BUS RAPID TRANSIT:

WORLDWIDE SUCCESS OF A MODULAR TOOLBOX

Rainer Hesse
TransTec Consult GmbH
1. INTRODUCTION
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems had their breakthrough many years ago and are more
recently given increasing attention. Bus Rapid Transit can comprise complete systems,
as impressively demonstrated in Latin America, or the targeted application of selected
elements.
This presentation deals with the toolbox for BRT and different approaches to its
utilisation.

2. DEFINITION
There is hardly any definition. BRTs are also known as busway systems, high-capacity
systems, HOV (Dutch: hoorwaardig openbaar vervoer) and the like. BRTs share a
number of core elements which contribute to high capacity and high commercial speed
such as
segregated right of way
provisions for short dwell times
priority over car traffic
modal integration
reasonable comfort and
administrative regulation.

3. DEVELOPMENT
Segregated Bus Corridors
Bus corridors, busways etc. emerged once just from capacity needs. Handling of buses
in large numbers very quickly involved some segregation.
High-capacity bus corridors can be found in several cities in North America, Europe and
some other places. Two random examples:
Jakarta Jalan Sudirman / Tamrin: Busways in side reservation, for conventional
buses.
Hamburg, Metrobus 5 conversion of former tramway line on original right of way.
Early Transit System Ideas
Tramways and other guided modes usually involve a certain level of
comprehensiveness, i. e. a number of supplementary elements which contribute to
capacity and comfort. Due to their guidance system, and the capacity often involved,
segregated right of way, distinguishable platforms, passenger information etc. are
obvious elements of such systems.
Buses however have the flexibility to operate in almost any street, and are accordingly
not very demanding to right of way and infrastructure conditions. In other words, just
buses would not create a transit system.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

However, modern technologies which help enhancing performance and convenience

can be used for guided (rail) and non-guided (bus) systems. Bus networks can
obviously be upgraded with such elements, and their capacity and comfort be improved.
Furthermore, a gap became evident between cities with rail systems and mid-sized
cities with bus networks which might be too small for al rail system, but too big for a
conventional bus. And, mainly outside Europe, rapidly growing cities needed backbone
systems for public transport but could not easily afford and/or accommodate rail
systems.
VV Concepts
The Verband ffentlicher Verkehrsbetriebe (VV, now VDV), the German association of
transport operators, started creating a transit system approach for buses in the mid1970s.
A book was published called "Busverkehrssystem" (Bus Transit System) which was at
that time still at conceptual level: nothing was yet implemented. The approach and its
elements, however, sustained until today:
Lbeck Demonstrator
It was decided to translate the approach into reality and to create a demonstrator.
Lbeck, an old Hanse city in northern Germany, was identified as an ideal test site:
200,000 inhabitants, too small for a tramway, too big for an 'ordinary' bus. The bus
network was well acceptance with high patronage and short headways in the central
corridors.
Just 15 million were available for upgrading of all elements in a selected corridor.
Experience was more than promising, and the results were published in handbook
format.
Early European Systems with BRT Elements
Other European cities started with elements, sometimes on a large scale. Two
examples:
Val de Marne is an orbital busway system around the southern parts of Paris. It
comprises segregated right of way and stops at light rail standard, a traffic signal
system and some civil construction - such as a flyover - in certain places.
Madrid has a network of segregated busways, some of them on motorways, and
dedicated bus termini, some underground.
Both use selected elements without claiming to be full-scale BRTs.
Breakthrough in Latin America
The 1970s and 1980s saw massive developments in some Latin American cities which
at the end created the breakthrough for BRTs.
Whilst Europe upgraded existing bus systems, some rapidly growing Latin American
cities needed new backbone systems. Being confronted with limited funds, often
deregulated markets and reluctance to accept long implementation periods, buses
provided an efficient answer.
High-capacity systems were developed which comprise similar elements as above but
generally at higher capacity levels. The most famous pioneer systems are
Curitiba, Brazil
Bogota, Colombia, and
Quito, Ecuador.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Enhanced Bus or Poor Man's Tramway?

Two approaches became obvious:
European cities enhanced their bus systems and brought them close to rail
system quality where rail systems were not suitable, or too difficult to implement.
European systems often show high levels of sophistication but moderate capacity.
Latin American cities aimed for higher capacity without the need and/or the
opportunity to build rail systems. Latin American systems often show high capacity
with sophistication to support system performance.

4. SYSTEM LIST
The following list gives an overview of most existing systems, without claiming to be a
full record. It includes systems which are not necessarily considered 'classical' BRT
systems but comprise BRT elements to a reasonably significant extent. Location names
in bold letters indicate full-scale BRTs or systems where the vast majority of BRT
elements are used.
Europe
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Eindhoven
Lbeck
Mannheim
Essen
Madrid
Leeds
Paris
Rouen
Caen
Nancy
Latin America
Curitiba
Porto Alegre
Sao Paulo
Quito
Bogota
North America
Ottawa
Seattle
Boston
Asia
Jakarta
Kunming
Australia
Adelaide
Brisbane

The Netherlands
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Germany
Germany
Germany
Spain
United Kingdom
France
France
France
France
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Ecuador
Colombia
Canada
United States
United States

Zuidtangent
Phileas guided bus
Busverkehrssystem
guided bus
guided bus, tunnel section closed
guided bus
Val de Marne
Civis guided bus
TVR guided bus
TVR guided bus

trolleybus BRT
bus corridor
trolleybus BRT with underground
section
Silver Line, trolleybus BRT with
underground section

Indonesia
China
Australia
Australia

guided bus

Many new systems are in the planning stage. Among the reasonably advanced are
Mexico City; Cape Town, South Africa; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Lima, Peru;
Chongqing, China
Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

5. SYSTEM ELEMENTS
5.1. General Concept
Much of the system criteria will depend on the system concept chose, esp. whether
a full-scale BRT system is to be established or
selected elements shall be used,
and whether it shall
become an independent, stand-alone system or
be integrated with the existing bus network.
Further considerations will depend on the decision whether to use proprietary
technologies.
Some of the guidance technologies are proprietary, i. e. only available from their
manufacturers. They may have significant impact on system design and the ability
to extend the system on competitive tender basis.
A few fixed guideway elements (kerbstones for platform) and control &
communication systems are owned by their manufacturers, however, with more
limited impact on competitive tendering.
Fortunately, proprietary technologies are used to a very limited extent in BRT systems,
and none of them really prevents system expansion on a competitive tender basis.
5.2. Network and Operation
Independent or Integrated System
BRT systems usually add a new quality to urban transport. This can be captured in
a separate system which is clearly distinguishable from 'ordinary' buses or
an integrated system which is accessible also to 'ordinary' buses and comprises
mixed route.
There are obvious implications such as
the ability of an independent system to accommodate special purpose vehicles
and accordingly to deviate from standard designs (incl. stations),
the need for interchange from bus to bus, in case of an independent system (a
bus-bus interchange which may need to be made plausible to passengers) and
the opportunity of incremental implementation and upgrading in case of an
integrated system.
System size and implementation periods will also play an important role. Examples
indicated that
smaller scale European systems often prefer the integrated option, and many use
just elements out of the BRT toolbox, whereas
the large scale systems in Latin America and Asia are mostly independent
systems, at least when completed.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Incumbent or New Operator

The additional value to the transport system is in some cases also reflected in new
institutional arrangements. This applies especially to places where bus transport is
deregulated and dominated by private operators without much coordination.
Systems like Transmilenio used the opportunity of the arrival of a new transit system to
implement regulation and performance based tendering, and established a regulatory
authority.
Most European systems have their regulatory framework already in place and in most
cases use their incumbent operators. However, e. g. operation of Amsterdam's
Zuidtangent will go to tender in the near future.
Stand-alone or Integrated Fare System
The higher quality of BRTs may justify different fare levels, also supported by new
regulatory frameworks. This is again more popular outside Europe and North America
where fare integration is usually preferred.
Open or Closed Ticketing System
The performance of BRT systems is to a large extent based on short dwell times at
stations. Boarding and alighting shall need shortest possible time which is obviously to
be supported by adequate ticketing provisions.
Operators prefer to avoid crowding in door areas, either with the ticket validators located
in the spacious interior, or with closed systems. In the latter case, passengers are
expected to purchase / validate tickets before entering station platforms (paid areas).
The choice is fairly independent from ticket media. An open system will not necessarily
have conventional tickets and a closed system will not in any case have smartcards.
There are open systems which use smart cards and closed systems which use cash
and/or tokens.
5.3. Right of Way
Segregation
The degree of physical segregation can vary within a BRT network or line.
Fully segregated, high-capacity systems often work like railways on tyres, and are
found among the independent BRT systems.
'Softer', more flexible segregation can usually be found in systems with lower
capacity, often integrated with existing bus networks.
Guidance Systems
Guidance systems are not typical for BRTs. Where used, they are often intended to
bring a system closer to rail, or to achieve special qualities, e. g. to optimise the vehicle /
platform interface at stations.
Systems:
mechanical guidance:
kerbstone guidance, developed as O-Bahn by Mercedes-Benz (Germany) in the
1970s and currently updated by Neoman (Germany),
guidance by single rail, centrally located under the vehicle, as TVR by Bombardier
and Translohr by Lohr Industries, both coming fairly close to tramways,
optical guidance:
Civis, developed by Siemens-Matra (France, available independently from the
vehicle), Autotram currently developed by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Dresden
(Germany)

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

electro-magnetic guidance:
Phileas currently tested in Eindhoven (The Netherlands)
physical guidance in stops:
special kerbstones such as in Kassel and Dresden (Germany)
Fairly well known are the guided buses produced by Mercedes-Benz in the early 1980's
with mechanical guidance by kerbstones. The system was developed towards rail
system capacity and on conventional bus basis implemented in Adelaide, Essen
and Mannheim.
BN (La Brugeoise & Nivelles, today member of the Bombardier group) developed a
different guidance system which was based on a rail in the middle of the right of way,
with the great advantage of enabling car traffic crossing at intersections.
The GLT was further developed to TVR, now operating in Nancy and Caen (France).
Lohr Industries (France) picked the idea up, remodelled the system and upgraded it to a
'Tram on Tyres'. Whereas TVR can operate without guidance, Translohr is fully
committed to guidance and therefore not further considered in a review of bus systems.
The Phileas (The Netherlands) system combines electro-magnetic guidance with
several innovations, which are, apart from the guidance system, diesel-electric
propulsion, steering of all wheels and an aluminium body. Phileas is currently tested in
Eindhoven.
Optical guidance was developed by Matra, now part of the Siemens group. The system
was successfully implemented in Rouen (France). It is based on a camera behind the
windscreen and special road markings in the bus right of way. The guidance system is
as an independent product available.
Rouen's TEOR system uses Irisbus standard vehicles. Two Civis advanced buses were
tested but not further procured.
The Fraunhofer Institute in Dresden developed a comparable product, with additional
features, called AutoTram and currently tested on a former airfield.
Last but not least, special kerbstones can guide regular buses into stops. Assisting the
driver with moving the bus close to the platform helps mitigating access problems for
handicapped passengers. Widely used, Kassel Sonderbord and Dresden Kombibord
are available in many countries and compatible with any bus, without any further
equipment.
Lane Number
Capacity of BRTs is obviously limited by the number of buses which can pass the right
of way and its intersections on a single lane.
Higher capacity is achievable if
the opportunity of overtaking in stations and/or at intersections is provided, and/or
two lanes per direction are provided.
The effect of such features was impressively demonstrated at Transmilenio in Bogota.
Overtaking in stations and layouts with two lanes per direction are obviously hardly
possible with guided systems, and still difficult with trolleybus systems.
Lane Width
Bus lanes or busways capture roughly the same width as conventional lanes for heavy
car traffic. There are only few possibilities to reduce right of way width.
Mechanical guidance systems can reduce right of way width. Operation is licensed
as bus (kerbstone guidance) or bus and tram (TVR, with double licensing) or tram
only (Translohr). Adelaide in Australia is possibly the system with the greatest
benefits from minimum right of way width. A kilometre-long viaduct with an
operating speed of 100 km/h could with guidance be built with smaller width and
accordingly at lower cost.
Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

All other guidance systems such as Phileas and Civis use the driver as fall-back
system if the guidance fails. Busways need then to be designed for manual
steering, without particular savings.
Lane width in curves depends on the swept envelope of the vehicle. Small lane width in
curves is achievable
with some of the guidance systems and
with all or the largest number of wheels steered.
The ability of a BRT vehicle to behave like a normal may be desirable where normal car
traffic is shared, which is achievable with conventional bus technology.
The number of cases where space constraints justify extra expenditure for less
conventional options is fortunately quite limited, e. g. to historic city centres.
Light Rail Option
Some BRT systems have the built-in capability of being upgraded to light rail without realigning. It can be prudent to foresee this in many cases, needs some thinking and
should normally not require extraordinary cost.
Creating a BRT with a light rail option can also be recommendable where new systems
need to be established at a time
when funds are limited and
short implementation periods are essential.
This is typical for cities in former Socialist countries where
car ownership increases very rapidly,
finance for public transport is limited but
road space needs to be occupied very quickly by a politically marketable public
transport system.
Typical light rail provisions are compatible with both buses and light rail vehicles, such
as
lane width and swept envelopes in curves,
vehicle / platform interfaces and
load bearing capacity of civil construction (bridges).
It may also be recommendable to lay some empty pipes for future cables in the right of
way and to include overhead catenary poles in the right of way width.
Typical examples are
the Zuidtangent BRT in Amsterdam which comprises the above criteria and
the trolleybus system in Seattle which is not a full-scale BRT, the underground
section of which is currently converted to light rail.
Priority at Intersections
An obvious contribution to commercial speed and an indisputable necessity for higher
capacity is priority at signalled intersections.
This is (or should be) common to bus systems in general and is not limited to BRTs. It
is, however, obviously of greater importance for BRTs.
Delay times at intersections are of significant impact on commercial speeds. Situations
where expenditure for right of way segregation is compromised by inadequate delay
times at intersections are to be avoided.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

5.4. Stations
Platform Type & Location
BRT systems will have reasonable platforms at stations / stops which they
either use on an exclusive basis (independent systems)
or share with other bus traffic (integrated systems).
BRT-only platforms will not need to be at the outside of the street (= right hand side in
continental Europe). There are obviously the alternatives of
side platforms (=conventional) and
island platforms (=as in railways, metros).
Island platforms can help providing physical separation from road space, especially if
closed ticketing systems are used, and help limiting expenditure for ticketing and
passenger information systems. They have the obvious disadvantage of needing bus
doors on the 'wrong' side.
Platform Height
Platform height chosen will again be in line with the decision to build an independent or
an integrated system:
High-level platforms are popular in several Latin American systems and provide
some advantages for propulsion of double-articulated buses. They are, however,
not compatible with other buses.
Low-level platforms should interface with low-floor buses and are especially
popular where BRT elements are implemented in low-floor bus networks.
Platform Screen Doors
Platform screen doors are popular at metros in the Far East where stations need to be
air conditioned. In Europe, they can be found in London on the Jubilee line extension, in
Paris on the driverless Meteor metro line, in VAL and other driverless minimetros and in
most people mover systems.
Similar needs arose for in BRTs in Latin America some of which have air conditioned
stations. Platform screen doors
either have to correspond directly with vehicle doors (as in metros) which
constrains vehicle design and limits procurement options,
or need some space between platform doors and vehicle doors which adds to
station width.
Vehicle / Platform Interface
The interface between vehicle floor and station platform will be important for
rapid boarding and alighting and
for accessibility for handicapped passengers.
Both can be addressed in high and low floor systems:
Dwell times can be kept short if vertical steps between vehicle floor and platform
can be avoided or minimised.
Wheelchair accessibility can be supported by a minimum total of vertical height
difference and the horizontal gap.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Air suspension systems with level regulation are common to buses and help keeping
the height difference within limits. The horizontal gap can in most cases be managed by
the driver.
If higher qualities shall be achieved and this shall be independent from the driver's skills,
additional tools come into play:
Guidance systems help keeping a regular, minimum distance between vehicle and
platforms.
System in Latin America uses retractable bridging plates / flap ramps.
Special kerbstones help the driver to bring the bus very close to the platform,
without excessive tyre wear.
5.5. Rolling Stock
Standard or Special Vehicles
Most European systems use standard products, or at least vehicles which are close to
the manufacturers' standard range. Other systems often use special features such as
high floor buses, doors on the opposite ('wrong') side etc. Some considerations:
Independent systems, which do not mix with other bus services, have the ability to
accommodate (and potentially benefit from) purpose designed vehicles which
significantly differ from other products.
Vehicles with special features do often not have a second option without
reconstruction, e. g. if doors are on the 'wrong' side or high floor buses do not
have steps.
Incremental implementation of the BRT system is only possible with vehicles
which can also participate in regular car traffic.
Floor Height
Similar considerations apply to floor height.
High floor vehicles do not have any steps, to facilitate level access at high
platforms, and can easily be adapted to island platforms. BRT systems built for
high floor buses would not accommodate any other buses.
Low floor vehicles are more easily able to participate in car traffic. Low-floor BRTs
can accept other buses and enable combination with other routes.
Door Arrangement
As mentioned above, island platforms require doors on the opposite side. Most systems
with island platforms have doors only on the 'wrong' side, some have doors on both
sides.
Vehicle Size
Current BRT systems use standard, articulated and double articulated buses:
Standard buses can have a length of up to 13 m, if two-axle, or 15 m, if three-axle.
Current articulated buses can have a length of up to 18.75 m (Neoplan).
Double-articulated buses (i. e. buses with two articulations) use to have some
25 m length. The longest current bus is the Volvo for Sao Paulo with 26.8 m
length.
Double articulated buses cannot be 'pushed' by the last module, i. e. rear engines

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

which power only the last axle are not possible. An engine in the front section,
electric transmission or electric propulsion will be needed instead.
Propulsion
Most BRTs use conventional diesel engines with hydraulic transmission. There are,
however, a few alternatives:
Trolleybuses as used e. g. by Quito's BRT. Off-the-shelve electrical equipment is
obtainable from several manufacturers and fits into regular buses.
Bi-modal diesel and electric buses are in most cases created by fitting a diesel
engine and generator into a bus. Diesel propulsion can either help passing short
sections without overhead at low speed (construction sites, depot) or enable full
performance for longer sections without overhead line.
Some diesel buses have electric transmission. This provides the obvious
advantage that the engine can be freely located anywhere in the bus but adds to
complexity.
High-capacity Buses
There were early examples of 22m high-capacity bus trains built for long-distance
services in Germany, before the 2nd World War.
MAN (Germany) took the articulated bus and added a further section. The SGG was
tested in several German cities in the 1980's.
Renault developed the Megabus on the same basis which ran in Bordeaux.
Romania developed double-articulated buses on DAC basis and Cuba on locally
assembled Ikarus basis.
The double-articulated concept was later used for high-capacity buses in BRT systems,
currently comprising:
Van Hool, Belgium, double-articulated bus AGG 300, built for Utrecht and recently
ordered by Hamburg and Geneva. A 100% low-floor bus with the engine situated
left in the first section. Axles 1, 3 and 4 are steered.
Volvo high-floor double-articulated buses produced for Latin American systems in
large quantities. The engine is underfloor in the first section. Only the 1st axle is
steered. Note the doors on the left hand side.
Volvo B9SALF low-floor double-articulated buses, recently ordered by Santiago de
Chile. The concept is similar to the van Hool, however, with only the 1st axle
steered.
Kiepe (Germany) produces electric equipment for trolleybuses since decades. A
double-articulated trolleybus was recently developed together with Hess
(Switzerland) and was ordered by Geneva (Switzerland). Two axles of the lowfloor vehicles are powered which helps mitigating adhesion problems. Kiepe also
produces dual-mode diesel-electric buses.
5.6. Design
Experience, also with the development of new systems, shows a considerable need for
advanced design. Light rail, people movers and other guided transit are very obviously
distinguishable from buses, whereas BRT needs some effort to be brought to such
level.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

Buses have in many countries the image of being the basic means of transportation for
the less wealthy. Especially, in such cases, BRTs need to be clearly distinguishable
from 'ordinary' buses.
Design can, further to all technical elements, strongly support the perception of
something 'better', although it is technically more or less the same. Design and branding
can help to increase pride in the system and to making it politically marketable.
A few examples:
Zuidtangent in Amsterdam uses standard products, however, with specific
designs. Passenger shelters and the bus colour scheme do not appear anywhere
else in Amsterdam's public transport.
Irisbus added to their Civis (diesel) / Cristalis (trolleybus) one of the smartest
current bus designs.
uestra, Hannover's public transport operator, contracted a renowned designer
(James Irvine) to develop a bus design which had to be unique and compatible
with usual bus bodywork. The tender included the design package. The operator,
not the manufacturer, owns the license and can prevent copying for any other
purpose than high-quality buses.

6. SYSTEM CAPACITY
There are lots of figures in the market for BRT capacity some of which are considerably
high and arrive at metro levels. However, they are all dependent on the internal capacity
of the system, comfort levels (i. e. standing density inside the vehicle) and the
environmental and traffic conditions.
Therefore, it will be recommendable to calculate potential BRT capacity under local
conditions, such as
possible headways,
vehicle capacity,
number of bus lanes per direction,
single stations or multiple stations with overtaking,
achievable green times as traffic intersections,
realistic margins for delay compensation and deviation of dwell times and
achieving priority at traffic signals.
A single lane BRT under European conditions would at
90 seconds headways (i. e. 40 buses per hour per direction),
double-articulated buses with some 180 passengers capacity at 4 passengers per
square metre standing space,
one bus lane per direction,
single stations,
40 s green time per 100 s cycle (equivalent to 2 buses per 100 s),
average 50 s headway possible versus 90 s timetabled headway and
almost full priority at traffic signals

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

deliver a capacity of some 7,200 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).
Two buses per signal cycle and stops with two stopping positions behind each other
would allow 72 buses per hour per direction, minus a 20 % margin, or 10,440 pphpd,
etc. Larger systems would achieve some 15,000 pphpd or even more.

7. SYSTEM COST
Rolling stock cost can strongly vary:
The price of a conventional double-articulated bus in Europe is currently around
500,000.
More innovative concepts can easily reach 1 m per vehicle.
Local products are often cheaper but should be backed by a reliable manufacturer's
guarantee. The cost for single buses can go down below 100,000.
It will be advisable to review the vehicle concept, anticipated maintenance and warranty
conditions and to collect local prices.
The same applies to right of way cost:
Some BRT advocates claim that BRT right of way can be as cheap as US $ 1 m per
kilometre. The normal range given is US $ 1 m to 5 m.
However, much secondary work may need to be considered for cost estimation, such
as
land purchase,
remodelling of traffic lanes and intersections,
utility relocation,
station architecture,
modification of traffic lights,
control and communication systems,
ticketing equipment,
modifications to depot and workshop
etc.
The result can strongly differ, responding to system concept, local cost levels and
potentially the share of imported goods.
Also the productivity of personnel, against investment cost, should be considered,
especially in low-wage economies.
A life cycle cost estimate for a reasonable period, not less than 30 years, would typically
deliver indications for the viability of the project and its components.

8. IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE SYSTEM

Identification of the appropriate system will need to respond to the needs of the project
site, and then consider technical options (and not vice versa).
Local needs are brought together and then cascaded down, beginning with those
criteria which will determine the system to the greatest extent, e. g. capacity needs, right
of way and station space constraints, the option of an independent system feeder lines
or a system which integrates with the existing network, the potential need for
incremental implementation and the like.
A typical approach is shown below:

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

System Selection
Mechanically guided systems
with overhead line

without overhead line

Translohr
TVR Caen

not accepted

17

System Selection
Mechanically guided systems
with overhead line

without overhead line

Translohr
TVR Caen

All wheels steered

all steered

at least front axle steered

TVR Nacny; Phileas,

others

not necessary
18

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

System Selection
All wheels steered
all steered

at least front axle steered

TVR Nacny; others

with this specific feature

Remaining systems

19

System Candidates
Remaining systems
optical guidance

Civis

electronic guidance
physical guidance

Phileas
kerbstones at stops

similar geometry in curves

common ROW criteria
similar entry heights
common stop platform height
similar passenger interface
similar information and
control equipment

23

This example is from a project in Haifa (Israel). It indicates BRT flexibility: Right of way
design could commence prior to final selection of the preferred technology. Construction

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005

of the first sections in meanwhile under way, with sufficient time to decide about rolling
stock concepts and procure the initial fleet.

9. CONCLUSIONS
There is obviously more than one approach to Bus Rapid Transit, with lighter and
heavier systems, stand-alone and integrated networks, incremental or 'big-bang'
implementation etc. etc.
However, they share the same basic philosophy and - more importantly - the same
modular toolbox. It is not limited to 'big' new systems, but can also be used for 'small'
extensions of existing networks or just some improvements with the perspective for
more.
Some recommendations:
The present and future needs of a place should be identified very clearly and
realistically, and possibly combined with a phased approach.
The BRT toolbox can be used to tailor a system around such needs, possibly
again in phases.
Modularity and incremental implementation can be used to keep initial cost and
complication low, without substantially losing future options.
It is often essential to make the initial system, or line, a success, to raise the
politicians' appetite for more. Initial failure, in turn, is likely to discredit the whole
approach, whether justifiable or not.
Innovative technologies always bear some risks. It will be prudent to carefully
investigate which innovations will really be necessary. The system should not
comprise more technologies than necessary. In case of doubt, upgrading options
can be designed into the system.
Overburdening with innovations should also be avoided in the non-technical field.
A new system must remain understandable, usable and marketable.
Implementation, cost and reliability risks should be fully understood and
considered.
Considerations should be exposed to full life-cycle-cost scrutiny.
It should be avoided to use expensive technologies only for making a BRT to be
distinguishable from the 'ordinary' bus.
Design and marketing should not be more promising than the real performance of
the system.

It is apparent that Bus Rapid Transit provides a lot of potentials, not only for new
systems, and that its toolbox can be used for a wide variety of purposes and
locations.

Association for European Transport and contributors 2005