2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Assessment of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Time Lags
Under Probabilistic Uncertainties
Renata Dantas, Jamilson Dantas,
and Paulo Maciel Federal Institute of Education,
Informatics Center Science, and Technology of
Federal University of Pernambuco, UFPE Pernambuco (IFPE),
Recife, Brazil Campus Recife, Brazil
{rcspd, jrd, prmm}@cin.ufpe.br renatadantas@recife.ifpe.edu.br
Abstract—Large cities face growing mobility problems, due to
the major traffic jams that result from high numbers of vehicles
on the roads. In response, city and national governments have
invested in alternative means of urban passenger transit, such as
subways, trains, as well as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This article
aims to analyze the BRT system, by attempting to calculate the
probability of reaching a destination at a specific time, thereby
providing a tool that can be employed to improve the system and
increase passenger confidence in it. To this end, a Continuous
Time Markov Chain (CTMC) model is proposed to represent
the bus stations and compute the probability metric for arrival
at the destination within the specified time frame. The model
allows a mathematical function to calculate the probabilities for
the corresponding architecture. Two case studies were conducted
in order to verify the model and illustrate its potential value in
the planning of BRT systems.
Keywords—Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), CTMC, Probability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Rapid urbanization and growing traffic volumes create
problems such as congested roads and difficult mobility. It
is a recurrent theme in large cities that much time is wasted
by citizens moving between locations, whilst taking children
to school, or going to and returning from work, as well as
performing all the other necessary daily activities that eventu-
ally become troublesome for those living within a metropolitan
area [1].
Beside the impact in terms of time wasted, heavy traffic
also creates environmental problems, such as noise pollution
and excessive greenhouse gas emissions. There is also a
negative economic repercussion; the cost of congestion in the
U.S. in 2012, measured in terms of lost working hours and
extra fuel consumption, was estimated at $120 billion [2].
As an alternative to heavy traffic scenarios, governments
have invested in improvements to public transport systems,
in an attempt to create quality systems that enable citizens
to migrate away from private vehicle use, thereby reducing
the number of vehicles on the roads. A solution that has
shown satisfactory results is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) [3].
BRT operates on exclusive routes, with an off-board method
of charging customers, so the promise of greater reliability and
speedier transit make it an attractive proposition.
978-1-4799-8697-2/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/SMC.2015.227
Renata Dantas Gabriel Alves
Department of Statistics
and Informatics
Federal Rural
University of Pernambuco,
UFRPE Recife, Brazil
gabriel.alves@deinfo.ufrpe.br
This paper submits an evaluation method for quantifying
the probability metrics of a BRT system. This method consid-
ers the system from the vehicle perspective, and the results pro-
vide important indicators for improving BRT system planning.
A CTMC model is created to describe the system and calculate
the probability of reaching a particular destination at a given
time. From this model, two case studies are developed: the first
employs existing data from the literature to serve as a data
source for model verification; after achieving verification of
the model, the second case study employs random information
from an actual BRT system in order to provide information for
improving the planning of that system.
There are works in the literature which propose evaluation
techniques for BRT systems. Lopez et. al employ Stochastic
Petri Nets (SPN) to rearrange the stations of a BRT system
[4]. This rearrangement is undertaken in order to improve the
system; and is based on passenger displacement time in the
Transmilenio BRT of Bogota, Colombia. The Petri net was
built according to stations on a specific route, and changes
were made in the model to propose improvements. However,
the work does not develop specific metrics that could be
employed in system planning. In [5] the authors address urban
transport modeling with the Geographic Information System
(GIS) method. This methodology considered the topographic
and geographic aspects in order to analyze the aspects of time
and space.
The current work offers a different approach to those
described above. Here the modeling of the system is proposed
through the employment of CTMC, and a probability metric
is developed for destination arrival. Additionally, study results
are verified through a mathematical model, thereby creating a
tool which is directly relevant to arrival time planning in BRT
systems.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section
II introduces the fundamental concepts of BRT systems and
CTMC modeling; section III presents the proposed architec-
ture; section IV discusses the CTMC model; section V presents
the case study and highlights the results; and section VI draws
some conclusions and indicates the direction of possible future
work.
1273
 II. F UNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
This section presents a summary of the concepts necessary
for understanding this work, and also provides an overview of
the performance model in the BRT system.
A. Methods and models for dependability evaluation
System dependability can be understood as the ability to
deliver a specified functionality that can be justifiably trusted
[6].An alternate definition is “the ability of a system to avoid
failures that are more frequent or more severe, and outage
durations that are longer than is acceptable to the user”
[6]. Dependability encompasses measures such as reliability,
availability and safety [6].
Dependability is an important property for urban traffic
systems, since to be attractive to users they must provide
highly available and reliable services. BRT is an example of
a customer-orientated transit system designed to deliver fast,
comfortable and cost-effective urban mobility. However, as
traffic congestion increases, the dependability of urban traffic
systems is becoming more important and at the same time
more difficult to achieve [7].
Various model types may be applied to the analytical
evaluation of dependability. Reliability block diagrams, fault
trees, stochastic Petri nets and Markov chains have been
employed to model fault-tolerant systems and to evaluate
various dependability measures. These model types differ from
one to another in terms of modeling power [8]. They may be
broadly classified into combinatorial and state-based models
[9]. State based models may also be referred to as non-
combinatorial, and combinatorial models may be referred to
as non-state based models. In some special cases state-based
analytic models can be solved to derive closed-form answers,
but generally a numerical solution of the underlying system of
equations is necessary [9].
Combinatorial and state-space models may be hierarchi-
cally combined to achieve the best of both worlds. For
example, a reliability block diagram may be employed to
represent the dependability relationship between independent
subsystems, while detailed or more complex fail and repair
mechanisms are modeled with Stochastic Petri Nets (SPN)
[10]. This approach enables the representation of many kinds
of dependency between components, and avoids the established
issue of state-space explosion when dealing with large systems
[10].
B. Markov chain
Markov processes constitute a special sub-class of stochas-
tic processes, while the latter can be considered as a gener-
alization of the concept of random variables. In particular, a
stochastic process relates the elements of a possibly infinite
family of random variables. A series of random experiments
can thus be taken into consideration and analyzed as a whole
[11].
The main characteristic of Markov chains is that their
stochastic behavior is described by transition probabilities of
the form P [X(tk+1 ) = x | X(tk = x)] for all state values x,

x and tk ≤ tk+1 . Given these transition probabilities and a
1274
distribution for the initial state, it is possible to determine the
probability of being at any state at any time instant [12].
This most general definition of a Markov process can
be adopted for special cases. In the current paper the focus
is specifically on discrete state spaces and on continuous-
parameter Markov processes, and therefore this work deals
mainly with Continuous Time Markov Chains (CTMC), as
defined below:
A CTMC is a state-based model type, that represents the
system behavior through states, and the occurrence of the event
is denoted by the state transition label. Labels can be proba-
bilities, rates or distribution functions. These models allow the
representation of more complex relationships between system
components, such as dependencies involving subsystems and
resource constraints [9].
In a CTMC model, the probability of being in one place
at any given time is calculated by Equation 1[11]:
dP (t)
P (t) = = QP(t) (1)
dt
Where, P (t) is a matrix of the transition probability, t is
the time and Q is a matrix infinitesimal generator.
This study is particularly concerned with a special type of
Markov chain, called an absorbing Markov Chain. A state Si
of a Markov chain is called absorbing if it cannot be exited
from (i.e., pii ), and a Markov chain is considered absorbing if
it has at least one absorbing state, and if from every state it is
possible to reach an absorbing state. In an absorbing Markov
chain, a state which is not absorbing is called transient [13].
C. BRT system
As depicted in Figure 1, a BRT system can be viewed from
three different perspectives. Refer to performance character-
istics together with the individual elements which determine
how a useful system is generated. The Major Elements of
a BRT are represented here, together with their respective
features and attributes: dedicated busways; stations and ve-
hicles; fare collection system; Intelligent Transport System
(ITS: fundamentally the creation of intelligent traffic lights);
as well as the operation planning service and operation plan.
System Performance refers to the following attributes: travel
time savings, identity and image, safety and security, and
capacity.System Benefits refer to the various benefits a BRT
affords, including: high passenger levels; transit-supportive
land use development; environmental quality; capital cost ef-
fectiveness; operating efficiency; and many other benefits. This
three perspective structure suggests the relationships between
the major elements, system performance, and system benefits.
Wright (2002) describes the main features of BRT systems
as: segregated busways; rapid boarding and alighting; clean,
secure, and comfortable stations and terminals; efficient pre-
boarding fare collection; effective licensing and regulatory
regimes for service operators; clear and prominent signage and
real-time information displays; transit prioritization at intersec-
tions; modal integration at stations and terminals; clean bus
technologies; sophisticated marketing identity; and excellence
in customer service [7].
 Fig. 2: Architecture proposal.
Fig. 1: Presentation of BRT system (Adapted from [14]).
Transport systems consider four specific performance mea-
sures: Mobility refers to the ability of the system to facilitate
efficient movement of people and goods; Reliability refers to
the ability of system users to predict the time it takes to make
trips on the system; Accessibility refers to the ability of the
system to connect people to desired destinations according to
the geographical distribution of the residential population, em-
ployment centers, and other service or recreation opportunities;
and Safety refers to the ability of system users to reach their
destination safely on any given trip [15].
This paper considers the factors described above for model
building and analysis, highlighting the System Performance
criteria as the means to achieve the goals that provide the
essential differential for a BRT system, and therefore the
primary focus of the work. Although the Major Elements are
not directly considered, they are an important factor underlying
the waiting time data and system displacement. System Benefits
are represented as the positive achievements of the work, in
terms of the possible consequences for the principal objective,
which is development planning.
III. A RCHITECTURE P ROPOSAL
The main objective of the work is to analyze the probability
of a bus arriving at a final destination along a specified pathway
over time. To solve the search problem, a baseline was con-
structed which united the description of the BRT system with
the the metric definitions for analysis. This baseline was taken
from the BRT descriptions found in [16], [17], which consider
all the fundamental characteristics, components, structures,
performance evaluation criteria, and system benefits of a BRT
network.
From the baseline the high-level CTMC models were
built, and from these were derived the analysis and evaluation
models. The scenario described in the Changzhou BRT [18],
1275
which details travel times and from these calculates system
reliability, was employed to verify bus arrival probability.
The architecture proposed here considers a compound BRT
system of two central stations and six intermediate stations
(see Figure 2). This architecture was designed according to
real world BRT systems, whose primary objective is to link
suburbs to center, including within this parameter numerous
stops which attempt to meet passenger demand.
IV. P ROPOSED M ODEL
This section introduces the proposed CTMC model and
also discusses the validation of results by comparison with
real data extracted from [18].
A. CTMC Model for bus arrival probability
To create the CTMC model (3) that represents the BRT
system, and perform the probability analysis, the following
crucial factors were considered: station, time, and number of
vehicles in the system. The model can be described with
a Hypoexponential distribution, which is the generalization
of Erlang distribution, but having different rates for each
transition [19].This can also be described by Equation 2 [11].
Fig. 3: CTMC model for bus arrival probability.
k

P DF = ai λi e−λi t , t > 0,
i=1
k
(2)
 λj
whith, ai = ,1  i  k
λj − λi
j=1,j=i
Where for the Probability n Density Function (PDF),
α=(α1 ,α2 ,α3 ,α4 ,...,αn ) with i=1 αi = 1, λi is the rate and
t is the time.
The model of Figure 3 enables the obtainment of a closed-
form equation for calculating the Mean Time To Absorption
(MTTA), given by the average calculus in hypoexponential
distribution (see Equation 3),employing the same parameters
as Equation 2. The data concerning probability of bus arrival
at the destination and travel times at different times of the day
on a daily journey were extracted from [18] and adapted to TABLE II: Input parameters for each peak time.
the proposal.
Average Waiting Average time on Value
Period of the day Parameters
Time (min) the vehicle (min) (min)
k λtt
 1 Early Time
λttw 1 to 6
–
1.19
3.26
3.26
3.26
4.45
MTTA = (3) λtt – 3.07 3.07
λ
i=1 i
AM Peak Time
λttw 1 to 6 0.31 3.07 3.38
λtt – 2.70 2.70
Inter-Peank Time
λttw 1 to 6 0.68 2.70 3.38
Table I describes the travel times for five different intervals λtt – 2.48 2.48
PM Peak Time
λttw 1 to 6 0.94 2.48 3.42
in particular route [18]. The travel ranges are: Early, AM Peak, λtt – 3.10 3.10
Evening Time
Inter-Peak, PM Peak and Evening. The maximum journey time λttw 1 to 6 0.96 3.10 4.06
for each travel time interval are considered as the sum of wait
time and travel time, where, the origin stop headway (Hi) is
the cumulative wait time for all stations and, In-vehicle travel
time (Ti) is the cumulative travel time in a pathway.

TABLE I: BRT system information from [18].

Origin Stop In-Vehicle Max. Journey Time
Trip
Headway (Hi) min Travel Time (Ti) min (Hi + Ti) min
Early 7.15 22.80 29.95
AM Peak 1.87 21.52 23.39
Inter-Peak 4.07 18.88 22.95
PM Peak 5.65 17.35 23.00
Evening 5.75 21.70 27.45

Fig. 4: Destination arrival probability.

The current study has seven stations along a pathway, and
so the dataset in Table I can be subdivided to represent each
station, at their respective peak time. Thus, Table II illustrates
the dataset for each peak time. The λttw can be subdivided
Another factor that can be considered is the probability of
from 1 to 6 stations. The transition λtt has no wait time, since
bus arrival within a specific time frame. For example, during
this is the starting lane, and it is assumed that the bus leaves
the Inter-Peak period the mean maximum journey time is 22.95
on time.
minutes (Table I). Therefore for a time frame of 25 to 35
minutes, as illustrated in Figure 5, there is an 80% probability
V. C ASE S TUDIES of the BRT vehicle arriving at its destination.
Two case studies were performed to demonstrate the suit-
The behavior during AM Peak and PM Peak is similar
ability of the model. The first study makes a comparison
to Inter-Peak,where probability of arrival within the 25-35
between the results obtained from the model with a simple
minutes interval is approximately 80%. The Early and Evening
study of the system given in [18]. In the second study a
intervals have probability of arrival rates of around 60%.
scenario is illustrated based on information obtained from a
BRT system currently being implemented in the city of Recife,
North-East Brazil.

A. Case Study I
Based on the dataset taken from [18] as given in Table
II, the probability of vehicle arrival time in the final lane in
a particular time period was calculated. Figure 4 illustrates
these probabilities. It can be seen that Early and Evening
demonstrate the worst behavior. This probably occurs as a
result of the fact that fewer buses are released at these times,
and the bus takes a longer route, thereby taking longer to
reach its destination. The AM peak, Inter-peak, and PM peak,
demonstrate practically identical behavior, reflecting the fact
that at peak times the number of buses on the route is greater,
given the increased demand, which results in a shorter arrival Fig. 5: Probability of arrival in a range.
time.
This relationship indicates that a transit planning process
is a fundamental requirement to assist in reducing the journey Table III compares the Mean Time To Absorption as
time by improving the probability of arrival at the destination, calculated by equation 3 with the actual data extracted from
in other words ensuring that the passenger arrives at his [18]. The very low figures for mean error suggest that the
destination on time. model is accurate and cannot be refuted.

1276
 TABLE III: Average Error for Mean Time To Absorption. words, increasing the bus speed by a factor of 2 does not mean
that the bus will arrive in half the time.
Max. Journey Time Mean Time To Mean
Trip
(Hi + Ti) Absorption (by model) Error
Early 29.95 29.96 0.00033
AM Peak 23.39 23.39 0.00005
TABLE V: Relationship Between Mean Time To Absorption.
Inter-Peak 22.95 22.95 0.00011
Relationship Mean Time to Relationship
PM Peak 23.00 23.05 0.00200 TRIP
Between Trip Absorption (MTTA) Between MTTA
Evening 27.45 27.45 0.00080 23 Km/h 1 31.78 1.00
31 Km/h 1.35 24.72 0.78
39 Km/h 1.70 20.55 0.64
B. Case Study II
In Figure 6, which illustrates the probability of arrival at
Since there were no grounds for refuting the model, a a given time (t), it can be seen that for a time interval of 20
second case study was implemented based on a system cur- minutes the probability rises from less than 0.03 at 23 km/h to
rently being implemented in the city of Recife, North-East almost 0.5 at 39 km/h. This categorically confirms the impact
Brazil. Data was sourced from [20] regarding the number of of bus speed on arrival probabilities. Another important point
stations planned for the operation (22) and the average distance to note is that at a time interval of 40 min, the probability of
between them (500 meters). arrival at a vehicle speed of 23 km/h is 0.87, whilst at speeds
The scenario also took into account the average speed of 31 and 39 km/h, the probability is already at 0.99.
of the vehicle according to [21], which states that efficient
BRT systems have approximate average speeds between 23
and 39 km/h. Another important factor considered in the
scenario was the average stop time for passenger boarding and
disembarking. In this case the figure adopted was 22 seconds,
which is the given stop period for an articulated four-door
vehicle [21].
With this data three scenarios were examined, relating
to the minimum speed (23 km/h), the median average (31
km/h) and the maximum (39 km/h), hereafter referred to as,
respectively, scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3. Table
IV,gives transition times for each scenario. Note that, as in the
previous study, there is no wait time (λtt ) at the first station
since it was assumed that the bus leaves on time.

Fig. 6: Destination arrival probability.

TABLE IV: Input parameters for each scenario.
Average Waiting Average time on Input Value
Scenarios Parameters
Time (min) the vehicle (min) (min) If the natural assumption is taken that a high probability
λtt – 1.304 1.304 of arrival within a given time period is perceived as having a
23 Km/h
λttw 1to21 0.220 1.304 1.524
λtt – 0.968 0.968 major impact on passenger confidence in the system, then it
31 Km/h
λttw 1to21 0.220 0.968 1.188 is important to establish an acceptable range. In this case, a
λtt – 0.769 0.769
39 Km/h
λttw 1to21 0.220 0.769 0.989 range of between 21 and 32 minutes might be considered as
an acceptable journey time to ensure customer satisfaction.
With this model the mean time to absorption can be
measured, representing the time that the BRT takes to get to
the last station. This is a prime item of information for BRT
system planning. In this case, as can be seen in Table V, the
absorption time, which has a direct influence on the probability
of arrival at a given time, is inversely proportional to the speed.
There is another point to make regarding the correlation
between absorption time and the increase in average speed:
the proportional increase in speed is greater than the decrease
in arrival times. In Table V it can be noted that scenario 1 at
23 km/h has an MTTA of 31.78. In scenario 2, the speed has
increased by approximately 35% (from 1.00 to 1.35), whereas
the decrease in MTTA is 22% (0.78 of the MTTA in scenario
1). In the third scenario the speed increases by 70% (from 1.00
to 1.70) in relation to scenario 1, while the decrease in MTTA Fig. 7: Probability of arrival within the required range.
is 36% (0.64 of the MTTA in scenario 1). Thus, it can be noted
that although the increase in speed is inversely proportional to According to these parameters, as illustrated in Figure 7,
the decrease in MTTA, there is no direct correlation. In other the strong impact of speed on arrival probability is clear; at

1277
23 km/h the probability of arrival within this frame is just 0.2,
whereas at the other end of the speed scale, at 39 km/h, the
probability of arrival is 0.9.
This case study emphasized speed as the relevant factor
for guaranteeing destination arrival within the prescribed time
frame. A very significant advantage of a BRT system is
that since it operates on an exclusive route and is therefore
not influenced by traffic levels, reliable information regarding
travel times can be passed on to the passenger, thereby creating
a feeling of trust in the system which attracts more customers
to the service. Thus, through a combination of factors such as
average speed and number of vehicles on the route, the system
can be productively employed to provide a mass means of
transport, creating better mobility conditions in the cities by
decreasing the number of vehicles on the road and ensuring
that passengers can confidently predict their travel times.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper addressed the fundamental factors involved in
BRT systems, employing CTMC models as a means to foster
system analysis and improve the planning process, particularly
in regards to arrival probability and reliability. The models
allow a mathematical function to calculate the probabilities of
a corresponding architecture.
The employment of case studies endorse the importance of
models for planning the system: they can capture information
concerning destination arrival, travel time, and probabilities
of system output, which can help to develop investment
possibilities.
For future work the authors intend to study other metrics,
such as capacity, availability, and system flow. Additionally, the
intention is to introduce costs into the system, thereby attempt-
ing to relate the possible implementation of improvements,
derived from the model metrics, with best results in terms of
cost effectiveness, offering alternative planning solutions. The
impact of faults on system performance is also an area that
requires study, reflecting the profound influence that it has on
the benefit system.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Deng and J. D. Nelson, “Bus rapid transit implementation in beijing:
An evaluation of performance and impacts,” Research in Transportation
Economics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 108–113, 2013.
[2] C. V. Mandayam and B. Prabhakar, “Traffic congestion: models, costs
and optimal transport,” in The 2014 ACM international conference on
Measurement and modeling of computer systems. ACM, 2014, pp.
553–554.
1278
[3] J. C. Muñoz and D. Hidalgo, “Workshop 2: Bus rapid transit as part
of enhanced service provision,” Research in Transportation Economics,
vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 104–107, 2013.
[4] D. Lopez, A. Triana, and H. Chamorro, “Simulation model of public
transportation system using multiagent approach by means of petri
nets: Bogotá study case,” in Robotics symposium, 2011 IEEE IX Latin
American and IEEE Colombian conference on automatic control and
industry applications (LARC). IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[5] P. Thorlacius, H. Lahrmann, and A. Pittelkow, “Time-and-space mod-
elling of public transport systems using gis,” Trafikdage på AUC, 1998.
[6] A. Avizienis, J.-C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. E. Landwehr, “Basic
concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing,” IEEE
Trans. Dependable Sec. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2004.
[7] L. Wright, “Bus rapid transit,” 2002.
[8] M. Malhotra, “Power-hierarchy of dependability model types,” IEEE
Trans. on Reliability, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 493–502, Sept. 1994.
[9] P. Maciel, K. S. Trivedi, R. Matias, and D. S. Kim, “Dependability
modeling,” in Performance and Dependability in Service Computing:
Concepts, Techniques and Research Directions. Hershey: IGI Global,
2011.
[10] J. Dantas, R. Matos, J. Araujo, and P. Maciel, “An availability
model for eucalyptus platform: An analysis of warm-standy replication
mechanism,” in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2012 IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1664–1669.
[11] G. Bolch, S. Greiner, H. de Meer, and K. S. Trivedi, Queueing
networks and Markov chains: modeling and performance evaluation
with computer science applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
[12] C. G. Cassandras and S. Lafortune, Introduction to discrete event
systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[13] C. M. Grinstead and J. L. Snell, Introduction to probability. American
Mathematical Soc., 1997.
[14] R. Diaz, Characteristics of bus rapid transit for decision-making.
Federal Transit Administration, 2004.
[15] S. S. H. R. P. (US), C. Systematics, and H. S. C. Group, Performance
measurement framework for highway capacity decision making. Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, 2009.
[16] D. Roberts, P. Scrimgeour, D. Freeman, B. Jungwirth, C. Norris,
S. Rathwell, D. Reage, R. Takagi, and D. Wohlwill, Bus rapid transit
service design. American Public Transportation Association, 2010.
[17] M. Chang, G. Darido, E. Kim, D. Schneck, M. Hardy, J. Bunch,
M. Baltes, D. Hinebaugh, L. Wnuk, F. Silver et al., “Characteristics
of bus rapid transit for decision-making,” Tech. Rep., 2004.
[18] J. Zhao, W. Li, and X. Hu, “Measuring bus service reliability:
An example of bus rapid transit in changzhou,” SUBMISSION OF
MANUSCRIPTS, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 113, 2014.
[19] W. SHAH, S. A. A. SHAH, and W. KUMAR, “Performance evaluation
of controlled arrival rate system through matrix geometric method using
transient analysis.”
[20] T. Passos, “Acessibilidade é um dos pontos fracos do brt do recife no
norte/sul (accessibility is a weakness of recife brt north / south),” 2015.
[21] C. Arias, A. Castro, W. Colombini, P. Custodio, J. Diaz, K. Fjellstrom,
D. Hidalgo, W. Hook, M. King, L. Wei et al., “Manual de brt: Guia
de planejamento (bus rapid transit manual),” Ministerio das Cidades
(Brazilian Ministry of Cities), ITDP, Brasilia, DF, Brazil, 2008.