COMPARING CHINESE AND NON-CHINESE BUS RAPID …docs.trb.org/prp/17-06448.pdf · 145 in terms of station size and bus fleet capacity, ... found that Chinese BRTs operate at a comparable

Pablo Guarda, Juan Miguel Velásquez, Thet Hein Tun, Xumei Chen and Guo

Zhong 1

COMPARING CHINESE AND NON-CHINESE BUS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS 1

(BRT): EVIDENCE FROM EVALUATING GLOBAL BRTS BASED ON BRT 2

DESIGN INDICATORS 3 4 Pablo Guarda 5 Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, World Resources Institute 6 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington DC 20002, United States of America 7 [email protected] 8 9 Juan Miguel Velásquez 10 Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, World Resources Institute 11 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington DC 20002, United States of America 12 [email protected] 13 14 Thet Hein Tun (Corresponding author) 15 Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, World Resources Institute 16 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington DC 20002, United States of America 17 [email protected] 18 19 Xumei Chen 20 China Urban Sustainable Transport Research Center 21 240 Huixinli, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, PR China 22 [email protected] 23 24 Guo Zhong 25 China Urban Sustainable Transport Research Center 26 240 Huixinli, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, PR China 27 [email protected] 28 29

30 Texts: 6165 31 Figures: 5 x 250 32 Total word count: 7415 33

34

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Zhong 2

ABSTRACT 35 Over the past decade, China has added bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors at a faster rate than 36

anywhere else in the world. As the number of BRT systems in Chinese cities continues to 37

increase, it is critical to identify the key factors that influence the operation performance 38

and service quality of these systems. In this paper, we compare the design of BRT systems 39

in Chinese and non-Chinese cities using a ranking system based on the set of indicators from 40

The BRT Standard (2013 and 2014 editions), which were developed by the Institute for 41

Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). The database includes experts’ 42

assessments of more than 99 BRT corridors, in 59 cities and 21 countries around the world, 43

and is publicly available online. In order to identify strengths and opportunities to improve 44

in Chinese BRT systems, we used the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) method to test if the 45

BRT score differences were statistically significant between the Chinese BRT and non-46

Chinese BRT systems. Our results showed that on average, BRT systems in Chinese cities 47

scored significantly lower than those in other countries. This can be explained by Chinese 48

systems’ low scores in design indicator categories such as Integration and Access, a 49

category that evaluates the level of integration with other modes of transportation, 50

pedestrian access and universal accessibility, and Infrastructure, which measures design 51

features of bus stations. 52

53 KEYWORDS: Public transport, Bus Rapid Transit, BRT, China, ANOVA, The BRT Standard 54 55 56

1. INTRODUCTION 57 Over the past decade, China has added BRT lane-kilometers at a faster pace than 58

any other part of the world (1). To date, China has the second longest network of bus priority 59

corridors (more than 650 kilometers) among the 44 countries registered in the Global BRT 60

Database (2). In spite of its vast and rapidly growing BRT coverage, previous literature has 61

found that Chinese BRT systems exhibit lower operational performance than other global 62

BRT systems (3, 4). 63

Key factors affecting the performance quality of Chinese BRT systems—such as 64

dedicated bus lanes, off-board payment systems and intersection treatments—could 65

partially explain the gap in both level of service and capacity between China and other BRT 66

systems. In this context, this paper compares Chinese and non-Chinese BRT systems by 67

examining a set of design indicators on BRT developed by the Institute for Transportation 68

and Development Policy (ITDP). The main goal of this comparison is to identify strengths 69

and opportunities to improve the design of Chinese BRTs. 70

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe BRT 71

systems in the context of China. In section 3, we present a literature review examining 72

approaches used to evaluate BRT system operation performance across the world, with a 73

special focus on China. Later in section 4, we refine two datasets on BRT systems which 74

are evaluated by ITDP experts using The BRT Standard 2013 and 2014 editions (5). Then, 75

we apply the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) method to determine if there are statistical 76

differences between the average value of design indicators for Chinese and non-Chinese 77

BRTs. Based on our results described in section 5, we propose recommendations to improve 78

the design features of Chinese BRT in section 6. In section 7, we summarize the main 79

conclusions of our analysis. 80

81

82

83

84


Zhong 3

2. BRT IN THE CONTEXT OF CHINA 85 With rapid urbanization and motorization taking place in many mainland cities, 86

Chinese decision makers are urged to find effective solutions to ease pressure on transport 87

infrastructure. Rail projects, particularly those that can provide high speed and high capacity 88

services, receive strong political support in many large metropolitan areas (6). By 2016, 44 89

Chinese cities received government approval for urban rail transit planning and 26 of these 90

cities have operating metro lines. However, due to the high construction costs and operating 91

deficits, many cities have been struggling to pay off debts and increase the rail network 92

coverage (6). Even in megacities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou where there is 93

very high ridership, the rail systems still require large government subsidies (3, 6). Thus, 94

Chinese policymakers face a substantial challenge in providing an efficient public transit 95

system given the current conditions with funding constraints and rapid motorization. 96

Admittedly, a single mode of public transport will not be able to satisfy the highly 97

complex passenger travel demand. Still, the implementation of BRT has been a very 98

important mode of urban public transport in China: they are an order of magnitude cheaper 99

than heavy rail metros, can be planned and implemented within a short timeframe, and are 100

a strategic approach to combat the trend of decreasing speed in traditional urban bus 101

operation caused by congestion. In addition, unlike constructing a metro system, building a 102

BRT system does not require approval from the central government. Typically, the 103

municipal government has the necessary financial resources to deploy BRT projects (3). 104

Moreover, in 2004, BRT was specifically recommended by the Ministry of Construction as 105

a priority for urban mass transit development (7). BRT was also a key element in the policy 106

measures that were promoted in the Chinese national program by the Ministry of Transport 107

in 2007 (8); the national goal was to implement 5,000 kilometers of BRTs by 2020 (9). 108

Based on the latest Global BRT Database, bus priority systems have been adopted 109

in more than 20 cities with differing levels of success and quality, adding up to roughly 655 110

kilometers in China (2). On the other hand, in its May 2016 report, the China Academy of 111

Transportation Sciences (CATS) cited the total length of BRT lanes as 2,991 kilometers—112

making it closer to the country’s 2020 national goal. The discrepancy in reporting the total 113

length can be attributed to the conceptual difference in what is counted as a regular bus lane, 114

a bus priority lane and BRT (10). According to ITDP, bus priority systems must have 115

specific features such as segregated bus lanes and off-board fare collection systems, etc., to 116

qualify as BRT (11). 117

The first separated BRT-like corridor was built in Kunming in 1999 (4). In 2004, the 118

first full-featured BRT line was opened in Beijing. These systems precipitated rapid BRT 119

corridor growth across China, especially between 2008 and 2010. In 2015, the Yichang BRT 120

corridor achieved a ‘Gold’ standard rating according to ITDP’s BRT standard evaluation. 121

This prompted further interest in transit oriented development among mid-sized Chinese 122

cities (12). Today, Chinese bus priority systems carry about 4.4 million passengers on an 123

average weekday, and are second only to Brazil in terms of the total length of bus priority 124

corridors across the world (2). 125

While many BRT implementations in China can be considered successful, there are 126

still many opportunities to improve them in terms of performance and design. Speeding up 127

bus services, for example, has been one of the main concerns for Chinese authorities in the 128

past decade (13). The need for speed means the need to have specific quality design elements 129

such as dedicated bus lanes, signal priority at intersections, level boarding platforms and 130

unified fare collection systems for different routes. These design characteristics are critical 131

for improving speed and the overall performance of a BRT system (14). The next section 132

reviews several studies that evaluate the performance of BRT systems around the world, 133

with an emphasis on Chinese BRT systems. 134


Zhong 4

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 135 There have been many studies done on the performance of BRT systems around the world. 136

Kaenzig et al. (15) evaluated the performance of Africa’s first BRT in Lagos, Nigeria. The 137

system carried about 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) at peak times, and 138

had one of the largest daily volumes in the world, with the bus patronage reaching 195,000 139

passengers on an average weekday. Hidalgo and Graftieaux (16) summarized BRT 140

improvements in 11 cities in Latin America and Asia. While many of the BRT corridors 141

reviewed in the paper showed throughput with 3,000 to 45,000 pphpd, and were relatively 142

well-received by the public, several systems including TransJakarta (Jakarta, Indonesia), 143

Beijing BRT (Beijing, China) and Metrovía (Guayaquil, Ecuador), revealed limited capacity 144

in terms of station size and bus fleet capacity, causing them to experience overcrowding 145

during peak hours. Considering 13 Chinese systems and 9 Latin American systems, Deng 146

et al. (3) found that Chinese BRTs operate at a comparable speed but have almost 2.5 times 147

less peak-hour ridership than their Latin American counterparts. According to the authors, 148

a possible explanation is that Chinese systems adopt fewer overtaking lanes, shared-use 149

lanes and multiple stopping-bays—all of which can help expand corridor capacity. 150

Many other studies focused solely on BRT systems in China. Deng and Nelson (6) 151

evaluated the performance and impacts of the Southern Axis BRT Line 1 in Beijing. Some 152

of their suggestions for improving BRT performance include: integration with the rest of 153

the transit network; improved station design that is more universally accessible; and, the 154

application of a transit signal priority system to reduce delays at intersections. Zhang et al. 155

(17) collected data and survey information on system performance indicators such as system 156

design, passenger flow, operating speed, and delay and service schedules from 38 BRT lines 157

in 9 Chinese cities. Fjellstrom (4) examined the evolution of several generations of BRT 158

systems in China—ranging from the earliest proto-BRT busway in Kunming in 1999 to the 159

‘Gold’ standard metro-replacement level BRT in Guangzhou in 2010. 160

While many studies have focused on the evaluation of BRT performance, only a few 161

studies have employed a quantitative approach. For example, Hensher and Li (18) 162

conducted a statistical analysis to comparatively assess 46 BRT systems in 15 different 163

countries. They identified that, among others, fare, headway, the length of BRT network, 164

modal integration at BRT stations and the average distance between stations have a 165

statistically significant impact on the number of daily passengers. Another study by Deng 166

et al. (3) observed that the commercial speed of the buses significantly depends on BRT 167

station spacing, and that corridor demand in Chinese cities significantly depends on the 168

number of stations with overtaking lanes. 169

So few quantitative studies are done on BRT systems because it is very difficult to 170

obtain BRT performance data that is suitable for statistical analysis. Moreover, there are 171

many physical and operational elements that can influence BRT performance. For instance, 172

Lindau et al. (19) presented ten key elements that impact system performance, including 173

overtaking, traffic signal times and coordination, distance between stations, and interface 174

between buses and stations. Later, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 175

(ITDP) introduced The BRT Standard scoring matrices which included numerous design 176

indicators, allowing users to consistently evaluate the performance of different BRT systems 177

around the world (5). 178

This paper identifies the strengths and opportunities to improve in Chinese BRT 179

using the design indicators in The BRT Standard. Using the ANOVA method, we compare 180

the Chinese BRT systems with non-Chinese BRT systems that were evaluated by ITDP 181

experts for 2013 and 2014. This paper, to our knowledge, is the first to utilize such 182

comprehensive open data source to perform statistical analyses of BRT performance. While 183

this study compares Chinese and non-Chinese systems, the approach can be extended to 184


Zhong 5

evaluate BRT systems at different scales and region levels. Based on our findings, we 185

provide recommendations for BRT planners, engineers and decision makers in China to 186

improve specific design elements in their BRT systems. 187

188

4. METHODOLOGY 189 In this section, we first describe how The BRT Standard is organized and explain the scoring 190

differences between the 2013 and 2014 ITDP datasets (section 4.1). Then, we explain the 191

process of refining them to obtain one comparable dataset (section 4.2). Finally, we describe 192

the methodology to assess the strengths and opportunities to improve in the design 193

characteristics of a BRT network (section 4.3). 194

195

4.1. Data Description 196 The BRT Standard evaluates BRT corridors based on a wide range of metrics to establish a 197

common definition of BRT, and characterizes high-quality corridors with either Bronze, 198

Silver, or Gold rankings (5). The BRT Standard consists of seven categories, which are 199

further broken down into 38 subcategories. The seven BRT Standard categories are: 200

201 BRT Basics 202 Service Planning 203 Infrastructure 204 Stations 205 Communications 206 Access and Integration 207 Point Deductions 208

209

Among the seven categories, the BRT Basics category identifies design elements that 210

are required for a bus corridor to be qualified as BRT. The rest of the six categories evaluate 211

the quality and best practices of a BRT system. The seventh Point Deductions category was 212

introduced in 2014 to penalize significant BRT design errors and performance weaknesses 213

(5). 214

One of the main differences between the two editions of The BRT Standard is their 215

definition of a BRT corridor. A BRT corridor was initially defined in The BRT Standard 216

2013 edition as a section of road or contiguous roads served by a bus route (or multiple bus 217

routes) with a minimum length of 4 kilometers with dedicated bus lanes (20). The corridor 218

must also score at least four points on both the subcategories Busway Alignment and 219

Dedicated Right-of-way of the BRT Basics category, and obtain a total minimum of 18 220

points in the category to be identified as BRT (20). Later in The BRT Standard 2014 edition, 221

the defined length of a BRT corridor was reduced to 3 kilometers to allow BRT corridors in 222

downtown areas (11). The minimum score required in the BRT Basics category was also 223

increased to 20 points. Furthermore, an additional point was added to each of the five 224

components of the BRT Basic category to put a greater emphasis on the basic elements of 225

BRT (11). 226

To better reflect the quality and performance of BRT, many other scoring 227

modifications were made to The BRT Standard between 2013 and 2014. For example, in 228

The BRT Standard 2014 edition, changes were made to the maximum allowable score in 229

some subcategories while some subcategories were regrouped into other categories. 230

However, ITDP maintained the overall score of 100 points in both 2013 and 2014 editions. 231

The BRT Standard is recommended to be applied for specific ‘corridors’ rather than 232

to a BRT ‘system’ as a whole, since the quality of BRT corridors even within the same city 233

or system can vary significantly (14). Unfortunately, some ITDP data available for 2013 234

and 2014 are evaluated at the system level rather than at the BRT corridor level. Moreover, 235


Zhong 6

in some cases (including in China), it is hard to distinguish between a BRT corridor and 236

system due to conceptual differences in defining BRTs. Therefore, we did not differentiate 237

between a BRT evaluated at the corridor and system levels, but instead included all the 238

available data points as ‘BRT observations’ or ‘BRT corridors/systems’. From the ITDP 239

database, there are 53 and 46 BRT observations—including 8 and 15 observations from 240

China—evaluated in 2013 and 2014, respectively (11, 20). 241

242

4.2. Data Refining Process 243 Because of the scoring differences between the two editions of The BRT Standard, the scores 244

from each category and subcategory cannot be directly compared between 2013 and 2014. 245

The scores were, therefore, transformed into a new scale between 0 and 100 by calculating 246

the ratio between the score obtained by a BRT in an indicator category or subcategory (Si,j) 247

and the maximum score defined for the same indicator in a given year t (mi,t). 248

Let’s compare the category BRT Basics for the two Chinese BRTs, Beiyuan Dajie 249

and Changde Dadao evaluated in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The maximum obtainable 250

score for the BRT Basics category was increased from 33 points in 2013 to 38 points in 251

2014. Based on the new standardized scale, the Beiyuan Dajie corridor, which obtained 25 252

points (out of 33) in 2013, would earn 75.7 points (out of 100) for the BRT Basics category. 253

Similarly, the Changde Dadao corridor, which scored 27 points in 2014 (out of 38), would 254

obtain 71.1 points for the same category. Thus, according to the new weighted scale, the 255

Beiyuan Dajie corridor received a better score than the Changde Dadao corridor. 256

257

4.3. Assessment of Strengths and Opportunities to Improve BRT Designs 258 After transforming scores to a new scale between 0 and 100, the BRT observation points 259

are divided into Chinese BRTs (Target Group with 23 observations) and non-Chinese BRTs 260

(Benchmark Group with 76 observations). For every category and subcategory, we use the 261

ANOVA method with a 95% confidence level (21) to test if the differences in scores 262

between the Target and Benchmark groups are, on average, statistically significant. The 263

mean score of the Target and Benchmark groups for a given subcategory (or category) can 264

be mathematically expressed as: 265

266

s̅i,tg = ∑ ∑ (Si,j

mi,t

)

j ∈ Ntgt ∈ T

Ntg⁄

EQUATION 1: Average score target group

s̅i,bg = ∑ ∑ (Si,j,t

mi,t

)

j ∈ Nbgt ∈ T

Nbg⁄

EQUATION 2: Average score benchmark group

Where 267 s̅i,tg : Average percentage score in subcategory (or category) i within the Target Group

s̅i,bg : Average percentage score in subcategory (or category) i within the Benchmark Group

Si,j,t : Score in subcategory (or category) i of the BRT corridors/systems j evaluated in year t

Nbg : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Benchmark Group

Ntg : Number of BRT corridors/systems in the Target Group

mi,t : Maximum score in subcategory (or category) i defined for the year t


Zhong 7

There are three possible outcomes of the ANOVA test for the difference between 268

s̅i,tg and s̅i,bg (Δs̅i,): 269

270 (i) Δs̅i is positive and significantly different than zero (Strength in Target Group) 271 (ii) Δs̅i is negative and significantly different than zero (Weakness in Target Group) 272 (iii) Δs̅i is non-significantly different than zero (Undetermined) 273

274 Case (i) and case (ii) represent the categories or subcategories where the Target 275

Group has a strength or weakness in the BRT design element, respectively, compared to the 276

Benchmark Group. In case (iii), it is not clear (or it is undetermined) if the design feature 277

associated with the subcategory (or category) represents a weakness or strength in the Target 278

Group since there is a non-statistically significant score difference between the two groups. 279

280

5. RESULTS 281 In section 5.1, we discuss the results of descriptive statistics analysis, comparing average 282

BRT scores among different countries, as well as among different cities in China. In section 283

5.2, we present the results obtained from performing ANOVA analysis on Chinese and non-284

Chinese BRTs using the methodology described in the section 4. 285

286

5.1. Descriptive Statistics: BRT Scores across Regions 287 FIGURE 1 shows the average BRT scores obtained in different countries. The maximum 288

score and the minimum score were obtained by Peru (88.0 points) and South Korea (51.3), 289

respectively. Note that the countries with the three highest scores are located in South 290

America (Peru, Colombia, and Brazil), although not all South American countries received 291

such high scores. Chile, for example, obtained the second lowest score in the evaluation. 292

Chinese BRTs received an average score of 62.6 points, the sixth lowest score among 21 293

countries, and 7.0 points lower than the world BRT average. 294

We also looked at the average BRT score at the city level for China. Guangzhou and 295

Dalian obtained the maximum and minimum average scores, respectively (FIGURE 1). In 296

addition to Guangzhou, only three other Chinese cities (Lanzhou, Xiamen and Changzhou) 297

obtained scores higher than the world average score (69.6 points). The rest of the cities 298

received lower scores than the global average. 299

300


Zhong 8

Co

un

trie

s

Ch

ines

e ci

ties

301

FIGURE 1 Average scores in Chinese cities and countries evaluated by ITDP in 2013 and 2014. 302 Source: Data from itdp.org; Compiled by authors using Tableau software. 303

304

305

306

307

308

309


Zhong 9

5.2. Identification of Strengths and Opportunities to Improve in Chinese BRTs 310 Since the average score in Chinese BRTs was lower than the world average (FIGURE 1), a 311

systematic negative gap between the scores in Chinese and non-Chinese cities is naturally 312

expected for most categories of The BRT Standard. FIGURE 2 shows the score difference 313

between the Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs across the seven categories as well as the 314

difference in the overall score indicators (Score and Total Score). Score represents the sum 315

of scores for all categories except for the Point Deductions category, which penalizes—316

rather than awards—points; Total Score represents the net score of all seven categories. 317 318

319 320

FIGURE 2 Score difference between Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs by category. 321 Source: Data from itdp.org; Compiled by authors using Tableau software. 322

323

The overall results indicate that Chinese BRTs, on average, have significantly lower 324

scores than non-Chinese BRTs (7.2 lower in Score and 7.0 lower in Total Score). At the 325

category level, Chinese BRTs exhibit significantly higher scores in Communication and 326

Marketing and lower scores in the categories Infrastructure and Integration and Access. 327

Further disaggregated analysis is performed at subcategory level. FIGURE 3 shows the 328

score differences between Chinese and non-Chinese BRT systems for all 38 subcategories. 329

Overall, there are statistically significant differences between the two BRT groups in 21 330

subcategories, and Chinese BRTs exhibit statistically higher scores in 9 subcategories. 331

Further analyses and recommendations of specific design elements for Chinese BRTs are 332

discussed in the next section. 333

334

335


Zhong 10

336

FIGURE 3 Score difference between Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs by subcategory. 337 Source: Data from itdp.org; Compiled by authors using Tableau software. 338

339

340

6. RECOMMENDATIONS 341 Based on our results, we provide the following recommendations and practices to improve 342

design elements in Chinese BRTs. Specifically, we discuss four categories from The BRT 343

Standard where Chinese BRTs received significant lower scores than non-Chinese BRTs, 344

either at the category or subcategory level, or both. 345

346

6.1. BRT Basics 347 The five components of the BRT Basics category in The BRT Standard are considered 348

essential in defining a bus corridor as BRT. Chinese BRTs obtained significantly lower 349

scores in the subcategory Intersection Treatments, which measures green-signal time for the 350

bus lane at intersections. Intersection Treatments is a key element in the design of BRT, 351

since intersections are hotspots where buses converge and intermingle with various 352

transport modes and can often lead to operational problems such as bus bunching. 353

Most Chinese BRTs scored a ‘zero’ point for this subcategory, suggesting that many 354

BRT systems in China have no intersection treatments at all. According to Zhang et al. (17), 355

BRT vehicles in Beijing, Zhengzhou and Jinan experienced delays at intersections, 356

contributing to almost half of the total journey time. Similarly, after examining Beijing Line 357

1, Deng et al. (3) found that Transit Signal Priority (TSP) systems, which can help BRTs 358

reduce delays at intersections, were not properly working in the city. 359

Some general suggestions to improve intersection treatments are: employing 360

functional TSP systems, yielding signal priority to the BRT buses and prohibiting all or 361


Zhong 11

most turns across the BRT busway. Implementing TSP for BRT could be challenging in 362

China because of the widely varied, high-volume traffic flows between non-motorized and 363

motorized modes at the intersections (22). ITDP agrees that TSP is a good strategy in low-364

frequency BRT systems but they also mention that it can be less effective compared to turn 365

prohibitions (11). For instance, having all turns forbidden along 23 kilometers Zhongshan 366

Avenue busway, the ‘Gold’ standard Guangzhou BRT was one of the few BRTs that 367

received a full score. In some places like Xiamen Island, it makes more sense to construct 368

elevated roads that are separated from other surface transportation in order to compensate 369

for the congested downtown area with narrow roads (23). With their elevated busways 370

essentially prohibiting all turns across the bus lane, Xiamen BRT and Erhuan Lu corridor in 371

Chengdu, received perfect Intersection Treatments scores. 372

373

6.2. Service Planning 374 Within the Service Planning category, Chinese BRTs perform significantly lower than non-375

Chinese systems in four out of its seven subcategories: Located in Top Ten Corridors; 376

Express, Limited, and Local Services; Multi-Corridor Network; and Demand Profile. 377

The subcategory Located in Top Ten Corridors ensures that the BRT corridor is 378

situated along one of the ten highest corridors in terms of aggregate bus ridership. Although 379

only four Chinese BRTs do not receive full scores in this subcategory, results of the 380

statistical tests show that Chinese BRTs obtained significant lower scores than non-Chinese 381

BRTs. Since ANOVA tests compare means between groups and the majority of non-382

Chinese BRTs evaluated by ITDP exist along the cities’ highest demand corridors, this 383

result was expected. 384

The subcategory Multi-Corridor Network assesses whether multiple BRT corridors 385

intersect and create a network, in order that the BRT system as a whole can provide various 386

travel options for passengers. According to Cervero (1), a BRT network should imitate and 387

complement the spatial coverage of other transport facilities. He provides TransJakarta as 388

an example network that stretches the city’s sprawling landscape with 14 million residents 389

(1). Based on the ITDP database, about 40% of the Chinese BRTs did not gain points for 390

this subcategory. Some systems that received full score are: Guangzhou BRT, Jinan BRT, 391

Xiamen BRT and Zaozhuang BRT. 392

The subcategory Express, Limited, and Local Services is concerned with providing 393

limited and express BRT services. Unlike regular local services that stop at every station, 394

these BRT services skip lower-demand stations and stop only at major stations. Offering 395

limited and express services is an important design feature for achieving high capacity, high 396

speed BRTs. Unfortunately, the majority of the Chinese BRT systems evaluated by ITDP 397

do not offer such services—only the Line 1 corridor in Zaozhuang, the Zhongshan Avenue 398

corridor in Guangzhou and the Xiamen BRT accommodate some form of limited or express 399

services. 400

Chinese BRT systems perform significantly worse than non-Chinese BRTs in the 401

Demand Profile subcategory. This subcategory evaluates whether high-quality BRT 402

infrastructure is constructed in the highest demand road segments. An exemplar BRT that 403

earned a full score for this subcategory is Guangzhou BRT. However, only about 35% of 404

the Chinese BRTs received scores in this subcategory—that is, many Chinese BRTs often 405

operate in mixed traffic conditions in the highest demand road segments without a fully 406

segregated bus lane, and therefore can experience congestion and delays. At the same time, 407

as many past international experiences (from Delhi, Ahmedabad, Mexico City and 408

Santiago) have revealed, shifting limited road resources away from personal cars and 409

successfully implementing BRTs, especially along the busiest corridors, will require 410

government institutions with strong political will (24). 411


Zhong 12

6.3. Infrastructure 412 The category Infrastructure is one of the two categories where Chinese BRTs perform 413

significantly lower than the non-Chinese BRTs. Within this category, there are three (out of 414

five) subcategories for which Chinese BRTs obtain significantly lower scores than non-415

Chinese systems: Minimizing Bus Emissions; Passing Lanes at Stations; and, Stations Set 416

Back from Intersections. 417

The subcategory Minimizing Bus Emissions evaluates the acceptable limits for BRT 418

bus tailpipe emissions (particularly PM and NOx) based on European and United States 419

emission standards. Most commonly used fuels for Chinese BRT buses are diesel or CNG 420

and the vehicles usually meet the European standards between Euro III to V, and there is an 421

opportunity to transition to more stringent emission standards such as Euro VI or US 2010. 422

Often, the tailpipe emission levels are driven by government emission standards, and China 423

has been introducing rigorous standards to tackle pollution issues. For example, nationwide 424

implementation of China V, an equivalent of Euro V, for all vehicles is scheduled to take 425

place in July 2017. Moreover in Beijing, a historically leading city for the implementation 426

of vehicle emission standards, China VI—which is based on Euro VI and is thus far the 427

strictest emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles—is to be effective in December 2017 428

(25). 429

The subcategory, Passing Lanes at Stations is critical for express and local BRT 430

services as it provides scores for dedicated passing/overtaking lanes so that the stations can 431

accommodate a large volume of buses without creating queues of buses waiting to enter. 432

Globally, TransMilenio BRT in Bogotá, Colombia was the first to introduce overtaking 433

lanes at stations in order to increase its capacity (11). Deng et. al. (3) found that overtaking 434

lanes have significant impacts on peak ridership and frequency. The authors explain that 435

the average peak ridership for a Latin American BRT is about 2.5 times greater than a 436

Chinese BRT possibly because Chinese systems implement relatively fewer overtaking 437

lanes and share-use lanes for multiple routes. According to the ITDP database, only the 438

Hefei Line corridor in Hefei, the Zhongshan Avenue corridor in Guangzhou and the Anning 439

Lu corridor in Lanzhou offer passing lanes. 440

The subcategory Station Set Back from Intersections also targets at improving 441

operation speed and evaluates whether BRT stations are situated at an adequate distance 442

from intersections, in order to avoid forming queues and causing delays during 443

boarding/alighting or at traffic lights (FIGURE 4). A positive example for this subcategory 444

is Janmarg BRT in Ahmedabad, India with its stations that are adequately distant from the 445

intersections (11). Among Chinse BRTs, only 6 out of 23 observations have more than 75% 446

of their stations meeting the ideal setback length, and thus received full points for this 447

subcategory. Almost half of the BRTs received a ‘zero’ score; that is, fewer than 25% of 448

the Chinese BRT stations meet the minimum setback length. 449

450


Zhong 13

451 452

FIGURE 4 A BRT station in Jinan, China, not very far from the busy intersection. 453 Source: Karl Fjellstrom, Far East BRT from https://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=7749&c=56 454

accessed on November 12, 2016. 455 456

6.4. Access and Integration 457 Access and Integration is another category where Chinese BRTs, on average, score 458

significantly lower than non-Chinese BRTs. Specifically, there are two indicator 459

subcategories where Chinese BRTs have opportunities for improvement: Pedestrian Access 460

and Universal Access. 461

Pedestrian Access is a subcategory that is concerned with high-quality, safe 462

pedestrian environments along the corridor. Pedestrians tend to perceive that BRT lanes, 463

compared to general traffic lanes, are safer because of their lower traffic volume (26). This 464

subcategory is thus critical for both pedestrian accessibility as well as safety. Two Chinese 465

BRTs, the BRT-7 corridor in Jinan and Zhongshan BRT, received full scores while 30% of 466

BRTs evaluated obtained a ‘zero’ score. For safer pedestrian access, BRT station designs 467

play an important role. Based on the crash frequency models for BRT corridors in Latin 468

American countries, Duduta et al. (26) found that pedestrian refuge islands in the center of 469

the crossing tended to provide better safety. FIGURE 5 illustrates an example of pedestrian 470

refuge at a BRT station in Yichang, China. 471


Zhong 14

472 473

FIGURE 5 Pedestrian refuge islands at a Yichang BRT station in China. 474 Source: ITDP-China, ITDP from http://www.transportphoto.net/photo.aspx?id=13838&c=114 on 475

November 12, 2016. 476 477

Universal Access is another subcategory in which Chinese BRTs can improve. This 478

category evaluates both BRT stations and vehicles’ accessibility for all special-needs 479

passengers. The majority of the Chinese BRTs obtained a ‘zero’ point score, suggesting that 480

Chinese BRT stations and buses are not universally accessible. Even when some BRTs do 481

provide level-boarding platforms or adopt low-floor buses, it could still be difficult for 482

passengers with wheelchairs to access the system (3). Nevertheless, many Chinese BRT 483

stations have aides who offer help to passengers with disabilities (3). Some international 484

examples of BRT systems committed to universal access can be found in the Indian cities 485

of Ahmedabad and Indore. When planning for Janmarg BRT in Ahmedabad, the designers 486

consulted with the Blind Peoples’ Association for more accessible stations. In both 487

Ahmedabad and Indore, the BRT stations are more accessible to passengers with physical 488

and visual disabilities than other modes of public transport (27). 489

490

7. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 491 This paper compares Chinese and non-Chinese BRTs using the ANOVA method and 492

identifies the strengths and opportunities to improve in the design features of Chinese BRT 493

systems. First, we found that Chinese BRTs lack many design features that are critical for 494

high-speed, high-capacity BRTs. Intersections are, often, the busiest spots where various 495

transport modes converge, and not treating them well can bring many operational problems 496

such as bus bunching, congestion and delays, which, in turn affects both the speed and 497

capacity of the Chinese BRTs. Employing transit signal priority systems and yielding signal 498

priority to the BRT buses are some practices that can help improve BRT intersections. Using 499

minimum station setback lengths from intersections is another good design practice that can 500

expedite BRT services by avoiding long bus lines at the junctures. 501

Second, providing express or limited services, which many of the Chinese BRTs 502

currently lack, is another crucial BRT design. Along with express services, implementing 503

passing lanes helps accommodate larger volumes of buses at the BRT stations without 504


Zhong 15

forming queues—thereby facilitating a larger number of passengers with a greater frequency 505

of service. 506

Third, in order to provide quality services, Chinese BRTs also need the right 507

institutional framework. While Chinese BRT vehicles currently meet the emission standards 508

between Euro III and V, they can minimize their emissions by transitioning to more rigorous 509

standards such as Euro VI or US 2010 as well as by using cleaner hybrid or electric buses. 510

Often, emission levels reflect the government’s stringency and can be a source of conflicts 511

of interests among various public and private stakeholders. Likewise, building BRTs along 512

one of the top ten most crowded corridors or implementing two-way median-aligned 513

busways in the highest demand road segments can provide high-speed, high-capacity BRTs. 514

Yet, because of the struggle for limited road space, successfully executing such projects will 515

require institutional support and a government with strong political will. 516

Finally, we found that many Chinese BRTs have issues with accessibility and 517

integration, which are vital building blocks in fostering an equitable and inclusive society. 518

In terms of providing greater accessibility within the city, multi-corridor BRT networks that 519

are well integrated within the urban fabrics play an integral role. Including citizens in the 520

planning process to understand the diverse needs of passengers can provide valuable 521

feedback to create more accessible BRT systems. In short, transport and urban planning 522

must go hand in hand in order to create an inclusive, livable and sustainable city. 523

524

525


Zhong 16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 526 We would like to thank Camila Ramos, Xiangyi Li, Erin Cooper and Dario Hidalgo from 527

the World Resources Institute (WRI) for helping us improve this work. We also wish to 528

thank the Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence (www.brt.cl) and the Volvo Research 529

Educational Foundation (VREF) for their financial support. 530

531

REFERENCES 532 1. Cervero, R. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport. 2013. 533 2. BRTDATA.ORG. BRT Centre of Excellence, EMBARQ, IEA and SIBRT. Global BRTdata. 2016. 534 3. Deng, T., M. Ma, and J. Wang. Evaluation of bus rapid transit implementation in China: current 535 performance and progress. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 139, No. 3, 2013, pp. 226–234. 536 4. Fjellstrom, K. Bus Rapid Transit in China. Built Environment, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2010, pp. 363–374. 537 5. ITDP.ORG. Institute for Transportation Development and Policy. https://www.itdp.org/brt-standard-538 scores/. Accessed Jan. 3, 2016. 539 6. Deng, T., and J. D. Nelson. Bus rapid transit implementation in Beijing: An evaluation of performance and 540 impacts. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2013, pp. 108–113. 541 7. Ministry of Construction. Recommendations on prioritizing the development of urban mass transit. Beijing, 542 China. 543 8. Velásquez, J. M., W. Li, L. Xue, and D. Hidalgo. Challenges and opportunities of China’s “National 544 Transit Metropolis Demonstration Program.” 2015. 545 9. China Ministry of Transport. MOT’s Guidance on Implementing State Council’s Policy Directive on 546 Prioritizing Public Transit in Cities. 2013. 547 10. CATS. Annual Report on the Development of the BRT Systems in Chinese Cities. 2015. 548 11. ITDP. The BRT Standard – 2014 Edition. https://www.itdp.org/brt-standard-scores/. Accessed Mar. 12, 549 2015. 550 12. ITDP.ORG. New “Gold-Standard” BRT in Yichang , China Leads The Way For Mid-Sized Chinese 551 Cities. https://www.itdp.org/new-gold-standard-brt-in-yichang-china-leads-the-way-for-mid-sized-chinese-552 cities/. Accessed Jul. 15, 2015. 553 13. Pucher, J., Z. Peng, N. Mittal, Y. Zhu, and N. Korattyswaroopam. Urban Transport Trends and Policies 554 in China and India: Impacts of Rapid Economic Growth. Transport Reviews, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2007, pp. 379–555 410. 556 14. Herrera, J. C., J. C. Muñoz, D. Hensher, C. Mulley, Z. Li, and L. A. Lindau. Chapter 16: Assessing 557 corridor performance. In Restructuring Public Transport Through Bus Rapid Transit: An International and 558 Interdisciplinary Perspective (J. C. Muñoz and L. Paget-Seekins, eds.), Policy Press, Bristol, United Kingdom. 559 15. Kaenzig, R., D. Mobereola, and C. Brader. Africa’s first bus rapid transit system. Transportation Research 560 Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2193, No. 1, 2010, pp. 1–8. 561 16. Hidalgo, D., and P. Graftieaux. Bus Rapid Transit Systems in Latin America and Asia: Results and 562 Difficulties in 11 Cities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 563 Vol. 2072, No. 2072, 2008, pp. 77–88. 564 17. Jiang, T., Z. Wu, Y. Song, X. Liu, H. Liu, and H. Zhang. Sustainable transport data collection and 565 application: China Urban Transport Database. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2013, No. viii, 566 2013. 567 18. Hensher, D. A., and Z. Li. Ridership drivers of bus rapid transit systems. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 6, 568 2012, pp. 1209–1221. 569 19. Lindau, L. A., B. M. Pereira, R. A. Castilho, M. C. Diogenes, and J. C. Maldonado. Exploring the 570 performance limit of a single lane per direction bus rapid transit systems (BRT). 2013. 571 20. ITDP. The BRT Standard – 2013 Edition. 1–50. http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/1132543.pdf. 572 Accessed Jun. 11, 2016. 573 21. Miller, R. G. Beyond ANOVA: Basics of Applied Statistics. CRC Press, 1986. 574 22. Chen, X., L. Yu, L. Zhu, L. Yu, and J. Guo. Microscopic Simulation Approach to Effectiveness Analysis 575 of Transit Signal Priority for Bus Rapid Transit: A Case Study in Beijing. Transportation Research Record: 576 Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2072, No. 1, 2008, pp. 64–76. 577 23. Bian, J., and M. Ding. The Effectiveness of the Construction of the Bus Rapid Transit in Xiamen City. In 578 Transport and Sustainability, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 255–275. 579 24. Paget-Seekins, L. Chapter 9: Conflict over public space. In Restructuring Public Transport Through Bus 580 Rapid Transit: An International and Interdisciplinary Perspective (J. C. Muñoz and L. Paget-Seekins, eds.), 581 Policy Press, Bristol, United Kingdom. 582 25. DieselNet. Emission Standards. https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cn/hd.php. 583 26. Duduta, N., C. Adriazola, D. Hidalgo, L. A. Lindau, and R. Jaffe. Understanding Road Safety Impact of 584

http://www.brt.cl)/


Zhong 17

High-Performance Bus Rapid Transit and Busway Design Features. Transportation Research Record: Journal 585 of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2317, 2012, pp. 8–14. 586 27. Rao, P., and S. Shah. Designing BRT systems for universal access. Case of Ahmedabad and Indore. India, 587 2012. 588 589

Documents

COMPARING CHINESE AND NON-CHINESE BUS RAPID …docs.trb.org/prp/17-06448.pdf · 145 in terms of station size and bus fleet capacity, ... found that Chinese BRTs operate at a comparable