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 2.15 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wei/2087024368/in/photostream/
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
figure 2.18 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wei/2087024514/in/photostream/
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
figure 4.24 Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit-The “Quickway” Model as a Mode
Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”
figure 4.25 http://www.flickr.com/photos/wei/2087024682/in/photostream/
figure 4.26 Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit-The “Quickway” Model as a Mode
Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”
figure 4.27 Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit-The “Quickway” Model as a Mode
Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”
figure 4.28 Advance Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit-The “Quickway” Model as a Mode
Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”
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.,
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
INTRODUCTION|WHATISBUSRAPIDTRANSIT?
3
5
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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)
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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/
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.1RUNNINGWAYS
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.1RUNNINGWAYS
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
AsdefinedbyCBRT(2004):
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
AsdefinedbyCBRT(2004):
Electromagneticguidanceinvolvestheplacementofelectric ormagneticmarkers in the pavement suchasanelectro-magnetic inductionwireorpermanentmagnetsinthepavement.Sensorsinthevehiclereadthesemarkerstodirectthepathofthevehicle.Thistypeof guidance requires significant advanced planninginorder toembed themarkersunder thepavement(Diaz,etal.,2004,p.49).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.2STATIONS
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
16
Figure 1.22A: Standard CurbInformationbelowisbasedonthedatacontainedinCBRT(2004).
• Causesverticalgapbetweenstationplatformandfloor/entrystepofvehicle
• Requirespassengerstousestepsinordertoboardorexitthevehicle
• Standardcurbsareusedwhenthestationright-of-waycannotbealtered
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.2STATIONS
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.2STATIONS
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.3VEHICLES
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY
26
Figure 1.33B: Additional Door ChannelsInformation below is based on the data contained in CBRT (2004).
• Decreasesdelays• Passengershavemultipleoptionsofalighting• BoardingincreasesBRTflexibility,dependingonthetypeof
running-way
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.3VEHICLES
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.5INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS(ITS)
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,
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.5INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS(ITS)
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER1|MAJORELEMENTS|1.5INTELLIGENTTRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS(ITS)
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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—
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES|2.1CURITIBA,PANARA-BRAZIL
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CHAPTER2|CASESTUDIES|2.1CURITIBA,PANARA-BRAZIL
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
50Figure 2.26: Image of an Orange Line station.
ImageofwhatIthinkisapoorstationshelter.
51
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.”
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
58
Hypothetical DesignBlack&whiterenderingofthefrontofthestationstop.
Hypothetical DesignBlack&whiterenderingofthebackofthestationstop.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
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 integrate pedestrian/bicycle paths or trails and incorporate landscaping/vegetation when possible.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT: AN URBAN FORM OF MOBILITY
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
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.
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.”
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
CONCLUSION|THEGREATERCAUSE
the greater cause
71
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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).
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
74
75
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
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.
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
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
PATEL, MAYANK | SENIOR PROJECT
BUSRAPIDTRANSIT:ANURBANFORMOFMOBILITY
78
BRT