexplore thekeys toCuritiba’s

success in employing an effective BRT system. In

ordertoexplainthissuccess, Ifocusonthedesignof

Curitiba’srunningwaysandstationstops.

Running Ways

SincethefirstlaunchofBRTin1974,theservice

has both evolved and expanded incrementally.

Curitiba exercises a hierarchical system of bus

services. Feeder buses take neighborhood residents

to theconventionalbus lines,whichoperateon the

city’souterlimits.Thosebusesinturncarrypassengers

to the BRT buses, which transport them to the city

center.BRTservicefunctionsalongfivemajorarteries

(Figure2.11),whichfollowthe“trinaryroadconcept”

(TransportationResearchBoard,2003).Thetrinaryroad

conceptisasysteminwhichthetwoouterroadsarea

mixtureofbothgeneraltrafficanddirecthigh-speed

bus services, while the middle road is designated

for high-capacity express busways. A typical cross-

sectionofthethree-roadwaysystemextendsabout85

feet.Figure2.12givesusabetterideaofthescheme.

Passengersarerequiredtomakeonlyonepayment,

whichmakes transferringbetweendifferent stations/

services—feeder,trunk,express,anddirectexpress—


CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES|2.1CURITIBA,PANARA-BRAZIL

41

Figure 2.11: Major Arteries of Curitiba’s bus service systems.

Figure 2.12: Arrangement of structural axes.

moreconvenient.Over theyears, theBRT track-way

hasgrowntocoverabout37miles.BecauseCuritiba’s

expressservicetravelsthroughthecenterofroadways,

itisfreefromtrafficdelaysandthesegregationplays

a key part in expediting travel time for passengers.

TheTransportationResearchBoardindicatesthatthe

roadwaysonwhichCuritiba’sBRTrunsdonotconsist

ofmajortraffic.Thus,passengercrossingtoandfrom

stations throughheavy traffic is limited,andpossibly,

lessdangerous.Therunningwaysareseparatedwith

small, yellow islands to emphasize the BRT exclusive

lanes.

Station Stops

Curitiba’s stations representanexciting facet

oftheBRTmodel.Theiconictubestations,whichare

spacedevery1/3ofamilealongthebusways,arenot

only considered an innovative design, but they also

consistoffunctionalfeatures.Thecreatorofthestation

stopsisnoneotherthanJaimeLerner.

Sitting at a bus stop one day, Lerner noticed that

the biggest time drag on his fleet was how long it

tookpassengerstoclimbthestairsandpaythefare.

He sketchedaplan foraglass “tube station,”abus

shelterraisedoffthegroundandwithanattendantto

collectfares.Whenthebuspullsin,itsdoorsopenlikea

subway’s,andpeoplewalkrighton.(McKibben,1995)

A year later, the sketch took life. Today,we see the

tubelikestructurewrappedinPlexiglasandsupported

by steel ribs as shown in Figure 2.14. The design

provides passengers with a sheltered waiting area,

but does not consist of seating. Perhaps the high

frequencyofservice[insomecases,asoftenasevery

90 seconds (Federal Transit Administration) makes

seating,asanamenity,gratuitous.Becausethetube

designencompassesraisedplatforms,theprocessof

boarding and alighting experiences very little dwell

time.Levelboarding,coupledwiththepre-boarding

fare system (Figure 2.15) reduces dwell time down



42

Figure 2.13: A look at Curitiba’s segregated running way.

toas littleas 15 to 19 secondsper stop (Goodman,

Laube,&Schwenk). Thedesignalsoeliminatesgaps

between the stationandvehicle (Figure2.16). This is

achieved by a system that automatically deploys

fold-down steps from bus doors as bus doors open

(TransportationResearchBoard,2003);thefold-down

stepsarethenpositionedontotheplatform.Thetube

alsocorrespondstothenumberofdoorsonthebuses

depending on the type of service in effect (express

or trunk).Usually,express servicesconsistof twoexit/

entrydoorways,while trunk linesconsistofup tofive

doorways. Most importantly, the tube stations also

make access easy and comfortable for those with

specialneeds.Individualswhoaredisabledorrequire

wheelchair use gain access to stations and buses

throughaminielevatorliftattachedtooneendofthe

station(Figure2.17).



43

Figure 2.14: The iconic Tube Stop of Curitiba.

Figure 2.15: Pre-boarding fare collection system.

OBSERVATIONS

The figures and statistics, ridership, cost-

effectiveness, public approval, etc. clearly gauge

the accomplishment of Curitiba’s BRT system.

However, I feel somethings remainunaddressed.For

instance, in termsof stationdesign,wedonothave

adequate information regarding some important

issues.Informationonaspectssuchaslighting,seating

capacity, and signage/notifications, is minimal and

insubstantial. Reports on safety and security are

nonexistent. So, although the tube station design

doesacommendablejobatspeedinguptraveltime,

littletonothingismentionedintermsofitsrelationto

landscapearchitectureandcontextualdesign.Thus,

it is difficult to both learn and give comprehensive

commentaryonCuritiba’sstationdesign.

Despitethelackofactualdesigninformation,weknow

that Curitiba’s planning policies teachmany things.

What was once a stopover townwith a population

of150,000hasquicklyemergedasoneoftheworld’s

top livable cities. Now, it is home to over 1.7million

denizens.Whatledtothisdrasticchange?Longterm,

environmentally and socially conscious planning,

which tookanalternativeapproach todealingwith

existing infrastructure rather than the conventional

“rip-and-tear”method.Theplanningprocessfocused



44

Figure 2.17: Tube accessibility for the disabled.

Figure 2.16: Closed gap between vehicle and tube station.

onthepeople,andnottheautomobiles(McKibben,

1995).Insteadofforgingdevelopmentawayfromthe

city with the typical concentric circles, city leaders

channeled linear growth around the major arteries.

And the transportation systembecamethe spineon

whichthesenewpolicieswereerected.ThefirstBRTline

carried 25,000passengers per day; today,Curitiba’s

BRT serves 2.3 million individuals daily (Press, 2009).

Withoutadoubt,BRTisthecrownjewelofCuritiba.Itis

hardlysurprisingthatcitiesarereadytoembraceand

emulateCuritiba’sBRTparadigm.



45

Figure 2.18: Bicyclist glances at BRT vehicle. ManyoftherunningwaysinCuritibaintegratepedestrian/bicyclistandBRTaccessontoonerunningway.

Los Angeles is the second largest city in the

U.S.withapopulationclosinginonfourmillionpeople.

Over the years, it has become a destination point

because of its location, resources, and attractions.

Publictransportationprobablydoesnotcometomind

whenpeople thinkabout LosAngeles.Hollywood,a

glamorous lifestyle, notable sports teams, and the

thick layer of smog are more reasonable images.

However,the“CityofAngels”worksassiduouslytowin

the battle over congestion. Recently, it has added

BRTto itsartillery,andresultsshowthat ishasbeena

valuable weapon. As amatter of fact, Los Angeles

has designated BRT along several roadways. I focus

on only one of them, the “Orange Line.” Although

known as themost distinct and “accurate” form of

BRTinLosAngeles,theOrangeLineisoftenputunder

thesameumbrellaasMetroRapid. TheMetroRapid

is the larger “BRT system” that covers greater Los

Angelesandexpandstomanymajorcorridors.Metro

RapidattemptstoprovideBRTservices,butfallsshort

becauseitdoesnotespouseallitselements.

BACKGROUND

The Orange Line shared a similar origination

processas theCuritibaBRT system, in the sense that

bothwereanalternativeoption toaproposedand

longawaitedsubwaysystem.Thestorybeginsin1980

withPropositionA,whichcalled forahalf-cent sales

taxincreaseinordertobuildarailsystemthrough13

designated “Prop A” corridors, one of them being

where Orange Line operates today (Stanger, 2007).

Originally,theplanwastoinvestinalightrailsystem,

butcommunityoppositionquicklystifledthatidea.To

makemattersworse,opponentsmanagedtopassa

statelawthat“prohibitedanythingotherthanadeep

bore subway from being built, essentially creating

an untenable situation” (Hoffman, 2008, p. 74). The

following years witnessed tireless planning efforts

with many alternatives. All of them were rejected.

Oppositionofarailsystem(heavy,light,monorail,etc.)

became thecommunities’cause,and “NIMBY” (not

inmybackyard)became thecommunities’mantra.

Theyfearedlightrailwouldlowertheirpropertyvalues

andcreateexcessivenoise(Stanger,2007).Finally,BRT

wasproposed,but thecommunitymembers resisted

thataswell.Aftera15-yearbattle,constituentsfinally



46

2 . 2 | l o s a n g e l e s , c a l i f o r n i a - u n i t e d s t a t e s

caved and accepted the BRT concept. Individuals

came to realize that a public transportation system

was necessary and the implementation of onewas

inevitable.TheOrangeLinemadeitsdebutinOctober

2005.

The Metro Orange Line blankets the

abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way

(ROW). ThebuswayparallelsVenturaBoulevardas it

spans14.2miles (Figure2.21), servicingtheeast-west

corridor intheSanFernandoValley.Theeasternend

feedsthenorthernterminalontheRedLine(Northern

Hollywoodstation)andthewesternendservesWarner

CenterinWoodlandHills(Gray,Kelley,&Larwin,2006).

The surrounding landscape lacks diversity because

thedominatinglanduseisresidential,butaglimpseof

otherusessuchasoffices,civiccenters,andcolleges

alongtheserviceroutecanbeseen.TheOrangeLine

uses 60 foot customized, articulated buses with low

levelboardingthattravelupto55mph.Itclassifiesas

an“end-to-endtrunklineservice”thathasascheduled

runtimeof42minuteswithheadwaysrangingfromfive

minutesduringpeaktime,10minutesatmid-day,and

20minutesintheevening(Stanger,2007).Cityplanners

expected the Orange Line to carry about 9,000-

12,000riders,buttoday,26,000-28,000peopleridethe

OrangeLinedaily(EckersonJr.,2009)—ridershipfigure

projectedfortheyear2020(Uranga,2006).


CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES|2.2LOSANGELES,CALIFORNIA-UNITEDSTATES

47

Figure 2.21: Orange Line service map.

Figure 2.22: Passengers on Los Angeles’s Metro Orange Line.

DESIGN

Los Angeles’s BRT system, starting with the

rudimentaryMetroRapid,wasgalvanizedbyCuritiba’s

BRT model. City officials and planners selected a

handful of Curitiba’s key BRT elements and applied

them to the Orange Line. The following information

discussesthedesigntacticsemployedtotherunning

ways/busways/T-waysandtothestationstops.

Running Ways

TheOrange Line busway is Los Angeles’s first

“real”BRTline.Technically,itistermeda“T-Way,”which

meansan“at-gradebusway,oronewhoseoperations

aredeterminedbygradecrossings” (Hoffman, 2008,

pp.3-4).AndthatisthetermIwillusehenceforth.The

biggest advantage to the planning process of the

OrangeLinewastheavailabilityofanunusedrailroad

ROW.ThewidthoftheT-wayvariesgreatly,anywhere

from 70-200 feet, but for themajority of the length,

it spreadsout toabout 100 feet (Stanger, 2007). The

actual“real-estate”wherethebusesoperateconsists

oftwolanes,onelaneineachdirection,andcovers

26feet.Plannersalsoaccountedforotherthinglike:1)

pulloutspacenecessaryformaintenancevehiclesto

parkorservice,whicharetypically70feetlongand10

feetdeepand2)anadditional23feetatthestation

stopstoallowotherbusestopassincaseofbreakdowns

(Stanger,2007),eventhoughnotallstationsallowfor

passing (Hoffman, 2008). The nice thing about the

OrangeLineT-Wayisthatitincorporatesbicycleand

pedestrian pathways that run parallel to the T-way

and within the ROW. Additionally, a well-designed

landscapeequippedwithsoundwallsalongtheROW

mitigates thenoisecausedby thebuses. Figure2.23

providesanicevisual.



48Figure 2.23: Image of the Orange Line T-way.

Imageshowsthenicelandscapingandpedestrianandbicyclepathway(totheleft).

Station Stops

Along the 14milesof theOrange Line, there

are14specializedstationsthatspaceroughlyamile

apart. All the stations are adorned with customized

branding and livery, distinguishing them from other

forms of service. The uniformity anchors theOrange

Line’s identity and makes the station stops easily

recognizable for customers. Each station consists

of a canopy to provide shelter and passenger

information displays. The combination of sidewalk-

level boarding, low-level boarding vehicles, and

off-board fare collection system not only makes

boarding easier but also decreases dwell time. The

stations lengthaccommodatesuptotwobusesand

alsoprovidespassengerswithanumberofamenities

such as seating/leaning rails, “enhanced paving,

artwork, lighting, CCTV cameras, TVMs, emergency

andpublictelephones,systemandcommunitymaps

cases, bicycle racks, and lockers on a separate

module”(Gray,Kelley,&Larwin,2006,p.38).Stations

alsoofferADAaccessibility.


CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES|2.2LOSANGELES,CALIFORNIA-UNITEDSTATES

49Figure 2.25: Another one of the Orange Line stations.

Figure 2.24: One of the Orange Line stations.Thenew65-footMetroLinerfortheOrangeLineinfrontofastation.

OBSERVATIONS

Initially, the success of the Orange Line was

questionable. But, the result we see today gives us

aclearanswer.Basedon the reportsandshortfilms,

the Orange Line was not expected to perform at

suchahighcaliber. Those“lowexpectations,” if you

will, inflate its achievement. Nevertheless, a few key

design featuresdo indeedcontribute to theOrange

Line’s success. Because the design features adhere

totheBRTdoctrine,officialsconsidertheOrangeLine

asLosAngeles’sfirst,trueBRTsystem.Themostcritical

designfeatureoftheOrangeLineisitsT-way.Having

an exclusive busway allows buses to avoid street

congestionandstrengthensBRT’sidentity.TheOrange

Line is also granted signal priority, which decreases

traveltimeand,moreimportantly,allowsoperatorsto

compensateforlosttimeinordertomatchschedules/

headways. Another thing that was done right was

dressingallthestationstopsandvehiclesinthesame

attire. The Orange Line is distinct from other, similar

bus systems, yet the uniformity within the Orange

Line (shared theme between buses and station

stops) creates a strong image—an integral aspect

forpassengers.Moreover,thebeautifully landscaped

T-way coupled with a designated pathway for

bicyclists/pedestrians attracts people to the service.

Evenifindividualsdonotusethebusservice,theymay

becompelledtotakeadvantageofthe“greenbelt”

(bicyclist/pedestrianpathway).

Despite these measures, there are some areas that

need improvement or alteration. For instance, not

all the station shelters fully protect the passengers

fromtheelements.Lookingattheshelter’scanopy,it

seemspassengersarevulnerabletotherain,cold,and

wind.Additionally,Ipreferplatformsthatprovidelevel

boarding to Orange Line’s sidewalk level boarding,

even though they are combined with low-level

boardingvehicles.Notallthestationsconsistofpassing

lanes (Hoffman, 2008), which might be a limiting

factor,butperhapspassinglanesarenotrequiredat

allthestations.Finally,Hoffmanfeelsthatthestations

donotnecessarilyfitintotheurbancontext,andthat

“stations are only peripherally integrated into the

surroundinglanduses,butmanyofthoselandusesare

auto-oriented”(Hoffman,2008,p.76).



50Figure 2.26: Image of an Orange Line station.

ImageofwhatIthinkisapoorstationshelter.

51


CHAPTER3|LESSONSLEARNED

c h a p t e r 3 | l e s s o n s l e a r n e d

In this chapter, I apply my research and

findingtothebroaderquestion:HowisBRTemployed

successfully?Thatis,whatkeymeasuresorstepshelp

establishBRT?Firstandforemost,wemustunderstand

BRT should not replace conventional bus systems.

Rather, BRT serves as an alternative for light rail.

Nevertheless,wecannotsimplyplopitinplacesaswe

please. It standsasa viableoption forareas that 1)

experiencecongestedroadways,2)demandorneed

public transportation, and 3) require revival along

disparate,neglectedcorridors.BRTworksbestinlarge

cities/metropolitanareas(populationsthatareatleast

750,000 large) or urban settings that consist of high

densities, extensively developed downtowns/town

centers, low parking availability, limited automobile

access,and“sufficient”presenceofbuses(Levinson,

et al., Implementation Guidelines, 2003). BRT brings

severaladvantages to the table like its relatively low

cost(comparedtolightrail),immediateresults,greater

operating flexibility, and ability to be implemented

incrementally. For that reason, more individuals are

advocatingitspresenceandpushingforitsexistence.

While we know BRT presents many benefits, it is not

suitableacrossallsituations.BRTmaynotbethebest

option,orevenperhapsagoodalternative,butwhen

theopportunitypresents itself,BRTdefinitelydeserves

consideration.Basedonthereportsandcasestudies

mentionedearlier,Ibelieveseveralfactorsencourage

andhelpsecuretheimplementationofBRT.



52

The first of these factors is community

involvement. As with any proposal, community

supportplaysapivotalroleinmovingforwardwiththe

planning process, especially for transportation. The

public should be involved from the beginning. Early

involvementmaylimitconfusionormisunderstanding.

And, if resistance does occur, the planning process

can be altered to better address the community’s

demandsorneeds.EducatingconstituentsaboutBRT

andintroducingthemtosuccessfulmodelshelpsavoid

anymisconceptionsandmitigatenegativeattitudes

towards bus systems. Planners and decision makers

shouldalsoinformthepublicaboutthebenefitsofBRT

andhowitmayormaynotaffectthem.Openingup

theplanningdiscussiontocommunitymembersand,

moreimportantly,gettingthemengaged,community

members them that their opinion is valued. These

precautions motivate the public to buy into “the

cause.”


CHAPTER3|LESSONSLEARNED|3.1COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT

53

3 . 1 | c o m m u n i t y i n v o l v e m e n t

Figure 3.11: Example of community involvement.ThisisaworkshopregardingCleveland’sfutureplansaboutBRT.Themeetingconsistedofplanners,designers,engineers,city-officials,butitwasalsoopentothepublic.Workshopsareagreattooltoraisepublicawareness.

The second factor is cooperative planning.

Unity gets the job done. A clear, definitive vision

among the various shareholders and agencies

ultimately leads to a successful outcome. Traffic

engineers, urban planners, communities, local and

stateagencies,transitengineersshouldworktogether

toestablishasharedvision.Constantcommunication

among involved parties eliminates fragmentation in

the planning process. Regular meetings, following

up,andkeepingeveryoneup-to-dateexpedites the

planningandimplementingprocess.



54

3 . 2 | c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g

Figure 3.21: Example of cooperative planning.ThisisaworkshopwherevariousstakeholdersandmembersofthecommunitycametogethertoplanandlearnaboutBerkeley’sBRTsystem.

Thethirdfactorislong-termvision.Politicalwill

isthestrongestassettohaveduringtheBRTplanning

process.AswelearnedinCuritiba’scasestudy,Jaime

Lernerdidnotfeartheramificationsofpushingforan

“above-groundsubwaysystem.”Lernerandhisteam

hadaclearvisionforCuritiba.Thecommendablething

isthatLernerandhisteamdidnotcarewhatthepolls

said.Theywerenotafraidtosacrificetheirpopularity

for a good cause. This sort of political commitment

fromleaderssustainstheplanningprocessandinspires

otherstopromotethepositivechange.

Long-termvisionshouldalso incorporate land

use planning. Combining land use planning with

BRT planning results in many benefits because their

integrationcreatestheopportunitytobuildhigh-density

housing, business districts, commercial centers, etc.

Mixed-use developments will encourage individuals

to live, work, and recreate in the same place. The

availabilityofpublic transportationwilldecrease the

needforautomobiles.Moreover,long-termvisionalso

allowscityofficialsandplannerstogenerategrowthin

desirabledirections,and“rightful”landusealongthe

BRTcorridorchannelseconomicdevelopment.


CHAPTER3|LESSONSLEARNED|3.3LONG-TERMVISION

55

3 . 3 | l o n g - t e r m v i s i o n

Figure 3.31: Example of BRT vision and how it fits in with the surrounding land use.

Theforthfactorisensuringsafetyandsecurity.

This factor appliesmore towards stationdesign. Fast

service, “sexy”buses,andconvenient schedulesare

great,butintheabsenceofsafetyandsecurity,they

are trivial. The lack of safety and security, actual or

perceived,destabilizesthevalueofBRT.Thisaffectsnot

onlypassengers,butalsotheentiresystem.Employees

suffer as workdays are lost, revenues decrease and

prices increase to make up for the loss, and areas

areabandoned(Needle&Cobb,1997).Ifpeopledo

notfeelsafeatstationsoronvehicles,theyaremore

reluctanttoconsiderpublictransportation,nomatter

howgreattheservice.Becausestationsareexposed

tothepublicthroughouttheentiretyoftheday,their

design shouldbe vandal proof. Some stationsmight

beunattendedforlongperiodsoftime,whichmakes

them evenmore vulnerable to vandalism; however,

certain designmeasures help reduce these risks. For

instance, lighting is an important attribute to safety.

Well-lit shelters, pedestrian pathways, platforms, and

parkingfacilitiesgenerateandincreasethefeelingof

safety. “Lightingonopenplatforms shouldbe in the

rangeof5footcandles,withareasbeneathcanopies

increased to 10 to 15 footcandles” (Levinson, et al.,

ImplementationGuidelines,2003,p.99).

Thepublicshouldhaveanunobstructedview

ofstationsatalltimes.Stationsshouldnotbehidden,

covered,ortuckedaway.Furthermore,itisnecessary

for individuals to see their surroundingsandbe seen

in those surroundings because “visibility is the single

most important attribute of security” (Levinson, et

al., Implementation Guidelines, 2003, p. 100). Given

that, station sheltersandwalls shouldbe transparent

so individuals have a clear view of what is taking

place in and around stations. Situating stations or

stationplatformsincloseproximityofstreets(enough

setbackforsafety)decreasestheamountofharmful

or suspicious activity. More importantly, landscape

elementsshouldnotimpede,limit,orobscurevisibility.

Inaddition,dead-ends,sharpturns,hiddenortucked

awaycornersshouldbeavoided.ForfullBRTservices,

it is beneficial to have security officers or staff who

monitor stations to prevent destructive or harmful

activityinordertoensurecustomersafety.



56

3 . 4 | e n s u r i n g s a f e t y & s e c u r i t y

57


CHAPTER4|DESIGNGUIDELINES

c h a p t e r 4 | d e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s

ThischaptersurveysthepracticalaspectofBRT

fordesignersbasedonthematerialcoveredthusfar.

It is important to realize that each situation presents

differentopportunitiesandconstraintsandweshould

acceptthefactthatnosingularsolutionexists;thereis

nomagicformula.Wewillexperiencediscrepanciesin

tactics,measuresandmethods,andimplementation

practicesaswemovefromonesituationtoanother.

Hence,thecircumstancesshouldguidehowandwhat

typeofBRTsystemtoadopt.TheideasthatIpresentare

notmyindependent,innovativeideas;however,they

areanamalgamationofmyresearch,existingideas,

andmypersonalview(s).TheTransportationResearch

BoardandFederalTransitAdministrationhaveworked

extensively to provide comprehensive guidelines

forBRT in severaldocuments. The information Ihave

collectedover thecourseofmy researchhasaided

me in developing general runningways and station

stops/shelters design guidelines, which are geared

towards the novice designer. Additionally, I have

createdahypotheticaldesignofwhatIbelievetobe

an“ideal”BRTsystemusingtheguidelinesIproposed.



58

Hypothetical DesignBlack&whiterenderingofthefrontofthestationstop.

Hypothetical DesignBlack&whiterenderingofthebackofthestationstop.


CHAPTER4|DESIGNGUIDELINES

59

Hypothetical DesignBlack&whiterenderingofanaerialviewofthebuswayandstation.

1. Running ways should be--separated--from thegeneralflowoftrafficandtrafficinterferences.

2.Runningwaysmustestablishastronganddistinctidentity for BRT. BRT services should be iconic. Forthatreason,Irecommendcentral/medianbuswayswheneverfeasible.

3. Running ways/route structure should be direct,linear,andturn-freeasmuchaspossible.BRTshouldtakeadvantageoffree-flowingroadways.

4.Runningwaysshouldservemajor travelmarkets,centralbusinessdistricts(CBDs),commercialdistricts,andothervenuesthatattractalotofpublic.

figure4.11

figure4.12

figure4.13

figure4.14



60

4 . 1 | r u n n i n g w a y s

figu

re 4.15

figu

re 4.16

figu

re 4.17

figu

re 4.18

5. Running ways should accommodate or cater to adjacent land use. Meaning, running ways should be “shaped” to meet the requirements of surrounding land use.

6. Running way design should allocate enough space for buses, general traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians to move/maneuver around safely.

7. Running ways should include simple, clear, and easy to understand signage/markings.

8. Running ways should integrate pedestrian/bicycle paths or trails and incorporate landscaping/vegetation when possible.

61


CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES | 4.1 RUNNING WAYS

figu

re 4

.21

figu

re 4

.22

figu

re 4

.23

figu

re 4

.24

1. Stations should offer seating/leaning rails with sheltered waiting areas that are accompanied by vegetation/landscaping.

2. Stations should consist of appropriate amount of lighting and transparent materials (structure) to increase passenger safety and visibility.

3. Stations should allow passing capabilities whenever/wherever possible.

4. Stations should provide passengers with adequate information systems (ITS) regarding bus timings, schedules, delays, etc.



6262

4 . 2 | s t a t i o n s t o p s / s h e l t e r s

figure4.25

figure4.26

figure4.27

figure4.28

5.Stationsshouldadoptathemeandbedistinctfromconventional bus lines. Station imagery and liveryshouldbeeasilyrecognizableandclearlyvisible.

6. Stations should provide level boarding whenpossible.Whenthisisnotpossible,eitherthevehicleorstationshouldaccommodateforindividualswithdisabilities.

7.BRTstationsshouldbesparselyspaced(between1/2-1 mile). Authorities should use their discretionalong major arterials/corridors that consist of highdensities,and/orsurroundinglanduse.

8. Major stations/stops should provide customerswith amenities (vandal free) like public phones,receptacle, pre-boarding fare collection system,lockers,bicycleracks,newsstands,drinkingfountains,restrooms,ATM,etc.

63


CHAPTER4|DESIGNGUIDELINES|4.2STATIONSTOPS/SHELTERS

The image below is my

design of a BRT running way. The

design incorporates the design

guidelines mentioned in the

previous section (4.1). The numbers

on the image correspond to the

design guideline.

RUNNING WAY DESIGN GUIDELINE REFERENCE

1. Running ways should be--separated--from the general flow of traffic and traffic interferences.

2. Running ways must establish a strong and distinct identity for BRT. BRT services should be iconic. For that reason, I recommend central/median busways whenever feasible.

3. Running ways/route structure should be direct, linear, and turn-free as much as possible. BRT should take advantage of free-flowing roadways.

4. Running ways should serve major travel markets, central business districts (CBDs), commercial districts, and other venues that attract a lot of public.


6. Running way design should allocate enough space for buses, general traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians to move/maneuver around safely.

7. Running ways should include simple, clear, and easy to understand signage/markings.

8. Running ways integrate pedestrian/bicycle paths or trails and incorporate landscaping/vegetation when possible.



64

4 . 3 | h y p o t h e t i c a l d e s i g n | r u n n i n g w a y


1

5

4

76

2

3

8

7S

7S

The image below is my

design of a BRT station stop/

shelter. The design incorporates the

design guidelines mentioned in the

previous section (4.2). The numbers

on the image correspond to the

design guideline. For number 7,

please refer to the previous page/

design.

STATION STOP/SHELTER DESIGN GUIDELINE REFERENCE

1. Stations should offer seating/leaning rails with sheltered waiting areas that are accompanied by vegetation/landscaping.

2. Stations should consist of appropriate amount of lighting and transparent materials (structure) to increase passenger safety and visibility.

3. Stations should allow passing capabilities whenever/wherever possible.

4. Stations should provide passengers with adequate information systems (ITS) regarding bus timings, schedules, delays, etc.

5. Stations should adopt a theme and be distinct from conventional bus lines. Station imagery and livery should be

easily recognizable and clearly visible. 6. Stations should provide level boarding when possible. When this is not possible, either the vehicle or station should accommodate for individuals with disabilities.

7. PLEASE REFER TO PREVIOUS DESIGN (RUNNING WAY) FOR THIS GUIDELINE ILLUSTRATION. IT IS NOTED “7S.” BRT stations should be sparsely spaced (between 1/2-1 mile). Authorities should use their discretion along major arterials/corridors that consist of high densities, and/or surrounding land use.

8. Major stations/stops should provide customers with amenities (vandal free) like public phones, receptacle, pre-boarding fare collection system, lockers, bicycle racks, news stands, drinking fountains, restrooms, ATM, etc.


CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES | 4.3 HYPOTHETICAL DESIGN

65

4 . 3 | h y p o t h e t i c a l d e s i g n | s t a t i o n s t o p s / s h e l t e r s

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

67


CONCLUSION

c o n c l u s i o n

Bus rapid transit is a global phenomenon

that has very recently caught America’s attention.

Currently, planners and designers have begun to

exploreBRTmoreextensivelyasasufficientalternative

to light rail. Although BRT is not limited to a single

definition, most definitions describe BRT as simply,

light rail on rubber tires. We learned BRT consists of

diverse,dynamicoptionsandapplications.However,

ahandfulofcoreelements(dedicatedrunningways,

articulated vehicles, enhanced stations, specialized

services, ITS) and practices ultimately determine its

success.Thecasestudies(Curitiba&LosAngeles)told

us that someof thegreatestadvantagesof BRTare

operationflexibility,incrementalimplementation,and

itsability tobebuiltquickly. ThebiggestmeritofBRT

is that it is relatively economical. More importantly,

thecasestudiestaughtusthatBRTinfluencesgrowth

patterns,landuseplanning,andpotentially,lifestyles.

Finally,weanalyzedBRTfromadesigner’sperspective

to tackle the question: How can BRT be employed

successfully? The answer: BRT’s success relies on

community involvement, cooperativeplanning, long

term-vision, and ensured safety and security. We

shouldnothastily labelBRTasa solution, insteadwe

should recognize itasaprocedure that relievesand

alleviatespressingissues.BRTisanimpetusforfostering

a better lifestyle—a lifestyle that takes us one step

closertobeinga“solution.”



68

summar y

Aswe look forward to the future, it is safe to

saythatthetechnologicalagewefindourselvesinwill

createmanymore transitoptionsand thevarietyof

optionswillbeusefulforcommunitiesthatexperience

day-to-day traffic congestions. The fate of BRT, and

public transportation in general, lies with us. Public

transportationismorethanjustaboutprovidingmobility,

itisaboutprovidingindividualswithopportunities;the

opportunity to get an education,work, and build a

life.Manyequatepublic transportationwithpoverty

andlowsocio-economicstatus,whichisanirrational

correlationanda stereotype thatmustbedispelled.

Asasociety,especially inAmerica,weshouldforgo

certain luxuries. This idea of “sacrificing” our lifestyle

postponesourdecision toactpromptly. The request

tomodifydeeply-rootedhabits,lifestyles,andattitude

leaves us debating, thinking, and debating some

more.Itisdefinitelyadauntingchange,butitisalsoa

necessarychange.

Withtheapplicationofinnovativetechnology

systems,planners,designers,anddecision-makerscan

establish BRT as a reliable, safe, high-speed form of

qualityservice.But,onlineforums,groups,articles,and

organizations depict the constant bashing towards

BRT by those fighting for light rail. Then the obvious

happens, BRT patrons retaliate. I do not understand

theanimositybetween light rail proponentsandBRT

advocates.Unlikethem,Idonotpreferonesystemto

another,andthefussaboutonebeingbetterthanthe

otherisgratuitousandsenseless.Publictransportation

systemisatoolusedtoeasecongestionandprovide

transportationforthosewhoeithera)donotown,or

b)wish to useanautomobile. Themethod inwhich

traffic congestion is relieved (light rail, BRT, or some

other environmentally-friendly alternative), does not

matteraslongascongestionisaddressedeffectively

and reasonably. Therefore, designers shouldanalyze

social and environmental issues carefully and only

thenprescribethenecessarytreatment.

Lastly, we cannot treat the environment as

anexpendableaspect of our life.Wehavedonea

greatdealforhumanrights.Nowwemustactrightfully

as humans. The betterment of our environment is a

process, not an overnight change.Awareness is the

firststep.Ourunflinchingdeterminationandwilltotry

differentmeasures in order to protect, harness, and

enhance our environment is the real testament to

humandignity.69


CONCLUSION|THEGREATERCAUSE

the greater cause

71


DEFINITIONS

d e f i n i t i o n s

t e r m d e f i n i t i o n

Alighting “Whenapassengerexitsavehicle”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.249)

AutomatedVehicleLocation(AVL) “Technologyusedtomonitorbuslocationsonthestreetnetworkinreal-time.AVLisusedtoimprovebusdispatchandoperation,andallowforquickerresponsetimetoservicedisruptionsandemergencies”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.249)

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) “A rubber-tired rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, runningways,andIntelligentTransportationSystem(ITS)elementsintoanintegratedsystemwithastrongpositiveidentitythatevokesaunique image”(Levinson,etal.,2003,p.9).TheFederalTransitAdministrationviewsBRTas“anenhancedbussystemthatoperatesonbuslanesorothertransitwaysinordertocombinetheflexibilityofbuseswiththeefficiencyofrail”(UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalTransitAdministration,2008).IgiveBRTatwo-folddefinition:A)Inpractice,BRTisanefficient,cost-effectivehybridtransitsystemthatincorporatesaspectsoflightrailandtheconventionalbussystemwhileintegratingtechnology,aesthetics,efficiency,reliability,andconnectivitytopedestriansandbicyclists,andB)Intheory,BRTisanimpetusforpositivechangetowardsenvironmentalandsocialconditions.

Branding “Theuseofstrategiestodifferentiateaparticularproductfromotherproducts,inordertostrengthenitsidentity.InthecontextofBRTsystems,brandingofteninvolvestheintroductionofelementstoimproveperformanceanddifferentiateBRTsystemssuchastheuseofvehicleswithadifferentappearancefromstandardbusservices,distinctstationarchitectureandtheuseofdistinctvisualmarkerssuchascolorschemesandlogos”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.249).

Busway “Abuswayisaspecial roadwaydesignedfortheexclusiveuseofbuses.Abuswaycanbein itsownright-of-way,orinarailwayorhighwayright-of-way.Shortstretchesofstreetsdesignatedforexclusivebususearesometimesalsocalledbusways”(UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalTransitAdministration,2008).

Demand “TheactualnumberofpassengersattractedtouseaBRTsystem”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.250)

Designatedlane “AlanereservedfortheexclusiveuseofBRTortransitvehicles.Dedicatedlanescanbelocatedindifferentpositionsrelativetothearterialstreet…”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.251).



72

Dwelltime “Thetimeassociatedwithavehiclebeingstoppedatacurborstationfortheboardingandalightingofpassengers.BRT systemsoften intend to reducedwell times to theextentpossible, throughsuchstrategiesasplatformheight,platformlayout,vehicleconfiguration,passengercirculationenhancements,andthefarecollectionprocess”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.251)

Headway “Publictransitjargonfor“thetimebetweenbusesortrainsonthesameline”.Youcouldsaythatit’sthepulseofatransitroute”publictransitjargonfor“thetimebetweenbusesortrainsonthesameline”.Youcouldsaythatit’sthepulseofatransitroute”(Hughes,2007).

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) “Advanced transportation technologies that are usually applied toimprovetransportationsystemcapacityortoprovidetravelerswithimprovedtravelinformation.ExamplesofITSapplicationswithrelevancetoBRTsystemsincludevehicleprioritization,driverassistandautomationtechnology,operations management technology, passenger information, safety and security technology, and supporttechnologies”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.252).

Levelboarding “Aninterfacebetweenstationplatformandvehiclethatminimizesthehorizontalandverticalgapbetweentheplatformedgeandthevehicledoorarea,whichspeedsuppassengerboarding/alightingtimesanddoesnotrequiretheuseofwheelchairliftsorramps.Levelboardingisoftendonethroughtheuseofstationplatformsandlow-floorvehicles”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.252).

Livery “Aspecialdesignandcolorschemeusedonvehicles,aircrafts,orproducts,ofaparticularcompany”(OxfordDictionary).

Lowfloorvehicle “Avehicledesignedwithalowerfloor(approximately14inchesfrompavement),withoutstairsorawheelchair lift.Useof lowfloorvehiclescouldbedone incombinationwith stationplatforms toenablelevelboarding,orcouldbedonestand-alonesuchthatpassengersarerequiredtotakeonestepuporuseawheelchairramptoboardthevehicle”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.252).

Passingcapability “Theabilityforvehiclesinservicetopassoneanother.BuspulloutsandpassinglanesatstationsaretwoprimarywaystoenhancepassingcapabilityforaBRTsystem”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.253).

Precision docking system “A guidance system used to accurately steer vehicles into alignment with stationplatformsorcurbs. Thesemaybemagneticoroptical-based,and require the installationofmarkingson thepavement(paintormagnets),vehicle-basedsensorstoreadthemarkings,andlinkageswiththevehiclesteeringsystem”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.253).

Queuejumper “Adesignatedlanesegmentortrafficsignaltreatmentatsignalizedlocationsorotherlocationswheretrafficbacksup.Transitvehiclesusethis lanesegmenttobypasstrafficqueues(i.e.,trafficbackups).Aqueuejumpermayormaynotbesharedwithturningtraffic”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.254).

73


DEFINITIONS

Runningtime “Timethatvehiclesspendmovingfromstationtostationalongtherunningway.BRTsystemsaredesignedtoreducerunningtimestotheextentpossible,throughsuchstrategiesasrunningwaysegregation,passingcapability,stationspacing,ITS,andschedulecontrol”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.254). Runningway “ThevisibledifferentiationoftherunningwaysusedbyBRTvehiclesfromotherrunningways.Signageandstriping,raisedlanedelineators,andalternatepavementcolor/texturerepresentthreemajortechniques”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.254).

Service frequency “The interval of time between in-service vehicles on a particular route. Determines howlongpassengersmustwaitatstations,andthenumberofvehiclesrequiredtoserveaparticularroute.ServicefrequenciesforBRTsystemsaretypicallyhighrelativetostandardbusservices”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.255).

Servicespan “Theperiodoftimethataserviceisavailabletopassengers.Examplesincludealldayserviceandpeakhouronlyservice”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.255).

Smart Card A fare collection system replacing magnetic stripe cards. As referenced by (Levinson, et al.,ImplementationGuidelines,2003,p.151):“Thecardslooksimilartostandardcreditcardsandareequippedwithaprogrammablememorychipthatperformsseveralfunctions:holdinginstructions,holdingvalue,self-monitoring,andcreatinganelectronicbillingrecord(Caseyetal.,2000).”

TransitSignalPriority(TSP) “Adjustments insignaltimingtominimizedelaystobuses.Passiveprioritytechniquesinvolvechangestoexistingsignaloperations.Activeprioritytechniquesinvolveadjustmentsofsignaltimingafterabusisdetected(i.e.,changingaredlighttoagreenlightorextendingthegreentime)”(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.256).

T-WayTerm“proposedforanat-gradebusway,oronewhoseoperationsaredeterminedbygradecrossings”(Hoffman,2008,pp.3-4).

TrunkLine Mainline/routeonwhichBRToperates.



74

75


REFERENCES

r e f e r e n c e s

1. Chisholm-Smith, G. (2009, March). PublicTransportation’s Role in Addressing Global ClimateChange.Research Results Digest 89.

2. Diaz, R. B., Chang, M., Darido, G., Kim, E.,Schneck, D., Hardy,M., et al. (2004).Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. BRTDemonstrationInitiativeReferenceDocument,FederalTransportation Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation,WashingtonD.C.

3. Dobbs,D.(2001,March).Curitiba’s “Bus Rapid Transit” Operation: A Critical Look Relative to Actual American Transit.RetrievedFebruary2009, fromLightRail Now: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_cur02.htm

4. Easter Seals. (2005, September). Bus RapidTransit (BRT)andAccessibility in theU.S.Washington,DistrictofColumbia,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

5. EckersonJr.,C.(2009,March22).LA’s Orange Line: Bus Rapid Transit (plus bike path!).RetrievedApril27,2009, fromStreetFilms:http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/las-orange-line-bus-rapid-transit-plus-bike-path/

6. Federal Transit Administration. (n.d.).Chapter 3-Curitiba Experience; Federal Transit Administration-Reserach, Technical Assistance, & Training.RetrievedApril 17, 2009, from Federal Transit Administration:http://www.fta.dot.gov/research_4369.html

7. Goodman, J., Laube, M., & Schwenk, J.(n.d.).Curitiba’s Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit.Retrieved April 21, 2009, from Urban Habitat: http://urbanhabitat.org/node/344

8. Gray, G., Kelley, N., & Larwin, T. (2006). Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook For Partners. FinalReport,Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business,SanJoseStateUniversity,SanJose.

9. Grinberg,A.(2006,April28).ExploringBusRapidTransitinLosAngeles.

10. Grossman,N. (n.d.).Curitiba Bus Rapid Transit System-Great Public Spaces.RetrievedMay10,2009,from Project for Public Spaces (PPS): http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=613&type_id=0#

11. HerbertS.Levinson.(2003,May13).BusRapidTransitonCityStreets-HowDoes ItWork.NewHaven,CT,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

12. Herro,A.(2006,October13).Bus Rapid Transit Systems Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Gain in Popularity. Retrieved April 4, 2009, fromWorldwatchInstitute:http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4660

13. Hoffman, A. (2008). Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The Quickway Model as a Modal Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”.FederalTransitAdministration,DepartmentofTransportation.

14. Kang,A.H.,&Diaz,R.B.(n.d.).BusRapidTransit:AnIntegratedAndFlexiblePackageofService.Track 6-Using Technology in Design and Operations; Bus Rapid Transit .McLean,VA,U.S.

15. Kittelson&Associates,Inc.;HerbertS.LevinsonTransportation Consultants; DMJM+Harris. (2007).Bus Rapid Transit: Practitioner’s Guide. TCRP Report118, Transportation Research Board, Federal TransitAdministration,Washington.



76

16. Leroy W. Demery, J. (2004, December 11).Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil-An InformationSummary.Publictransit.us-Special Report No. 1 .Vallejo,California,UnitedStates.

17. Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J.,Rutherford,S., Smith,R. L.,Cracknell, J.,etal. (2003).Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit.TCRPReport90,TransportationResearchBoard,FederalTransportationAdministration,Washington.

18. Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J.,Rutherford,S.,Smith,R.L.,Cracknell,J.,etal.(2003).Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines.TCRP Report 90, Transportation Research Board,FederalTransitAdministration,Washington.

19. LightRailNowProjectTeam.(2006,October).Los Angeles Orange Line ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ busway Reality Check.RetrievedMarch27,2009,fromLightRailNow: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm

20. Litman,T.(2008,January10).Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs.RetrievedFebruary2,2009,fromwww.vtpi.org:http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.

21. Loukakos, D., & Blackwelder, G. (2000,December 15). Intelligent Transportation Systems-Safety.(C.C.Caltrans,Producer,&CaliforniaCenterforInnovativeTransportationattheUniversityofCaliforniaat Berkeley and Caltrans) Retrieved May 2, 2009,from ITS Decision: http://www.calccit.org/itsdecision/serv_and_tech/Safety/Public_travel_security/public_travel_security_report.html#Measures

22. McKibben, B. (1995). Curitiba Brazil, Livable City.RetrievedMay3,2009, fromYesmaganizne.org:http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1258

23. National BRT Institute. (n.d.).Welcome to the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute.RetrievedApril17,2009,fromNationalBRTInstitute:http://www.nbrti.org/

24. Needle,J.A.,&Cobb,R.M.(1997).ImprovingTransitSecurity.TCRP Synthesis 21.Washington,Districtof Columbia, United States of America: NationalAcademyPress.

25. Press, E. (2009, March 31). Curitiba’s BRT: Inspired Bus Rapid Transit Around the World.RetrievedApril6,2009, fromStreetFilms:http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/curitibas-brt/

26. Smoothe,V.(2008,November3).The Oakbook- A Closer Look at BRT. Retrieved March 27, 2009,from The Oakbook: http://www.theoakbook.com/MoreDetail.aspx?Aid=2645&CatId=10

27. Stanger,R.(2007).AnEvaluationofLosAngeles’sOrangeLineBusway.Journal of Public Transportation , 10.

28. TheNationalAcademyofSciences. (2003,0801).Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit.RetrievedFebruary8,2009,fromtrb.org:http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=1698

29. Thole,C. (2005,March 19). Bus Rapid Transit-SheltersandStations.Tampa,Florida,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

30. TransIT Services of Frederick County. (2009,February 4). Transit-Oriented Design Guidelines,FrederickCountyOfficeofPlanning&Zoning&CityofFrederickPlanning.Frederick,Maryland,UnitedStates.


REFERENCES

77

31. TransportationResearchBoard.(2003,June9).Curitiba, Brazil-BRT Case Study. TCRP Report 90, BRT Case Studies , 1.

32. United States Department of Transportation,Federal Transit Administration. (2008, September 24).Federal Transit Administration-Research, Technical Assistance & Training. Retrieved April 1, 2009, fromFederal Transit Administration: http://www.fta.dot.gov/research_4240.html

33. United States Department of Transportation,Federal Transit Administration. (2008, September 24).Federal Transit Administration-Research, Technical Assistance & Training. Retrieved April 1, 2009, fromFederal Transit Administration: http://www.fta.dot.gov/research_4356.html

34. United States General Accounting Office.(2001,September).MassTransit-BusRapidTransitShowsPromise. Washington D.C., United States. Retrievedfromhttp://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS46937

35. Uranga, R. (2006, August 15). Orange LineRidershipGoingStrong.Daily News.

36. Vincent,W.,&Callaghan, L. (2007,April 7).APreliminary Evaluation of theMetroOrange Line BusRapidTransitProject.Washington,DistrictofColumbia,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

37. Wood, J. (2008, December 8). BRT: A Case of Mistaken Identity. Retrieved March 5, 2009, fromPlanetizen:http://www.planetizen.com/node/36406



78

BRT

Documents

Bus Rapid Transit: An Urban Form of Mobility...a healthier tomorrow. Where do we begin? I argue we must start with something that is embedded into the activities of everyday life—transportation