Home > Planning Support Tool > Institutional Arrangements for Planning, Developing, and Operating BRT

Institutional Arrangements for Planning, Developing, and Operating Bus Rapid Transit

The implementation of bus rapid transit, like any other rapid transit service, must proceed through the customary planning and project development process beginning with an Alternatives Analysis at the end of which a Locally Preferred Alternative is selected. The next stage in the process consists of Preliminary Engineering followed by Final Engineering, Construction and then Operations. However, due to its inherently flexible nature that permits incremental deployment phasing over time „Ÿ a unique characteristic of BRT „Ÿ bus rapid transit can undergo additional planning scrutiny to determine what BRT elements will be included and their deployment sequencing in phases/stages over time. Of course, after the Alternatives Analysis portion of the Project Development Process, a parallel operations planning process usually gets underway that includes designing routes and stations, setting timetables, scheduling vehicles, and assigning crews.

The planning, development, and operations activities occur in a context of stakeholder participation at various organizational levels. During each stage of the BRT implementation process, questions and issues will inevitably arise concerning the effects of actions taken or policy decisions made. These questions and issues need to be considered and effective arrangements made that address them to successfully implement a bus rapid transit system.

Bus rapid transit systems will not necessarily experience the same set of institutional and/or policy issues because each BRT deployment will be affected by local and regional factors. Moreover, even when the same issues arise in different settings, there will likely be local and regional site-specific differences. The importance of identifying and working out such issues should not be underestimated as they do contribute to the overall success of implementing bus rapid transit systems in terms of how transit operations and quality of service for passengers are enhanced.

It is rarely the case that a transit agency can develop a bus rapid transit system without the coordination and cooperation of multiple agencies and often overlapping governmental jurisdictions. Even if this were possible, there is benefit in seeking the cooperation and support of other agencies. However, the multi-jurisdictional and/or multi-stakeholder aspects can make the process of decision-making and implementation more complex as each stakeholder usually brings its own philosophies, priorities, and agendas to the table.

When planning for the deployment of bus rapid transit systems, there are, at a minimum, two distinct types of stakeholders with primary roles. One is the local and/or regional transit agency whose interest lies foremost in reducing its own costs while also enhancing the quality of transportation services that it delivers to its passengers. The other primary stakeholder is the local and/or regional highway and traffic department along the route the transit agency’s bus runs and this latter stakeholder could include multiple operators depending on whether the bus runs through multiple political jurisdictions. Other stakeholders might also include the regional metropolitan planning organization, the state department of transportation, federal transportation agencies, e.g., Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration, various local public officials and/or decision makers, and the general public. The significance of these stakeholders’ roles and influence depends on local and regional conditions encompassing the bus route/traffic corridor where the bus rapid transit system is to be implemented.

Typically a transit agency will interface with other government agencies during regular service discussions however theses interfaces become more critical with the development of a BRT system; it is typical for a transit agency to need to coordinate with an organization it had not worked with prior to the BRT project. These agreements should set out agency and staff responsibilities giving particular attention to the clarification of roles. Achieving consensus, let alone agreement, among all affected stakeholders, whether political jurisdictions or other transportation organizations may at times prove to be a challenging and possibly difficult task. To have a system that works effectively requires the transit agency to achieve agreement with localities and other agencies on infrastructure, operations, and assignment of responsibilities. However, the primary objectives of transit agencies, to provide high-level, high-quality service for their customers at minimum cost, may conflict with the objectives of highway and traffic agencies whose performance is often judged more on enhancing vehicle-moving than people-moving capacity. These often-competing objectives can complicate the implementation of bus rapid transit strategies and may require significant coordination and cooperation if multiple transportation and traffic agencies are involved.

The number and complexity of the agreements will depend upon the type of facility and the governmental organization in the area. There are generally a number of elements of the system that are out of the control of the transit agency. Cooperation of these agencies is critical to the successful introduction and operation of a BRT system. In these cases it is necessary to define and codify these responsibilities. Inter-governmental agreements will be required with a number of different agencies covering items such as right of use (how long, conditions for extension or termination of agreement, state in which the facility is returned to the appropriate agency, legal responsibility, watering maintenance of landscaping, maintenance of running ways, trash collection, graffiti removal, advertising, enforcement, signal timing, lighting). In some cases local or state laws may be enacted, repealed or modified to implement various BRT elements or practices, such as the use of the BRT facility by emergency service vehicles.

The following examples illustrate a variety of contexts in which institutional concerns and policy issues may arise:

Introduction of New Technologies

Institutionally, there may be concerns over the use of new technologies regarding their complexity and reliability. Moreover, there will need to be coordination on the selection and implementation of new technologies determining whether or not they should be selected to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders and how this could complicate BRT deployment. Insufficient understanding of the “state of the art” of technologies and how they can be used in BRT operations also needs to be recognized and addressed.

Intra-Organizational Adaptation to Implementing Bus Rapid Transit

Institutional issues may arise not only between organizations such as transit agencies, individual cities and/or counties, and traffic operators, but also internally within individual organizations. Concerns over preferences in funding and use of scarce resources, the delegation of potentially added responsibilities for staff may result in intra-organizational resistance and morale issues. Unless there are additional funding sources available, increased spending on one route will usually mean decreased funding on others.  

Bus rapid transit systems may require additional resources to support the service offered.  Additional operations, new technologies, retrofitted/new vehicles, and new infrastructure will likely require training and maintenance. Achieving agreement on roles and responsibilities may be difficult if employees are merely required to shoulder additional duties and responsibilities for BRT without additional compensation or support.

Many agencies will need additional time to identify and integrate best industry practices for BRT. Even then, identifying and attempting to accommodate an agency’s departments’ needs may cause internal discord. As new strategies may affect the duties of staff, it is vital that they are consulted and strategies are selected with staff concerns in mind.

The Political Arena

At each stage in the process of implementing BRT, decision-making stakeholders are involved in a variety of ways that impact the specific deployment path a particular bus rapid transit system will take. The decision-makers are by definition major players in the political arena that govern the local jurisdictions in which the BRT would operate. The commitment to BRT by such major players is of crucial importance to its success. 

To establish and sustain a high level of interest and commitment to BRT will likely require a political champion. Whether it is an individual or organizational entity, a political champion would aid in coalition building and sustaining interest in BRT when interest could expand and diminish over time. The strength and capability of a political champion would help determine if the project can withstand voices of opposition arising from various quarters, for example, the local business community or local residents. However, gaining the support of such championing decision-makers often first requires proof of the operational and quality-of-service benefits of BRT; however political support is usually required first to perform the testing that could result in quantifiable and demonstrable benefits. Here we encounter the well-known chicken-or-the-egg dilemma. At this time with already successful bus rapid transit systems implemented internationally as well as in the U.S., one way out of this dilemma is to cite BRT benefits arising from these other locations especially others in U.S. communities with similarities to the site in question so that valid comparisons may be made.

Public Relations and Marketing

The ultimate success of any new product, no matter how good its potential may be, depends largely on how information about it _both benefits and costs _ is communicated. To gain support for BRT, it needs to be properly “sold” to stakeholders including bus passengers, employees, motorists, the general public, as well as decision-makers. However, selling BRT requires setting expectations. Setting high, yet realistic expectations will be crucial for the long-term success of the system. Failure to produce what was proposed could lead to public disappointment and tarnish the sponsoring agency’s name and reputation, resulting in BRT being untouchable for some period of time.

One issue that may arise from poorly executed public relations, marketing, and educational campaigns are motorists’ complaints and backlash who perceive that transit is getting special, and undeserved, treatment, causing roadway delays and raise “tax-equity” issues upon seeing such a system installed for buses, such as with transit signal priority systems.

It would also be important to educate the public and passing motorists on new interactions they may have with bus rapid transit systems. Moreover, the transit agency needs to take into account its current performance, both actual and perceived by the public. Before taking on the additional responsibilities of a BRT, an agency must ensure its current operations are performing satisfactorily. Otherwise, the agency may face political and public opposition if it is perceived the agency is overextending itself beyond its capabilities.   

Labor and Human Factors

Transit agencies must consider the effects different aspects of BRT, such as the use of new technological systems, on its staff, especially bus drivers and maintenance workers. BRT may raise concerns over additional work and responsibilities, changing role of drivers, especially without assurances of additional staff, resources, and/or pay, use of Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) systems for monitoring schedule adherence and different responsibilities between BRT and non-BRT routes.

For example, for collision warning systems or precision docking systems, bus drivers would have a direct and likely the closest connection of all agency employees with such systems implemented as part of a BRT. How would such employees embrace such new systems? Would it mean any change in the definition of their job? The specifics of the bus rapid transit system will determine the extent to which bus drivers need to interact with the system, that is, how much attention drivers must pay to activate and/or monitor the system. With everything the bus driver currently needs to do as part of his/her job, giving the driver additional tasks related to the operation of a new technology would likely lead to a preference for either no or only minimal driver interaction. 

Drivers may also need to switch between BRT and non-BRT routes and equipped buses over the course of relatively short time periods, possibly even the same day. Thus, training for new driving conditions and situations and the ability to smoothly switch between BRT and non-BRT routes/vehicles could concern drivers as well as transit agency management, especially in the instance where drivers have more than simply minimal interaction with the system.

Planning and Land Use

Large-scale public transportation projects often influence travel patterns and surrounding land use. Bus rapid transit, intended to replicate high-level transit service, may raise concerns over how it fits into a region’s overall transportation plans and how it will affect local land use. Many BRT projects intend to strengthen and encourage higher land uses. Project sponsors will need to educate and address public concerns regarding the potential impacts of BRT on the physical environment. The public’s fear of change and the “unknown” often leads to resistance and opposition toward many such projects. Finally, a BRT system’s inherent flexibility, may, in fact, be a disadvantage if potential developers perceive this as a lack of permanence and show reluctance to invest along BRT corridors.

The Physical Environment

The physical presence of a BRT system may also raise institutional challenges. Many project areas, especially in older city centers, may simply lack the physical space to easily accommodate certain BRT implementation strategies. Bus rapid transit projects may also find themselves competing with other interests for high value real estate, which may not only inflate costs, but also complicate institutional dealings. Thus, availability and acquisition of right-of-way or physical space may be an issue.

Image is also a strong marketing tool for BRT. While station area improvements are a popular BRT strategy, these improvements are typically being inserted into the existing urban design. Organizations may find it a challenge to reach agreement or consensus to develop station improvements that promote a strong image, while being acceptable to numerous local interests.

Authors: Graham Carey and Mark Miller