390 likes | 629 Views
Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics. Presentation originally by Dennis Hinebaugh, Director National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), University of South Florida http://www.nbrti.org Presented today by Tom Rye, Edinburgh Napier University. What’s wrong with normal buses?. Slow
E N D
Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics Presentation originally by Dennis Hinebaugh, Director National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), University of South Florida http://www.nbrti.org Presented today by Tom Rye, Edinburgh Napier University
What’s wrong with normal buses? • Slow • Unreliable • Not always frequent • Take the long way around • Uncomfortable • Untrendy, not technologically appealing • Make you feel like a loser if you take one? • BRT – tries to solve these problems
How we treat local bus customers! How we treat BRT customers! Well! Badly!
BRT Systems • United States: • Alameda, CA • Albany, NY • Boston, MA • Charlotte, NC • Cleveland, OH • Chicago, IL • Dulles Corridor, VA • Eugene, OR • Hartford, CT • World: • Curitiba, Brazil • Brisbane, Australia • Adelaide, Australia • Ottawa, Canada • Leeds, England • Amsterdam • Utrecht • Kent, England • Ipswich, England • Rouen, France • Jonkoping, Sweden
] [ It’s no single trait, but the combination of traits that make BRT systems successful!
Infrastructure • Needs to give priority to bus • Does not all have to be the same – one BRT can combine different types of priority • Key: ensure speed and reliability –bus protected from other traffic
Arterial Bus Lanes London Quality Bus Corridor Boston: Silver Line
Arterial Median Transitway Vancouver: 98B
The Balkan BRT – before and after E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ ESKİ HALİ E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ YENİ HALİ
Running Ways Arterial Median Busway Rouen, France: TEOR
Elevated Sections Runcorn, UK
Running Way Color, Markings Auckland Paris Sao Paulo
Route Structures • More direct than local service • “Off-line” stations • Anchored by major activity centers • Major corridors • Feeder routes • Can operate in low-density residential • Flexible • High frequency, turn up and go • Effect on Land use • No map
ADELAIDE CBD Adelaide, Australia
Stations: Potential Characteristics • Differentiated from regular bus stops • Enhanced shelters and/or station design • Designated passenger “platform,” possibly raised • Enclosed • Can be multi-modal • Other facilities (taxi stands, parking, etc.) • Customer information (real-time) • Joint-development/multi-use • Facilitates quick boarding and exit • Docking • Disabled accessible
Vehicles • Unique/distinct aesthetic design/look • Environmentally friendly • Variable propulsion systems • High capacity (articulated, bi-articulated) • Wide aisles, increased passenger comfort • Low-floor • Large window design • Increased amenities (laptop connections) • Multiple double-wide doors • Dual-sided entry/exit • LRT like
Range of BRT Vehicle Options:Conventional Buses Van Hool 300AG Zuidtangent Amsterdam; York Rapid Transit Toronto New Flyer 60LF Vancouver 98, 99B Ottawa Transitways
Specialized BRT Vehicles ATS Phileus Eindhoven, Netherlands Irisbus Civis Las Vegas MAX
Los Angeles, CA • Signal Preemption and low floor vehicles aided in a: • 28 to 33% decrease in travel time • 30% increase in ridership, 14% net new • No appreciable impact on cross–streettraffic
Faster Fare Collection • Fast, efficient so as to speed boarding • Simple to understand • Minimal on-vehicle transactions • Cashless • smart cards (multi-use) • pre-purchased tickets • passes • Proof of payment • enter station
Off–Board Fare Collection Options Proof-of Payment: TVM York, On. Rapid Transit Smart Card Fare Gates TransMillenio, Bogota
Cost Effective • Vehicles • can be off-the-shelf • No track or overhead wires • “Travel Ways” • construction and maintenance • incrementally built (phases, flexible) • existing roadway network (mixed traffic) • Uses existing vehicle storage facilities • Uses existing and simple signal systems • Workforce composition • using existing vs. acquiring new staff • wage differential for BRT vs. LRT
Rapid Transit Mode Comparisons Source: SpeedLink- A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit. June 2001.
Impacts on ridership, car use • Survey of 14 BRT systems around world • Typically 15-35% increase in system ridership • 10-25% of these people transferred from car • Istanbul system carries 500,000 people/day of whom about 10% came from car. 400% increase in total PT riders • See http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Res%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf
Conclusions • BRT quick to implement – politically attractive • Does not always have to be heavily engineered – can combine a range of infrastructure • Can be implemented incrementally • Ultimately it’s about reliability, directness, convenience, premium service, good image • Low cost, high capacity alternative to rail • Keep It Simple Stupid