THE MACROBUS SYSTEM OF GUADALAJARA:

AN EVOLVED CONCEPT IN BRT PLANNING AND

IMPLEMENTATION FOR MEDIUM CAPACITY CORRIDORS

Dario Hidalgo, PhD

EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport

Yorgos Voukas, German Freiberg,

Amilcar Lopez , Saul Alveano
Center for Sustainable Transport, Mexico

NACTO BRT Workshop #1

New York City
April 6-7, 2010
 Sustainable
Urban Transport
• Pedestrian and
Bicycles

• Public Transportation

• Transit Oriented
Development

• Disincentives to Car
Use

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/sidewalks/ps_rendering01.JPG
 What is a Bus Rapid Transit system?
“Is a flexible, rubber-tired form
of rapid transit that combines
stations, vehicles, services,
running ways and ITS elements
into an integrated system with
strong identity”
TCRP Report 90 – Bus Rapid Transit – Volume
2: Implementation Guidelines 2003

“It is a high quality public

transport system, oriented to
the user that offers fast,
comfortable and low cost urban
mobility”
BRT Planning Guide – ITDP, 2007 Photo: Karl Fjelstrom - ITDP
 BRT Key Components

Centralized Control

Distinctive Image

Stations with
Prepayment and
Level Boarding

Large Buses
Multiple Wide Segregated
Doors Median
Busways
Component “High End” BRT
Running
• Longitudinal Segregation
Ways
• Geometric Adjustments
Traffic • Left and Right Turn Controls
Engineering • Traffic Signal Priorities for Buses
• Modern Traffic Signal Technology
• Enclosed Facilities
Stations • Level Boarding and Prepayment
• Passing Lanes (when required)
• Multiple doors
Vehicles • Easy Boarding/Alighting
• Low Emissions
• Mixed services (local, accelerated, express; short loops)
Services
• Design according to the service needs
• Automatic Vehicle Location/Centralized Control
ITS • Traffic Signal Priority
• Electronic Fare Collection/Fare Integration
 Component “High End” BRT
Quality of Service • High User Acceptance
• Easily Accessible
Travel Time • Low waiting time
• High commercial speed
• Low variability (intervals, speeds)
Reliability
• Low breakdowns, incidents
• Accepatable Occupancy Levels (buses, platforms)
• Good user information
Comfort
• Seamless integration with other transport modes
• Perception of safety and security
• Relative low capital and operational costs
Cost
• High capital and operational productivity
• Low level of accidents (fatalities, injuries)
• Low emissions
Externalities
• Congestion relief (attraction of motor vehicle users)
• Increased land values
About 68 systems in developed and
developing countries

11 USA-Canada
15 Latin America
20 Europe
2 Africa
16 Asia
4 Australia-New Zealand
Curitiba, RIT, 72 km median busways
1.2 million pax/day
Initial Corridor 1974
Quito, Metrobús-Q, 37 Km median busways,
440,000 pax/day
Initial corridor in 1995
Bogotá, TransMilenio, 84 Km median
busways, 1,6 million pax/day
Initial Corridor 2000
 Photo ITDP
Bogotá TransMilenio
Eje Ambiental Avenida Jiménez
 Expressway Lanes
TransMilenio, Bogota
 Sao Paulo, 104 Km median busways +
preferential buslanes, 5,761,000 pax/day
Initial busways 1980, Reconstructed in 2003
León de Guanajuato, México, Optibús, 25 Km
median busways (60% segregated)
Initial corridor 2003
México City, Metrobús, 30 Km median busways,
450,000 pax/day
Initial Corridor 2005
Pereira, Colombia, Megabús, 27 Km Busways,
155,000 pax/day
Initial Operation in 2006
 Pereira, Colombia

Photos courtesy of Megabus,

Pereira, Colombia
Guayaquil, Ecuador,
Metrovía,
16 Km Busways,
96,000 pax/day
Initial Corridor 2006

Photos by D. Hidalgo
Santiago, Chile, 19 Km busways + 63 Km of road improvements,
Integrated Network for 5 Million Trips/day
Initial Operation in 2007
Guatemala City, February 2007
Photo: Sapfan (Jan Pesula)
 Photo: Metrocali
Cali, Colombia 27 Km busways
130,000 pax/day
Initial Operation in 2009
“Green Line” Curitiba
18 Km busway
2010

Photos: Prefeitura de Curitiba, Parana

 Bucaramanga, Colombia
8.4 Km busways
14 Km prority buslanes
Started Operation in Dec 2009

http://www.metrolinea.gov.co/index.php?option=
com_content&view=article&id=39
Guadalajara, Jalisco, México
Area:
- City 151 km2 (58 square miles)
- Metro 2,734 km2 (1056 square miles)
Population (2008)
- City 1,579,174
- Density 10,458/km2 (27,227/square mile)
- Metro 4,300,000
- Metro Density 1,572/km2 (4,071/square mile)
Macrobús, Guadalajara, México
16 Km, 27 Stations, 41 Articulated Buses + 103 Feeder Buses
 Macrobús, Guadalajara, México
Initial Operation: March 10, 2009
Total Ridership: 127,000 passengers/day
Peak Load: 5,000 passengers/hour/direction
Commercial Speed: 20.8 km/hour (12.2 mph)
Operational Productivity: 10 passengers/bus-km
(5.9 boardings/bus-mile)
Capital Productivity: 3,100 passengers/bus/day
Infrastructure Investment: USD 46.2 million
USD 2.9 million/km (USD 1.7 million/mile)
Equipment Investment: ~USD 15 million
USD 0.9 million/km (USD 0.5 million/mile)
User Fare: USD 0.38/trip (+ 0.08 feeder + 0.19 LRT)
 Macrobús, Guadalajara, México
Good integration with Light Rail and feeder services
Wide stations with adequate space for internal circulation and sliding
doors
Passing lanes in every station
Good pavements and protection devices for the bus lanes;
Buses with advanced emission control (Euro IV) and use of ultra low
sulfur Diesel
Wide zebra crossings at signalized intersections
Good static information, including maps, signs, and instructions
consistent with the overall system image
Smaller occupancy standards than similar systems in Latin America
Flexible payment system: coins + smartcard
Macrobus, Guadalajara, Mexico
Component “High End” BRT
Running
• Longitudinal Segregation
Ways
• Geometric Adjustments
Traffic • Left and Right Turn Controls
Engineering • Traffic Signal Priorities for Buses
• Modern Traffic Signal Technology
• Enclosed Facilities
Stations • Level Boarding and Prepayment
• Passing Lanes (when required)
• Multiple doors
Vehicles • Easy Boarding/Alighting
• Low Emissions
• Mixed services (local, accelerated, express; short loops)
Services
• Design according to the service needs
• Automatic Vehicle Location/Centralized Control
ITS • Traffic Signal Priority
• Electronic Fare Collection/Fare Integration
Component Advances Elements to Improve
• Strong longitudinal segregation • Geometry in selected points
Running
• Median Busways (narrow returns)
Ways
• Good pavement structure • Quality of the reflective material
• Left turning movements • Signs to channel left detours
Traffic eliminated • Complete pedestrian crossing in
Engineering • Adequate Changes in Roadway far side of stations
Geometry • Complete traffic signals
• Wide enclosed facilities • Complete interior signage
Stations • Level Boarding and Prepayment • Open far side doors and
• Passing lanes for express routes pedestrian crossings (expected)
• Articulated vehicles (18 m), with
Vehicles Euro IV ULSD • Improve internal ventilation
• Easy Boarding/Alighting
• Combination of local and express • Adjust service plan to demand
Services services • Introduce dual services (feeder +
• Integrated feeder services trunk, to reduce transfers)
• Central control and dispatch
ITS • CCTV, Centralizad Dispatch
• Variable message signs
Component Advances Elements to Improve
• Strong longitudinal segregation • Geometry in selected points
Running
• Median Busways (narrow returns)
Ways
• Good pavement structure • Quality of the reflective material
• Left turning movements
Traffic eliminated • Signs to channel left detours
Engineering • Adequate Changes in Roadway • Bus priority systems
Geometry
• Wide enclosed facilities
Stations • Level Boarding and Prepayment • Improve internal signage
• Passing lanes for express routes
• Articulated vehicles (18 m), with
• Improve internal ventilation (AC?)
Vehicles Euro IV ULSD
• Secure hangers
• Easy Boarding/Alighting
• Combination of local and express
• Introduce dual services (feeder +
Services services
trunk, to reduce transfers)
• Feeder services
• Automatic Vehicle Location
ITS • CCTV, Centralized Dispatch
• Variable message signs
 Component “High End” BRT
Quality of Service • High User Acceptance
• Easily Accessible
Travel Time • Low waiting time
• High commercial speed
• Low variability (intervals, speeds)
Reliability
• Low breakdowns, incidents
• Acceptable Occupancy Levels (buses, platforms)
• Good user information
Comfort
• Seamless integration with other transport modes
• Perception of safety and security
• Relative low capital and operational costs
Cost
• High capital and operational productivity
• Low level of accidents (fatalities, injuries)
• Low emissions
Externalities
• Congestion relief (attraction of motor vehicle users)
• Increased land values
Component Advances Elements to Improve
• Monitor user perception
through periodic surveys
User • High users approval (90%) and
• Enhance user education,
Acceptance rate (7.8 out of 10)
especially on the use of card
vending/recharging machines
• Good accessibility through at- • Complete the implementation
grade pedestrian crossings at of traffic signals for
signalized intersections pedestrians
Travel Time • Acceptable frequency: 5 minute • Further increase the
intervals commercial speed for buses
• High Commercial speed: 20.8 through improved driver’s
km/hour training

• Complete the implementation

• Regular dispatch at terminal
of automatic vehicle location
Reliability points using radio controlled
(GPS) for the bus fleet
operations
Component Advances Elements to Improve

User • High users approval (90%) and

• Enhance user education
Acceptance rate (7.8 out of 10)

• Good accessibility through at-

grade pedestrian crossings at
• Further increase the
signalized intersections
commercial speed for buses
Travel Time • Acceptable frequency: 5 minute
through bus priority at
intervals
intersections
• High Commercial speed: 20.8
km/hour

• Regular dispatch at terminal • Complete the implementation

Reliability points using radio controlled of automatic vehicle location
operations • Monitor and manage reliability
Component Advances
• Bus stations provide very good
protection - wide, tall and well
ventilated
• Bus occupancy, especially in
Comfort non peak hours is low
• Very good and comprehensive
maps, signs
• Good connectivity with other
modes
• Low capital investment cost
(USD 3.8 million /km)
Cost
• Low operational costs (USD
1.9/ bus-km trunk services)
• Expected reductions in
Externalities emissions, accidents, urban
development
Elements to Improve
• Improve the ventilation inside
the buses
• Activate variable message
signs in stations to provide
real time information on bus
arrivals
• Introduce dual services
• Collect data on capital and
operational productivity
• Monitor and report
externalities (accidents,
emissions, land use
development)
Component Advances Elements to Improve
• Bus stations provide very good
protection - wide, tall and well
ventilated • Activate variable message
• Bus occupancy, especially in signs in stations to provide
Comfort non peak hours is low real time information on bus
• Very good and comprehensive arrivals
maps, signs • Introduce dual services
• Good connectivity with other
modes
• Low capital investment cost
(USD 3.8 million /km) • Collect data on capital and
Cost
• Low operational costs (USD operational productivity
1.9/ bus-km trunk services)
• Monitor and report
• Expected reductions in
externalities (accidents,
Externalities emissions, accidents, urban
emissions, land use
development
development)
Key Questions About the System
Was BRT the best technological option for transit
improvement in the selected corridor?

Was it appropriate to start operations without all the

components in place?

Are trunk-feeder operations better than an open

system?

How much is the reserved capacity?

 Cost Benefit-Analysis
16 Km, 5K pax/hour/direction, 100K pax/day,
Average Trip Distance 8 Km, Value of Time USD 0.7/hour

400
43 147 162 113 56
200 49 31 24 48 32 31
14 8 16
Present Value 12% 20 Years

-
-200 Do Nothing Busway-28 Light Rail Metro BRT -104
(USD Million)

-400
-600
-800
-1,000 -866

-1,200 -1,068
-1,400
-1,368
-1,600
-1,609
-1,800

Time Savings Operational Cost Savings Other Benefits Costs Net Benefits
Incomplete implementation did not cause
major disruptions of the service
BRT operations improved transport conditions for
most users, even with incomplete components at
the beginning
All the components were completed in the first
fourth months
Gradual implementation also allowed for focused
attention on critical aspects
Political interference was reduced (commissioning
happened before the start of local elections
campaigns)
 Most convenient operational design
Feeder- trunk (closed system)
Very good control of the trunk
section
Enhanced speed, capacity and
reliability, in the trunk section
Reduced fleet and vehicle-km;
reduced emissions and
decreased system costs
High proportion of the trips
requiring at least one transfer.
May result in user
inconvenience and lack of
system acceptance
Open system
Direct connections to the users
without the need for transfers,
Increased fleet, costs and
emissions.
Control in the trunk section is
difficult and operations are
slower and unreliable
Dual – Hybrid Operation
Reduced transfers; higher user
acceptace
Good control in the trunk
section
Controlled costs (fleet, vehicle-
km)
 How much is the reserved capacity?
Nsp
3600[sec/h our]
Ca[Pax/hou r]   X i   Cp[Pax/bus ]
i 1 Tsb[sec/bu s]  (1  Diri )  To[sec/bus ]

Capacity in a given section, passengers per hour per

Ca[pax/hour]
direction
Nsp Number of stoping bays
Tsb[sec/bus] Loading/undloading time.
To [sec/bus] Interval between two succesive buses
(1-Diri) Percent of the buses that stop at the stoping bay
Cp[pax/bus] Bus load
Xi Accepted saturation level
 Bus Bay A B Bus Bay A B

Tsb[sec/bus] 16.3 16.3 Tsb[sec/bus] 16.3 16.3

To [sec/bus] 14.5 14.5 To [sec/bus] 14.5 14.5
(1-Diri) 50% 50% (1-Diri) 50% 50%
Cp[pax/bus] 150 150 Cp[pax/bus] 110 110
Xi 0.6 0.6 Xi 0.6 0.6

Ca[Pax/hora] 14,305 14,305 Ca[Pax/hora] 10,490 10,490

Total Practical Total Practical

Capacity [Pax/hora]
28,610 Capacity [Pax/hora]
20,980

5.7 times 4.2 times

 Lessons from Guadalajara
The BRTS has been a successful project: rapid
implementation, relative low cost, high quality, good
performance and high user acceptance

The BRT improved the current practices in Latin

America: median busways with good pavements,
strong segregation, wide/well ventilated stations,
passing lanes, good operational planning

System has extraordinary reserved capacity

The system still requires some improvements,

especially the implementation of a performance
monitoring system to enhance reliability and comfort
Guadalajara BRTS:
important reference for transit
professionals considering
low cost, rapid
implementation, high impact
transit alternatives
 ¡Gracias!
Diego Monraz, SITEUR
Sebastian Nieto, MACROBUS
Enrique Hernandez (SDG), Aleida Martinez (SI99), Claudio Varano (Consultants)
Universidad de Guadalajara
D.K. Radio

EMBARQ Global Strategic Partners

CATERPILLAR FOUNDATION

CTS Mexico – Guadalajara Project Partners

Hewlett Foundation
Andean Development Corporation CAF

www.embarq.org