Overview/What is BRT?
Planning and Development Process for (Federally Funded) BRT Projects
Institutional Arrangements for Planning, Developing, and Operating BRT
BRT Economics and Finance
Elements of BRT
BRT System Integration: Putting BRT Systems Together
Land Use and BRT
BRT Planning Tools and Methodologies
Design Specifications
Operations Planning
Case Studies
Introduction
Background
Summary of
   Characteristics of BRT

Elements of BRT
Performance of BRT
   in Selected Cities

Benefits of BRT
   in Selected Cities

Costs of BRT
   in Selected Cities

Home > Planning Support Tool > Case Studies > Summary of Characteristics of BRT

Case Studies

Summary of Characteristics of BRT

Across the case studies there is a wide range of BRT services and facilities that reflect specific community needs and resources. The principal features by system discussed above, and geographic area are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1:  Number of Facilities with Specific Features

Feature
US / Canada
Australia / Europe
South America
Total

 

% of Total Number of Systems

Dedicated Running Ways 14 8 6 28 90
Stations 14 7 3 24 77
Distinctive Vehicles 9 5 3 17 55
Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 2 3 3 8 26
ITS 9 4 3 16 52
Frequent All-Day Service 13 8 6 27 87
Total Systems Surveyed 16 9 6 31 100

Over 90% of the systems profiled have some type of exclusive running ways, either a bus-only road or bus lane. More than 85% provide frequent all-day service, and 75% have serious “stations” rather than simple stops.  In contrast, only about 55 percent have distinctive vehicles (in design/type/livery) and roughly 50% feature some type of ITS application. Only 8 systems of the list surveyed above, roughly 26%, have off-board fare collection.

It should be noted that the percentage of systems with an increasing number of BRT elements is going up as the more recent applications, e.g., Las Vegas MAX and San Pablo Blvd Rapid Bus (Oakland, California) are much more complete systems.   

Six existing systems (Bogotá’s TransMilenio, Curitiba, Rouen, Paris, London and Quito’s Trolebus) have all six basic BRT elements; while several other systems have four of the six primary elements. Systems under development in Boston, Cleveland, and Eugene will also have all six BRT elements, while Las Vegas MAX, opened in July 2004, also has all six.

Currently in North America, only Ottawa and Las Vegas have off-board fare collection; however, Boston’s Silver Line Phase 2 will also have this feature.

Currently within the United States and Canada, 14 of 16 systems have dedicated running ways (bus lanes or busways), 13 have stations, 11 have all-day service, seven feature ITS elements, and two systems have off-board fare collection.

As a final summary note, a TCRP survey, done in 2000/2001 covered the first increment of a number of systems that have added features and evolved over time. For example, the system in Los Angeles is as of this writing, in the process of adding specialized BRT vehicles to the fleet operating its various Metro Rapid Bus Routes, while Boston is beginning installation of its Smart-Card based fare collection system that should enable much more efficient boarding on the first Phase of its Silver BRT line (Phase II subway stations have fare gates controlling access to station platforms.)

Author: Ian McNamara