Bus Rapid Transit System

SUBMITTED BY :
Sankalp suman chandel
Dhavir patel
Jay shah
 CONTENTS

1.Definitions
2.Evolution of BRTS
3.Why BRTS ?
4.Features and components BRTS
5.Types of BRTS
6.Operational and administration aspect of BRTS
7.Benefits and challenges
8.BRTS across the globe: comparison and rating
9.Case study:
1. Success story : Istanbul
2. Success story : Curitiba
3. Learning from Delhi BRT
10.Comparison of BRTS and LRT.
11.Future of BRTS
12.Learnings
 BRTS DEFINATION
Lloyd Wright ITDP (2002)
“It is a high quality public transport system, oriented to the user that offers fast, comfortable and
low cost urban mobility”

Levinson et al. (2003)

“BRT flexibly combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and intelligent transportation
system (lTS) elements into an integrated system with a strong brand that evokes a unique
identity.”

Diaz et al. (2004)

“BRT has the potential to provide a higher quality experience than possible with traditional bus
operations due to reduced travel and waiting times, increased service reliability and improved
usability”

Wright and Hook (2007)

“BRTS is a rubber-tired mode of public transport that enables efficient travel”

PNUMA (2010)
“BRTS is also capable of improving local and global environmental conditions.”
 BRTS HISTORY

• In 1972, Jaime Lerner, then Mayor of Curitiba had a brilliant idea to transform the face of his
city. He was an Architect and urban planner. At the time Curitiba was a small but rapidly
expanding city in the south of Brazil.

• His aim was “To develop a plan for the city that could accommodate growth without the
sprawl and congestion”

• His plan, which would later be replicated throughout the world, called for an above-ground
subway system that would use buses instead of rail. Up to this point buses were used in
ways that most of us are familiar with.

• Bus rapid transit has been so instrumental in Curitiba’s fight against congestion and sprawl,
that Curitiba known as “the most innovative cities in the world” and other cities are
beginning to take note.

• In this way the concept of Bus Rapid Transit System came.

Evolution of BRT
Evolution of BRT- Transit mode evolution
 Why BRTS ????
Problems with bus system Benefits of metro system

•Slow •Very fast

•Unreliable •Regular and frequent
•Not always frequent Gap •Travels long distance at
filling
•Takes the long way less time
around
•comfortable
•Uncomfortable
•High technology
•Technologically backward
•universal design
•No universal design
•Very high capacity
BRTS tries to solve issues of bus system and incorporates benefits of
metro system
Features of BRTS ????
 Components of BRTS
1)Dedicated Lanes
2)Prepaid Stations
3)Buses With Multiple Doors,
High Capacity And Low
Emissions
4)Differentiated Services
Express And Local
5)Intersection Priority
6)Coordination With Operators
Of Buses Of Lower Capacity
7)Fare Integration
8)Use Of its & Centralized
Control
 Types of BRT
Level of BRT Characteristics
Full BRT • Metro quality service
• Integrated network of routes and corridors High level
• Closed, high quality stations BRT
• Off-board fare collection
• Frequent and rapid service
• Modern, clean vehicle
• Marketing identity
• Superior customer service
BRT • Segregated bus-way
• Typically pre-board fare payment/verification
• Higher quality stations
• Clean vehicle technology
• Marketing identity
BRT Lite • Some form of bus priority but not full segregated bus-ways
• Improved travel times
• Higher shelters
• Clean vehicle technology
• Marketing identity
Basic • Segregated bus-way/single corridor services
Busway • On-board fare collection Low Level
BRT
• Basic bus shelters
 BRTS operation & administration
Operational requirements of BRTS Administration requirements of BRTS

• BRT Infrastructure (Running • BRT Infrastructure providers

Ways) (public, private)
• BRT stations & platforms • BRT operators
• BRT vehicle fleet • BRT planning and regulator
• BRT ITS agency
• BRT integration • BRT services and operational
• BRT fare plan
• BRT marketing and branding
• BRT Infrastructure supporting
facilities
• BRT fleet supporting facilities
and services
BRTS : operations
Operational and administration of BRTS
 BRTS-benefits
Short Term Benefits: Medium-Term Benefits:

1.Efficient, reliable and frequent 1.Containing urban sprawl

services
2.Promoting social inclusion instead of
2.Affordable fares isolation
3.A safe and secure public transport 3.Direct and indirect job creation in both the
system transportation and construction industries
4.Universal design
Long-Term Benefits:
5.A decrease in road congestion,
1.Economic development in and around the
6.Decrease energy consumption and areas of BRT operation
vehicle emissions
2.Reduction in pollution
7.An enhanced urban environment
3.Growth of a united, inclusive Johannesburg
8.Recapitalization of the public
transport fleet 4.Reduction of harmful pollutants and
greenhouse gases
BRTS-benefits
BRTS-challenges
BRT ACROSS THE GLOBE
A BRIEF ASSESSMENT
 COMPARASION OF BRT ACROSS THE WORLD
Transmilano
metrobus
Sit,
Sit,
BRT-1 optibus
optibus
Janmarg
Metro
MACROBUS:
Trans
TRANS-SANDIAGO:
MEGABUS via:
jakarta :
Metrobus, quito
HighGood:
Good:
Metrobus,
Good: end
Good:lowbrts
AGood:
Good: quitobrts
level
But ••Peak
Good: Operation
•has
•Operational with
load
•operation
SPEEDOperation
Passenger
Capital
passenger low
and capital
productivit
productiv
demand
productivity
operational
productivity
•Medium
Lacks
•passenger
••Speed
User
Peak Speed
fare
load
in productivity
in::level
demand BRTS
•PeakLacks
•Lacks load
••User
Capital
Capital infare
•Productivity
Capital
in
Operational ::cost
cost productivity
per
perKM
km
productivi
••User
Lacks speed :fare
: in
•Lacks
Capital
Capital
Lacks inproductivity
:cost : per km
in•inspeed
•User
Lacks
User
speed infare
fare :
•Medium
Operational
••Passenger
Cost Capital level
productavitycost BRTS
productivity
demand
•Peak load
•High cost

Transmilenio, Bogota Has Pioneered Brt System In All Aspects. Where As Janmarg ,
Ahmedabad Performs Good In Speed, User Fare, Operational And Capital Productivity
With Average Capital Cost
 COMPARASION OF BRT ACROSS THE WORLD

METROVIA, METROBUS, TRANSMILANO are the BRTS to look at where as Janmarg’s

performance is decent
BRTS case study : Metrobus,
Istanbul
Study focus : high end brts

WHY metrobus, Isatanbul????

Fastest BRTS.
International linkage
 System Features
Parameters Figures
Route length (km) 52
Stations 44
Total Vehicle 430
Operating vehicles/day 400
Trips/day 3,330
Pax/day 700,000

Time Periods Intervals (Headways)

Peak hours 15-20 sec.
Off-peak hours 45-60 sec.
Night (20:00-01:00) 45 sec-5 min.
Night (01:00-01:30) 7-10 min.
Night (01:30-05:00) 30 min.
• Metrobus travels at an average speed of 41 km/hrs.
• The daily travel distance of vehicles have been reduced by 1,16,261 kms.
• The total daily vehicle-km saving from the buses was 95,554 kms. At peak time it has
a frequency of 45sec generating 24000 passengers per hours.
 Why BRTS:
• Rapidly increasing population and vehicles
• Severe congestion
• 23% of Istanbul commuters spend greater than 3 hours in traffic
• 22% of Istanbul commuters spend 2-3 hours in traffic
• The existing mass transit system is inadequate
 Four phases of BRT:

Upon completion of phase 4, the 52 km line will have 42 stations and 350 vehicles and
will serve 865,000 passengers/day
 Stations:
• Most platforms sized for two buses (three at some)
• Centre platforms, requiring counter flow operation for regular buses
• 8 stations are currently accessible to physically challenged
passengers
• Modernization of other stations continues
 Bus:

Bus Dimension: Capacity: Benefits:

Length: 19.5m 43 seated • 20-30% fuel savings

Inside Height: 2.3m 150 standing • Decreased emissions
Door Width: 1.2m 193 Total Capacity • More acceleration
Red Light Violation Security Lane Violation
detection System Detection System
 Success Story
• “Opening of the Metrobus Corridor on the 1st Day gives Istanbul Traffic Breathing Room”
• Travel time reductions of 1 hour or more

“Before, people in cars used to look at

those of us stuck in busses as 3rd class
citizens…

Now, as we speed past them, we look

at the people in cars stuck in traffic as
3rd class citizens.”

93% people happy &

satisfied
 Conclusion
The BRTS provides a faster and cost effective transit solution. The metrobus has also achieved
its sustainability aims. The improved ridership and capacity proves that metrobus achieves one
of the highest patronage which in turn proves effective operation of metrobus.

Before After
BRTS case study : Curitiba,
Brazil
Study focus : TOD, LANDUSE AND TRANSPORT INTEGRATION

WHY Curitiba, Brazil ???

First BRTS implemented in the world
Landuse and transport integration
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil
When population travel demand increase _
•During 1950s and 60s
- rapid population growth
- Curitiba had one of the highest
population growths, 6% / yr.
•Master Plan (1966) to meet these demands,
which included a consolidated bus transit system

o restructured the city’s radial configuration

into a linear model of urban expansion
o transportation land use and road systems
can be used as integrative tools of
development; backbone for development
and growth of the city
o direct linear growth by attracting residential
and commercial density along a mass
transportation lane
o The Research and Urban Planning Institute
of Curitiba (IPPUC) was created to monitor
the implementation and operations of the
BRT.
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil

• The key concept is the structural axis

• Land Use:
- The highest levels of residential and commercial development are
concentrated in the two blocks at the center of the spine.
thus preserving large areas for low-rise residential development in the sectors
between axes.
• Transportation System:
-Road hierarchy (spider web network)
-Types of routes: feeder, inter district, and express
Express buses travel as fast as subway cars, but at one eighth the
construction costs
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil
Road System:
Serete Plan Transportation System
- Central Road with dedicated lanes for
buses
- External Roads: outbound and inbound
fast flow roads
Hierarchy of Streets:
- Pedestrian streets
- Local streets
-Collector Roads
-Express Roads
-Rapid Roads

Red - express bus(Main arteries along

the Structural Axis )
Grey – direct buses to the suburbs
Green – suburb buses link to red
express buses
Orange – feeder bus from the outskirts
link to the suburbs
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil
Started 1974
• Curitiba, Brazil
Busway length 72 Km.
Daily passangers > 20,00,000 – The first BRT integrated with land
use and road traffic as well as
Avg. speed 25 km/hr
excellent management and
headway • 50-second headway at peak operation
times,
• 2 to 3 minutes at other times at
the central station
Bus/bus stops 2,000 buses
200+ bus tubes
25 terminals
Management Contract basis but owned by
Goverment
Features Bus coloring with hierarchical
netwwork busways on the local
streets
Land use control along with
busways
Bus terminal with public service
facilities
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil

Bus Design
Buses:
•Three doors:
- 2 exiting
- 1 boarding
•Turbo engines
•Wider doors
•Lower floors
•Bi/Articulated for greater
passenger capacity
(170-270 passanger)

• Red - express bus(Main arteries along the Structural Axis )

• Grey – direct buses to the suburbs
• Green – suburb buses link to red express buses
• Orange – feeder bus from the outskirts link to the suburbs
 case study : Curitiba, BrazilBus Station Design
• Three functions: shelter,
pre-boarding payment
and level boarding
• Universal design
• Tube station has become
city icon
• Modular design
• Easy to handle Bus Tube
• Level boarding
• Well lid
• Safety
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil

Fare System
• One fare policy: can take you from
anywhere within the system (40+ miles
worth of travel)

• Smart card

• Shorter rides subsidize longer ones.

• Installed automatic ticket vendors at stops

and terminals to decrease dwell time.

• The system is entirely financed by these

fares and without any subsidies.

• A 1990 laws dictates that revenues can

only be used to pay for the system. This
avoids fare inflation.
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil

MIXED PARK PARK MIXED

TRAFFIC & & TRAFFIC
RIDE RIDE
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil
• Low cost fare, possibility to attract car
users.
• 80 per cent of travellers use the BRT
• The bus fare is the same wherever you
go.
• No one lives more than 400 metres
from a bus stop.

• Urban growth is restricted to corridors

of growth - along key transport routes.
Tall buildings are allowed only along YEAR POPULATION DAILY
bus routes. PASSANGER
1960 361,300 143,100
• This is cheaper to run than subway 1970 608,400 532,760
system. Some employers subsidized
1980 1,024,975 757,899
their employees who use it.
1990 1,285,571 1,194,688
2000 1,587,315 1,542,041
2010 1,746,896 2,039,769
 case study : Curitiba, Brazil
Component 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Real time
Bus stop Shelter Tube tation
information
B100
Conventional Articulated
Articulated buses Articulated
buses buses
buses
Electronic
ticketing Manual
ticketing

Overtaking at
Trunk and feeder Special
service Direct busbay
service service
station

• The Integrated Transportation Network promote the use of public

transport and reduce the use of private cars.
• This change will reduce congestion, fuel consumption, air pollution,
• better environment for the entire population.
BRTS case study : Delhi
BRTS
Study focus : Issue and problems

WHY Delhi, BRTS????

Indian context
Major issues with implementation.
Learning from: Delhi BRTS

CORRIDOR DETAILS

•Initial Operation: 2008

•Length: 5.6 Km
•Stations: 12
•Ridership: N/A; 8,000 pphpd
•Frequency: 60 buses/hr
•Commercial Speed: 11-13 Km/hr
•Mori gate to Ambedkar nagar
 Learning from: Delhi BRTS

• Median lane bus ways on Arterial – open system

• Small shelters with narrow platforms – insufficient bays
• Mixed fleet
• Manual fare collection – on board, no central control
• Multiple bus service- 57 different routes by DTC and private blue line
 MAJOR PROBLEMS OF DELHI BRTS

1. Traffic signal cycles were long (4 minutes in the peak hour)

2. General traffic lanes experienced long queuing
3. Bus queues were longer than the station platform length, with some
passengers
4. alighting and boarding outside the platforms
5. There were bus breakdowns that affected the operation of the bus lanes and
the stations
6. Pedestrian jaywalking was common
7. Some motor vehicles encroached the bus lanes
8. Bus occupancy levels were high, specially in the peak period
9. Bus operation displayed high variability in intervals and commercial speeds
10. Two wheelers encroached the bicycle tracks to jump the motor vehicle queues
11. Space for bicycles was reduced to create an additional turning lane for general
traffic in Chirag Delhi junction.
 Poor Strategies By DIMTS
1. Increasing cycle time:
Negative impact to people
travelling in buses
2. Signal cycle inc. Wait time for all
user.

3. Longer signal cycles result in longer

wait times for pedestrians at the
signalized intersections.
4. Greatly increase the likelihood of
jaywalking.
5. Encroaching into the bicycle lane:
Negative impacts in safety and
performance
Wide media coverage, specially focused on the problems
For motor vehicle users and accidents
 IMPACT OF DELHI BRTS
1. average travel time for motorized
travel reduced to19%.
2. This is the combined effect of a
35% reduction in travel time for
bus users.
3. 14% increase in travel time for
personal motor vehicles users.

Buses vehicles are only 2% by mode but carry 55% of people. QUIET AMAZING ???
 CONCLUSION

Delhi BRTS is a success story but portrait

as failure story by media
1. But recent development
has been in support of
Delhi BRTS.

2. Hence fore, DIMTS has

been planning relaunch of
Delhi BRTS and including
new phases.
BRTS V/S LRT
 Comparing Bus based system to Rail
BRT PROS LRT PROS

• Flexibility • Greater demand and greater comfort

• Requires no special facilities
• Lower capital costs
• Lower operating costs
• It is used more by people who are transit
dependent
• Can serve a larger geographical area
• Can phase in service instead of waiting for
entire system to be completed
• Greater max. capacity
• Increases property values near transit
stations
• Lower operating costs
• Less air and noise pollution
• Higher ridership
• Provides superior service quality
• Less environmental impact (Electric trains)

BRT CONS LRT CONS

• Buses have poor public image • Higher initial costs

• Poor quality service • Higher infrastructure costs
• Can cause traffic disruption • Skewed Benefits
• Lower ridership • More stops=Longer trips
• Higher operating & maintenance (O&E)
• A temporary solution
 Comparing bus based system to rail
Rapid Transit Mode
Statistic
BRT LRT
ROW Options Exclusive or Mixed Traffic Exclusive or Mixed Traffic
Station Spacing 1/4 to 1 Mile 1/4 to 1 Mile
Vehicle Seated Capacity 40 to 85 Passengers 65 to 85 Passengers
Average Speed 15-30 mph 15-30 mph
P/H/D (exclusive ROW) Up to 30,000 Up to 30,000
P/H/D (arterial) Up to 10,000 Up to 10,000
Capital ROW Cost/Mile $0.2M to $25M/Mile $20M to $55M/Mile
Capital Cost/Vehicle $0.45M to $1.5M $1.5M to $3.5M
O&M $65 to $100 $150 to $200
COMPARASION BRT TO RAIL : passenger capacity & cost

COST

TRAMS
Rs. 40 Cr. - 100 Cr./Km

LIGHT RAIL
Rs. 60 Cr. - 160 Cr./Km

URBAN RAIL
Rs. 160 Cr. - 240 Cr./Km

ELEVATED RAIL
Rs. 200 Cr. - 400
BRT
Cr./Km
Rs. 4 Cr. - 40 Cr./Km
METRO
Rs. 200 Cr. - 1200 Cr./Km
 COMPARASION BRT TO RAIL : Construction period
HOW MUCH TRANSIT DOES 1 billion US $ buy ?????

7 Kilometers of SUBWAY

400 Kilometers of BRT

CONSTRUCTION TIME

Metros
> 5 Years
Bus Rapid Transit
< 18 months
14 Kilometers of ELEVATED RAIL
 COMPARASION BRT TO RAIL : Bangalore v/s Bogota
Bangalore Bogota

1.Per capita income Rs. 49,000 1.Per capita income Rs. 1.7 Lakh.
2.Population : 77 Lakhs 2.Population : 82 Lakhs
3.Area : 1600 sq. km. 3.Area : 740 sq. km.

Bangalore is comparable to Bogota in size and population

Bogota opted for the BRT. It has proven to be very successful.

Even though Bogota’s per capita income is 4 times Bangalore’s, they felt that the
Metro was costly for them.
FUTURE OF BRTS :
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
 FUTURE OF BRTS
MINI BRTS BRTS LITE -CONCEPT
-CONCEPT

1. Partial Segregation Of Bus Lane

2. Partial Level Of Its
1. Suites to Indian context & can be
3. Responds To Low Passenger Demand
developed in narrow ROW
4. Acts As An Feeder Connectivity.
2. With bus capacity of 27-32
5. Provides Last Mile Connectivity.
3. Responds to low Passenger demand
6. Both Side Door
4. Acts as an feeder connectivity.
7. Acts As Feeder Service
5. Provides last mile connectivity.
 FUTURE OF BRTS

INNOVATION IN BUS SECTOR:

1. Flat floor buses
2.Large capacity
3.Wider door and increased numbers of doors
4.Ride comfort bus
5.Bus with low carbon foot prints
 Learnings

1. Since Curitiba BRTS success; BRTS has been popular across the globe
& so in India.

2. The innovation & technology and success story of Curitiba, Bogota

and Istanbul; BRTS is go places where Metro cant go.

3. Growing BRTS will lead to increase popularity of public transport

system and hence leading to sustainable transport system.

4. Also, BRTS, MINI BRTS and other innovation can act as feeder service
to other existing modes and hence developing a integrated multi
modal transport system.

5. Like Bogota BRTS can also help in developing better transport and
land use integration and also transit oriented design.
 THANK YOU…

BY :
• Sankalp suman chandel
• Dhavir
• Jay shah