Home > Planning Support Tool > BRT System Integration: Putting BRT Systems Together

BRT System Integration:
Putting BRT Systems Together

BRT Service Integration

Integration and connectivity are of great importance to a BRT system as the BRT system relies on the regular service to provide additional connections. In many ways the introduction of BRT has raised some of the same concerns that light rail systems encountered when they were first introduced into a community.  In the initial stages of the introduction of the BRT system it is likely that additional transfers will be required between the regular service and BRT. As transferring imposes a penalty on the passenger, system expansion should endeavor to minimize the number of transfers required to reach a desired destination.

Since BRT is likely to use specially identified and designed vehicles, opportunities for interlining the BRT service with other bus services may be constrained. Clearly the existing network will need to be restructured to minimize over-coverage of an area.

The following is a discussion of the some of the key service integration considerations:

• Service differentiation: Most new BRT systems will endeavor to capture the imagination of the traveling public with speed, convenience and directness of the service. Differentiating the BRT service from the regular service as a separate but different brand raises many challenges. In some service applications the new BRT may offer only subtle differences with the regular service that may be difficult for passengers to discern.  Separation of the brands is important so that the differences can be exploited from a marketing stand point.
• Scheduling: Regular transit service is timetable based where as the BRT system may be headway based. The BRT
• Rolling stock: The vehicles used in the BRT service could vary from newer standard vehicles with a particular branding to specifically designed low floor extra long vehicles with doors on both sides. These two types of vehicle may have different performance characteristics which affect the maneuvering space needed at the approach to the stations etc.
• Infrastructural compatibility: Station platforms may be specifically designed to accommodate the BRT vehicle. To ensure level boarding the platform may be raised and railing that opens to align with the door positions may be installed. A regular bus may have two or three steps at the door way which will result in passengers stepping up out the bus. The high platform may prohibit the use of the wheel chair ramp, which would need to be lowered to a certain height before the ramp is extended.
• Operator selection, training, uniforms and labor agreements: In order to create the best first impression of the new service, the transit agency may prefer to have their most talented and personable operators on the new BRT system. However the selection and training of the operators may be subject to existing labor contracts.

Additional issues with interlining of BRT vehicles with regular routes include fares, labor agreements, service frequency and hours, operator relief’s, breaks, contingency planning, vehicle maintenance and spares, spares ratio,  operating policies including securement of wheel chairs, and bicycle accommodations.

Integration of BRT Elements

One of the principal benefits of BRT is the ability to combine discrete BRT elements into a cohesive system. The selection of the particular elements will depend on the operating, environmental, political landscape, passenger needs and/or other factors. Agencies will generally endeavor to maximize the service benefit they receive from the amount funds invested. There may be unique opportunities where BRT elements can be introduced as part of a larger project undertaken by another agency, for example the city upgrading their traffic controllers may provide for the introduction of transit signal priority. Elements of the BRT system may be added incrementally as funding or staff support is available.

In order to distinguish the BRT service from regular bus service, the BRT must have a sufficient number of unique elements. At the basis level this may mean some service improvements and branding. As more elements are added careful consideration needs to be given to maximizing the investment already made, for example, a real time passenger information system may be added at marginal cost when an AVL system is already available. Also certain elements need to be combined in order to operate efficiently. An example would be fare collection and multi-doored vehicles. The benefits of a vehicle with multi doors are that passengers can enter and depart through any door. If the fare collection system requires passengers to file pass the driver then only one door can be used for boarding.

Interactions and Tradeoffs

A systems approach needs to be taken in the planning for and implementation of bus rapid transit systems that considers technology aspects, design attributes, operational and service plans, and institutional and policy issues. These four areas need to be integrated to understand their interactions. In this way, a much more complete and accurate depiction of the system with both its benefits and costs may be derived. We provide here a few examples to illustrate this point.

Design attributes are directly linked with operational and service plans and resulting benefits especially in terms of new ridership. For example, to reduce route travel time along a bus rapid transit corridor, fewer BRT stops/stations may be designated than would normally be used if that corridor were used for conventional local bus service. However, the further apart consecutive stops/stations are placed, the further customers would need to walk to access the stop/station. Clearly, a transit agency would plan the location of each stop/station to balance the competing objectives of reducing total travel time and attracting new riders. Having the stops spaced further apart contributes to reducing overall travel time because there would be fewer number of stops for the bus to provide boarding and alighting, however, having to walk further to access the bus may discourage potential riders from using this BRT service that may have been attracted to the new service because of the reduced travel time. In Los Angeles, MTA’s Metro Rapid along Wilshire Boulevard originally sited stations approximately 0.75 to 0.80 miles apart. Overall travel time along the Wilshire corridor has been reduced by 29% and there has been an increase in ridership by approximately 44% with a third of these being riders new to transit. Whenever considering adding a new Metro Rapid stop, the location has to be selected carefully. Though adding stops may attract new riders because of the reduced distance people have to walk to the stop, it will increase overall travel time, which itself would be a disincentive to attracting new riders.

Another interaction is among design attributes, service plans, and institutional concerns. In order to provide more rail-like level of service, an exclusive or at least near-exclusive right-of-way may be sought. Moreover, at BRT stops/stations the use of queue jumpers and/or bus bulbs may also be considered. The use of these design attributes in order to improve the level of service may, however, conflict with concerns of the local business community over its opposition to the removal of or restrictions placed on parking space availability that may be necessary to accommodate such operational and service plans for BRT. 

Authors: Graham Carey and Mark Miller