You are on page 1of 15

Bus Rapid Transit as a Substitute for Light Rail Transit

A Tale of Two Cities

Wilbur Smith Associates


There is growing awareness that continued development and expansion of high-quality

public transportation service is an essential ingredient in modifying mode choice
behavior in the United States. In the past 20 years, 12 new start light rail transit (LRT)
lines have been constructed in North America as part of a determined effort to change
travel patterns in growing cities. However, the cost-effectiveness of constructing
expensive new start LRT lines is being questioned by local officials in many smaller
cities now engaged in studying the feasibility of such investments. The costs of
constructing LRT have spiraled upward, whereas estimated levels of future transit system
ridership in smaller cities are relatively low compared to larger cities. Can public
transportation services in smaller cities be dramatically improved without the
extraordinary capital expenditures required of LRT system construction? Bus rapid transit
(BRT) may be a rational and cost-effective way to implement significant transit
improvements in smaller cities, and it may cost 40 to 70 percent less than current LRT
construction estimates. These cost savings often can be achieved without sacrificing
service quality and potential ridership. The service characteristics and attributes of BRT
are also often similar to LRT, with the notable exception of the vehicles and supporting
infrastructure. This research explores the rationale for building BRT in two different
cities: Cleveland, Ohio, and Nashville, Tennessee. The research will compare and
contrast the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of the rail and bus alternatives
proposed for the travel corridors in these two cities.

he resurgent interest in bus rapid transit (BRT) within the United States is a direct
T outgrowth of the limited ability of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to fund
every New Start rail project that is now being conceived, planned, or designed. The
inadequate level of funding for New Start rail projects will continue to be a political reality
until the U.S. Congress changes the way transportation projects are funded. From the FTA
perspective, BRT is a step toward developing improved public transportation systems that
have the service delivery characteristics and appeal of a rail transit line at a fraction of the
capital cost. This would spread limited federal resources to more cities. The direct federal
investment in improved transit services in more American cities would become a major
catalyst in the process of changing mode choice behaviors and arresting urban core
disinvestment throughout the country. This stewardship of federal investment is even
more prudent when many feasibility studies indicate that required ridership thresholds
on proposed New Start rail lines in many cities won’t be achieved until sometime in the

K-32 / 1
Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 2

future. Some planned light rail transit (LRT) systems have average daily ridership estimates
in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. There are many bus lines in the United States that carry as
many or more riders on a daily basis, including the Euclid Corridor line in Cleveland.
This research explores the rationale of building BRT in two different cities:
Cleveland, Ohio, and Nashville, Tennessee. Each city has unique travel demand
characteristics and population growth trends. In Cleveland, the BRT system was selected
as the locally preferred alternative for the Euclid Corridor upon completion of the Dual
Hub Corridor Transitional Analysis (1) in 1995. In Nashville, BRT is being considered
as a lower-cost alternative to an urban core LRT line. The BRT in Cleveland is a
substitute for LRT, while the BRT in Nashville is viewed as a precursor to LRT. The
reasons for this are directly related to the population and employment growth
characteristics of the two cities. Cleveland is an older, northern city with relatively flat
population and employment growth. Transit ridership is not expected to increase
significantly over the next 20 years. Nashville, on the other hand, is experiencing
tremendous growth in both employment and population growth.


Bus systems are ubiquitous, versatile, and flexible. They are comparatively inexpensive
to implement. However, bus systems are not overly appealing to people who value
comfort, convenience, and speed. Therefore, the underlying concept of BRT is simple:
duplicate the reliability, level of service, comfort, and appeal of a modern LRT line while
achieving the flexibility and cost-effectiveness inherent in bus systems. BRT services
should include the following attributes:

• Exclusive bus lanes, bus streets, and busways

• Bus signal priority or preemption
• Reliability
• Traffic management improvements
• Improved fare collection and boarding/alighting patterns
• Appealing bus designs and seating arrangements
• Integration of transit station development with adjacent land-use policy
• Improved facilities and passenger amenities such as stations and enhanced stops

These attributes appeal to people who place a high emphasis on status, convenience,
comfort, and speed. Every BRT design feature must address these needs. In other words,
the attributes of BRT must appeal to people who now choose to drive an automobile and
must be at least equal to LRT.
BRT systems have been successfully deployed throughout the world with varying
degrees of success. The most notable BRT systems in the United States are in Houston,
Texas; Los Angeles, California (El Monte Freeway); Miami, Florida; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Orlando, Florida (LYMMO); San Francisco, California (Highway 101);
and Washington, DC (Shirley Highway). BRT systems under development in the United
States include Hartford, Connecticut; Oakland, California; Cleveland, Ohio; Eugene,
Oregon; Charlotte, North Carolina; and several other cities with bus transit priority
features such as the High Street Corridor in Columbus, Ohio. In other countries, BRT is
Sislak K-32 / 3

growing in importance as well. Some of the more diverse cities that have developed BRT
systems are Adelaide, Australia; Curitiba and Sao Paolo, Brazil; Ottawa, Canada; Quito,
Ecuador; Caen, Lyon, Nancy, and Paris, France; and Essen, Germany. The most notable
and famous is Curitiba.
The principles of BRT are highly developed and articulated in the Curitiba
example. However, urban design features of the BRT in Curitiba are decidedly different
from those that people in the United States have come to expect from high-quality LRT
systems. The buses in Curitiba are not air-conditioned, for example. The urban transit
system in Paris is developing a system of high-quality BRT services on suburban
boulevards, with exclusive lanes to speed the operation of transit service in suburb-to-
suburb travel corridors. These BRT lines are intended to be replaced by LRT as
passenger traffic on the lines increases. New guided bus technology and dual-mode
hybrid electric buses that resemble light rail vehicles are emerging as guided light transit
(GLT) in France and Germany.
To appeal to status-conscious Americans, Cleveland and Nashville contemplate
BRT systems as utilizing exclusive busways on an urban arterial street, with transit-
priority signaling. The technology recommended for both systems is low-floor,
articulated electric trolleybuses (ETBs). The design of each BRT system is intended to
replicate many of the desired features of LRT including stations, traveler information
systems, and other attractive urban design features such as art-in-transit.


The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the city of Cleveland are
jointly developing a major transportation infrastructure investment in the Euclid Avenue
travel corridor between Public Square in downtown Cleveland and University Circle.
This is a distance of approximately 4.3 mi (6.92 km). The project consists of several
transportation system management (TSM) elements recommended in the Dual Hub
Corridor Transitional Analysis (1). The TSM alternative was adopted by the Northeast
Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency as the region’s locally preferred investment
strategy for transportation improvements in the corridor. These TSM improvements
center on establishing priority treatments for transit vehicles on Euclid Avenue,
improving access and passenger waiting amenities in a specified downtown transit zone,
and purchasing and deploying a unique transit vehicle. As part of the roadway and
transitway improvements, Euclid Avenue will be reconstructed the entire length of the
corridor. These civic improvements include urban design treatments intended to stimulate
economic growth and redevelopment. The project was renamed the Euclid Corridor
Transportation Project (ECTP).
The central element of ECTP is the construction of an exclusive transitway in the
median of Euclid Avenue, Cleveland’s main street. The transitway would extend from
Public Square east to Stearns Road in University Circle. It would include conveniently
located stations spaced approximately every 0.5 mi (0.8 km). Traffic would be controlled
by a traffic management system that monitors every signalized intersection and provides
priority to detected advancing transit vehicles in the peak direction. The system would
function as a bus rapid transit line and would have the capacity to move 90 buses per
hour in the peak direction (Figure 1, where 1 mi = 1.6 km).
Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 4

Currently, four bus routes serve the Euclid Corridor between Public Square and
University Circle. Average daily ridership on the bus lines serving the corridor is over
27,600. The average number of daily passenger boardings at Red Line stations serving
the corridor is approximately 9,200 riders. This includes eastbound boardings at Tower
City. The Route 6 Euclid Avenue local bus has the highest ridership in the RTA system,
with average daily boardings exceeding 20,000 riders. This includes riders from the
former Route 6A and 28X. Route 6 accounts for more than 54 percent of all transit trips
in the corridor.

Purpose and Need

The greater Cleveland area has experienced population dispersion, low-density

development, and continued suburbanization, especially shifts in employment away from

FIGURE 1 Map of Euclid Corridor Improvement Project.

Sislak K-32 / 5

the central business district (CBD). Employment and population migration from the city
to surrounding communities is affecting land use and travel patterns. In 1960 the city’s
population was 876,000, greater than the combined population of the Cuyahoga County
suburbs. And the total population of Cuyahoga County exceeded the combined population
of the adjoining counties. By 1990, outward migration reversed the distribution of
population. Adjoining counties have a combined population of 1.2 million, Cuyahoga
County suburbs have a combined population of 906,524, and the central city population
has been reduced to 505,616. This trend is expected to continue in the future, with the
Cleveland CBD losing more market share of the region’s employment base. This reversal of
population and employment distribution has had a profound effect on public transportation
usage. Since 1980, total RTA system ridership has been reduced by more than 50 percent,
from 110 million annual riders to about 55 million in 1999. RTA accounts for only
2.2 percent of total daily trips and approximately 10 percent of average daily work trips.
The Euclid Avenue BRT element of the ECTP is designed to make a significant
improvement in the quality and appeal of transit services in the Euclid Corridor.
Fundamentally the project is designed to stimulate economic development in the Euclid
Corridor through direct investment of a major infrastructure enhancement and
reinvestment in properties adjacent to the BRT stations.

Euclid Avenue BRT Attributes

The Euclid Avenue BRT consists of a 4.2-mi (6.76-km) exclusive transitway

constructed in the median of Euclid Avenue. The typical sections of the Euclid Avenue
busway are illustrated in Figure 2. The transitway will feature transit signal priority,
automated vehicle location, and passenger information systems. Stations will allow
passengers to board unique buses from low-level platforms designed for level entry. The
Euclid Avenue buses will be low-floor, articulated ETBs. ETB technology was selected
to satisfy the ultraquiet and zero emission standards specified by the city of Cleveland
for the CBD segment of the transitway. The ETB will have doors on both sides of the
vehicle, similar to light rail vehicles, allowing passengers to board either from the
median station platforms in the CBD or from curbside platforms on segments of the
route located east of the busway between University Circle and the terminus of the
Euclid Avenue BRT line at Windermere Station in East Cleveland. East 17th Street
between Prospect Avenue and St. Clair Avenue in downtown Cleveland will be
converted to a semiexclusive transitway with local access provisions for general traffic.
The Downtown Transit Zone element of the ECTP includes creation of exclusive bus
lanes on Superior and St. Clair Avenues between Public Square and East 17th Street to
facilitate bus route rationalization in the downtown area. RTA is also examining
systemwide changes to its fare collection process to facilitate faster boarding and
alighting. The Euclid Corridor BRT and the RTA rail rapid transit system may utilize a
proof-of-payment system.

Capital Cost Estimate

The capital cost estimates for the Euclid Avenue TSM and Rail Build alternatives, in
1994 dollars, are listed in Table 1.
FIGURE 2 Euclid Avenue Busway, typical section.
Sislak K-32 / 7

The Dual-Hub Rail Build alternatives 3A and 3B include the relocation of the
RTA rapid transit in the downtown area, including some segments of a downtown
subway between Public Square and Cleveland State University. Alternatives 4A and
4B include the downtown subway segment and LRT along Euclid Avenue between
Cleveland State University and University Circle. Alternative 4B includes a connecting
link between the RTA Shaker Heights Blue/Green LRT lines and the proposed Euclid
Avenue LRT.
The Euclid Corridor BRT has evolved from the Dual-Hub Corridor TSM
alternative. The capital cost estimate of the BRT project with supporting elements is
approximately $205.4 million. The BRT has an annualized capital cost of approximately
$17.8 million. The BRT cost estimates are in 1998 dollars (2). The fundamental
differences between the Dual-Hub TSM alternative and the Euclid Corridor BRT are in
the levels of reconstruction for Euclid Avenue and the urban design treatments. The
Dual-Hub TSM alternative provided for minimum utility improvements and street
resurfacing rather than reconstruction of the entire street structure.

Operating Cost Estimate

The operating and maintenance cost estimates, based on the marginal costs of
implementing the TSM and Rail Build alternatives of the Dual-Hub Corridor, are
summarized in Table 2.
The ECTP No Build operating and maintenance cost estimate is $182.9 million,
slightly less than the Dual-Hub No Build alternative. The Euclid Avenue BRT adds only
$1.1 million in annualized operating and maintenance costs to the RTA system. The
significant difference between the Dual-Hub and Euclid Corridor alternatives can be
found in the relative levels of background changes in the bus system networks. RTA
instituted a series of route changes and modifications resulting from recommendations
made in the 1995 Dual-Hub Corridor study and a follow-up Comprehensive Operations
Analysis (COA) completed in 1996. The COA recommendations resulted in decreased
operating expenses systemwide. The COA route network became the ECTP No Build
transit network.

TABLE 1 Estimated Dual-Hub Project Capital Costs, in Thousands of 1994 Dollars

Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 8

TABLE 2 Estimated Dual-Hub Project Operating and Maintenance Costs,

in Thousands of 1994 Dollars

Ridership Estimates

The forecasts for transit ridership are critical to the evaluation of cost-effectiveness.
Table 3 illustrates the ridership forecasts for the Euclid Avenue LRT as reported in the
Dual Hub Corridor Transitional Analysis (1).
The Euclid Corridor Transportation Project average daily linked trips are
167,527 for the No Build alternative and 169,934 for the BRT alternative, which is
greater than the ridership predicted for the Dual Hub. The reasons for the differences in
ridership estimates between the Dual Hub and Euclid Corridor phases of project
development relate to differences in modeling techniques and background transit
networks. The ECTP model displays total regional transit ridership, which includes
services from adjoining counties.


The cost-effectiveness indices for the Dual-Hub Corridor LRT and Euclid Corridor BRT
alternatives were calculated by applying current FTA New Starts guidance in determining
the cost-per-new-rider index. The cost-per-new-rider index is calculated by adding the
annualized capital cost to the annual change in operating and maintenance costs and then
dividing the resulting sum by the change in annual new linked trips. Table 4 illustrates
the results of these calculations for the Dual-Hub Corridor.

TABLE 3 Estimated Dual-Hub Project Ridership (Average Daily Linked Trips)

Sislak K-32 / 9

The Euclid Corridor BRT has a cost-effectiveness index of $26.93. The reason
for the increase in the Euclid Corridor BRT cost-effectiveness index compared to the
Dual-Hub TSM alternative derives from the design elements added to the BRT system.
These added design elements include complete reconstruction of the Euclid Avenue
street structure, utility improvements and relocations, electric trolleybus overhead
contact system and power distribution, median stations, and significant streetscape
improvements. In addition, a high percentage of the ridership increases projected by the
Dual-Hub Corridor TSM and Rail Build alternatives are accounted for in the ECTP No
Build alternative. Therefore the net increase in transit riders is lower for the Euclid
Corridor BRT when compared to the Dual-Hub TSM and Rail Build alternatives. The
Euclid Corridor BRT has a slightly lower cost-effectiveness index than the Dual-Hub
Rail Build alternatives. However, a more direct comparison of the two projects is

Euclid Corridor BRT Compared with Dual-Hub Corridor LRT

Because of the subtle and not insignificant differences between the Euclid Corridor BRT
and Dual-Hub Corridor LRT alternatives, it is necessary to use some judgment in
evaluating the two projects. It is clear from Table 4 why the TSM alternative was selected
as the locally preferred alternative. The lower cost-effectiveness index convinced local
officials that improving bus service in the corridor was more cost-effective than building
a new downtown subway and LRT along Euclid Avenue. Moreover the annual
increases in operating costs made the LRT alternative prohibitively expensive to
operate. Table 5 illustrates a more direct comparison between the two projects. The
cost estimates for the Dual-Hub Corridor alternatives have been adjusted to 1998
dollars. The ridership estimates for the Euclid Corridor BRT have been adjusted to add
the new transit riders gained as a result of using the Dual-Hub Corridor TSM transit
network as the ECTP No Build transit network. Consequently, BRT is nearly twice as
cost-effective as LRT.

TABLE 4 Estimated Dual-Hub Project Cost Effectiveness

(Annualized Costs and Ridership in Thousands)
Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 10

TABLE 5 Comparison of Euclid Corridor BRT and

Dual-Hub LRT Project Cost-Effectiveness
(Annualized Costs and Ridership in Thousands)

The significant comparative differences in capital costs between the LRT and
BRT projects are directly attributable to the cost of constructing imbedded track
structure, subway connections to the existing Red Line in downtown Cleveland, utility
relocations, and the purchase of light rail vehicles.


The Urban Core Light Rail Analysis (3) was a feasibility study conducted by the
Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority to examine the phased development of
LRT in the downtown Nashville to West End travel corridor. This dense urban core
travel corridor is experiencing rapid growth in employment and in special-event and
tourist-oriented travel (Figure 3, where 1 ft = 0.3 m). The attractiveness of an urban
light rail transportation link is based on both present and future land uses that have the
capability of generating considerable traffic within the corridor. The urban core LRT
would link downtown, Music Row, West End, and the redeveloping East Bank area
including the historic Edgefield neighborhood. The specific objectives of this study
were to:

• Determine how light rail transit can serve downtown employment centers and
tourist-related attractions within the study corridor without precluding future extensions
to East Bank neighborhoods and other areas of the region;
• Determine the optimum alignment, technology, and operating plan;
• Determine the capital and operating costs;
• Determine the number of potential riders who would use the service; and
• Determine the overall financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing
Sislak K-32 / 11

FIGURE 3 Nashville urban core map.

Purpose and Need

The five-county Nashville metropolitan area is growing in population and employment.

Central Nashville, which is primarily Davidson County, has grown 28 percent since 1960
and is projected to grow another 15 percent between 1990 and 2015. From 1980 to 1990,
the Nashville region experienced a 26 percent increase in employment. Employment in
the region is projected to increase another 39 percent between 1990 and 2015. In
addition, the growth of the tourist and convention industry stemming from the growing
popularity of country music worldwide is placing additional stress on the existing
transportation system. The number of trips made by people living in the region has grown
and will continue to grow as development becomes more automobile oriented. People
travel farther distances because of the ever-expanding geographic area, typical of urban
sprawl development patterns. The size of the region and the diversity of destinations is
one of the primary reasons automobile travel in the area is so prevalent; cars are much
more convenient for reaching the variety of suburban destinations.
Nashville has over 490 lane-miles (788.9 lane-km) of multilane express highways.
A great deal of this highway infrastructure investment was made by the community to
foster economic development and to improve the quality of life for area residents. There
are many major arterial roads that radiate from downtown. This roadway pattern reflects
Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 12

the historical development trend associated with the settlement of Nashville. Some of the
arterial roads and expressways in the corridor could become overutilized by the year
2015. This means the highways would operate poorly, with significant delays during peak
travel periods. Consequently, existing transit bus service in the corridor, which is locked
into the radial layout of the major streets in Nashville, will suffer serious degradation of
service quality in terms of passenger travel times and schedule reliability.

Nashville BRT Features

The urban core BRT system is envisioned to consist of exclusive bus lanes on West End
Boulevard and several downtown streets. A high level of transit priority signaling would
speed the buses through the corridor. The buses would be low-floor articulated ETB, with
design characteristics similar to light rail vehicles. The buses would be ultraquiet and
nonpolluting, and they would provide a higher level of passenger comfort when
compared to today’s motor buses. Stations would be simple in design and blend
aesthetically with surrounding neighborhoods.
The 4.2-mi (6.76-km) starter line would begin on the east bank of the Cumberland
River at the new Tennessee Titans Stadium and end at I-440 near Murphy Road. There
are 15 potential stations located to serve areas thought to generate the highest potential
ridership. Stations were sited at intersections with bus routes and major urban arterials or
in proximity to high concentrations of residential or employment activity. Stations serve
the CBD, the Arena and Convention Center, Music Row, and Vanderbilt University.
Connections to planned commuter rail stations were also considered.

Capital Cost Estimate

As part of the feasibility study, two capital cost estimates were prepared, one for LRT
and one for BRT. The estimated total capital cost of the LRT is $114.5 million. The
capital costs of constructing the BRT using ETB technologies were estimated to be
approximately $53.5 million. This represents a 53 percent reduction in the capital cost
while achieving the same transportation utility as measured in speed and potential travel
time savings. Table 6 clearly shows that the cost savings are achieved by eliminating the
track structure and utility relocation necessary for imbedded track construction.

Operating Cost Estimate

The estimated operating and maintenance costs for LRT were determined to be
approximately $4.6 million annually. This equates to approximately $18.28 per LRT
car-mile. The national average cost per LRT car-mile for light rail service is $19.35.
Because the BRT service schedule would be identical to the LRT schedule, it would
provide the same vehicle-miles. However, the operating costs would be lower than LRT.
The BRT system would be operated as an extension of the MTA bus service, thereby
saving some managerial, engineering, and track maintenance positions. It is estimated
that the BRT operations and maintenance expenses would be approximately $3.2 million
annually. This is equivalent to approximately $12.73 per bus-mile, very similar to the
ETB operating and maintenance costs experienced by Seattle and San Francisco.
TABLE 6 Comparison of Nashville Urban Core LRT and
BRT Capital Cost, in Thousands of Dollars
Light Rail: Investment for the Future—8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit K-32 / 14

However, the cost per passenger-mile is potentially lower for the LRT service because it
has greater passenger-carrying capacity. Although the LRT system is desirable strictly
from its ability to carry higher volumes of passengers, the 53 percent increase in capital
costs to achieve this result doesn’t appear justified when potential ridership on the starter
line is examined.


Estimated ridership on the Nashville urban core line would be approximately 5,500
average daily riders, growing to approximately 9,500 in the future. This figure includes
estimated annual special-events ridership averaged on a daily basis. The relatively short
urban core line does not penetrate deeply into denser residential neighborhoods and must
depend entirely on park-and-ride, feeder bus, and Vanderbilt University student ridership.
There is no significant difference in ridership between LRT and BRT modes.


The Nashville Urban Core Light Rail Analysis (3) examined the cost-effectiveness of
both LRT and BRT alternatives by applying current FTA New Starts guidance in
calculating the cost-per-new-rider index. The LRT alternative has a cost-per-new-rider
index of approximately $28.57. The BRT ETB alternative has a cost-per-new-rider index
of approximately $16.22.


The concept of BRT has been embraced by some cities as the most cost-effective solution
to growing demand for improved public transportation that is neither just a bus nor an
expensive LRT line. This is especially true in Brazil and France, where new ETB and
GLT systems have been developed as either a substitute or a precursor to LRT. In
Cleveland, Ohio, the substitute Euclid Corridor BRT alternative is nearly twice as cost-
effective as the ill-fated Dual-Hub Corridor LRT line. In Nashville, transit authority and
city officials are examining the merits of an ETB BRT alternative as a precursor to a
more expensive LRT option.
In the case of Cleveland, the Euclid Corridor BRT option costs more than
$504.3 million less than the Dual-Hub 3B LRT option in comparable 1998 dollars. The
differences in annualized costs and new transit riders between the BRT and LRT options
equates to approximately $41.39 per new transit rider. The Nashville BRT option costs
$61 million less than the LRT option. There is no significant difference in ridership
estimates for the BRT and LRT option in Nashville, making the BRT option very cost-


1. Euclid Consultants (ICF Kaiser et al.), Cleveland Dual Hub Corridor Transitional
Analysis. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, Ohio; November
Sislak K-32 / 15

2. Dames and Moore Group (O’Brien Kreitzburg/BRW), Preliminary Engineering Status

of Design Report. Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority, Cleveland, Ohio, April 1999.
3. Wilbur Smith Associates et al., Nashville Urban Core Light Rail Analysis. Nashville
Metropolitan Transit Authority, Nashville, Tenn., June 1999.


Issues in Bus Rapid Transit. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.; 1998.
Levinson, Herbert S., Crosby L. Adams, and William F. Hoey (Wilbur Smith
Associates), Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines. NCHRP Report
155, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; 1975.
Levinson, Herbert S., William F. Hoey, D. B. Sanders, and F. H. Wynn (Wilbur Smith
Associates), Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art. NCHRP Report 143, Highway
Research Board, Washington, D.C.; 1973.
St. Jacques, Kevin and Herbert S. Levinson (Wilbur Smith Associates), Operational
Analysis of Bus Lanes on Arterials. TCRP Report 26, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.; 1997.
Wilbur Smith Associates, Bus Rapid Transit for Densely Developed Areas. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.; 1975.
Wilbur Smith Associates, The Potential for Bus Rapid Transit. Automobile
Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan; February 1970.


Kenneth G. Sislak
Director, Public Transportation
Wilbur Smith Associates
55 Public Square, Suite 1120
Cleveland, OH 44113
(216) 875-2000