webinar: bus rapid transit system: metro on surface or high performance bus system?

Bus Rapid Transit System:

Metro on surface or high performance bus

system?

Geetam Tiwari

MoUD Chair Professor

Department of Civil Engineering &

Coordinator Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP)

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi(IITD)

New Delhi, India

31 January, 2014

Bus Rapid Transit System:

1973-75 Curitiba, Brazil: “ I would like to have a

metro system, however, at present I

cannot afford it, why not have metro on

road”- Mayor Jamie Lerner

Why?

Problems caused due to growing car

ownership

Bus system moving in mixed traffic

could not carry large number of

people as possible in metro system

Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005

Sao Paulo(10 million), Brazil

Central bus lanes~170kms, links underground metro

US Federal Transit Administration, 2001

Quito (1.8 million), Ecuador

Electric

trolley

buses

running

through

congeste

d

historical

district

TransMilenio in Bogota from highway to city center

Taipei(6mill), Taiwan ~60km of BRT with metro

Creative use of lane space

Photos: Jason Chang, 2002

Kunming(4.6 million), China central bus lns 50% increase in corridor cap.

Source: unknown. From

Lloyd Wright, 2002

Nagoya, Japan John Cracknell, TTC, and the US

Transportation Research Board

BRT

planning

in 8 cites

US examples

Honolulu

Pittsburgh

US Federal Transit Administration

Lloyd Wright

Rapid boarding & alighting

Quito, Ecuador

Porto Alegre, Brazil

Curitiba, Brazil

Lloyd Wright

Karl Fjellstrom

Lloyd Wright

Bus stop platform and bus floor at

the same level

Wider doors

Attention to details is the

difference between BRT and

typical bus system

1980-2000+

BRT(some form of) in every continent! Latin America

Belo Horizonte

Bogota

Campinas

Curitiba

Goiania

Lima

Porto Alegre

Quito

Recife

Sao Paulo

North America

Honolulu

Los Angeles

Miami

Ottawa

Pittsburgh

Vancouver

Asia

Akita

Fukuoka

Gifu

Kanazuwa

Kunming

Miyazaki

Nagaoka

Nagoya

Nigata

Taipie

Europe

Claremont Ferrand

Eindhoven

Essen

Ipswich

Leeds

Nancy

Rouen

Oceania

Adelaide

Brisbane

Cities shown in red

> 5million

population

What is BRTS ? • Bus Rapid Transit is a high-quality, state-

of-the-art mass transit system at a fraction of the cost of other options.

• Exclusive right of way-central lanes on arterials roads

• No friction with other vehicles

• Not affected by traffic jams

• Lanes can be used by police and emergency vehicles

• Faster boarding and alighting

• Level platform

• Improved buses

• ICT integration

• Passenger information

• ASIAN CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip

lengths, high share of two wheelers) – Open systems

– Low Floor buses

– Junction bus stops

• Latin America ( Slums near city borders, moderate to long trip lengths, absence of two wheelers – Closed system

– High Floor buses

– FOB

– Island mid block bus stop

BRT Experience

• European CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip

lengths, presence of formal bus system) – Open systems

– Low Floor buses

– Junction bus stops

• North America (suburban development, very high car ownership, long trip lengths) – Closed system

– Low Floor buses

– FOB( or curb side lane)

– Island mid block bus stop

BRT Experience

Closed /

Trunk & Feeder System

1-3km

10-

30km

Gives a brand image to public

transport

Ensures high service quality and

reliability

Allows ease of control and

enforcement

Fare structure and fare

collection system is generally

simpler and uniform.

Simpler Junction design and

signal plan. Can be managed in

maximum of 4-5 phases as

turning buses is controlled

Bus System planned like metro

1-3km

10-

30km

Bus System planned like metro

Heavy dependence on feeder

infrastructure

Transfers are increased,

increasing journey time

Suitable for cities with majority

trips are more than 10km ~

Not suitable for corridors with

high segment demand variations.

High quality feeder network is

essential

Restricts use by non BRT public

transport modes

Needs a new and independent

institutional mechanism

Metro & BRT network in selected cities

Metro

Moscow

Metro

Tokyo

BRT

Bogota

BRT

Jakarta

Network connectivity in bus

systems

• Majority O-D are connected by direct

service

• Some routes can go off the corridor nearer

destinations

• Bus stop spacing 500 m providing short

access trips

Open System Increases the catchment area of buses

Transfers are minimised, decreasing

journey time.

Does not need separate feeder network

Suitable for cities where majority trips

are less than ~10 km.

Works well in corridors with high

segmental demand variations

Extends segregated lane benefits to all

public transport and high occupancy

modes on the corridor.

Can work within the existing institutional

and regulatory framework using the

existing operators.

Open System

Predictability and reliability of public

transport is decreased because the

buses have to move in mixed

conditions for sometime

Difficult to regulate and control

Has generally complex fare structure

and fare collection system

Signal cycle design may require more

phases as turning is allowed for buses.

Hybrid System HYBRID SYSTEM – Combines benefits

of Open and Closed System

In the same corridor a route is reserved only to

ply on the corridor. Other buses move in and out of

the corridor and this will be city bus service

Minimum standard/frequency is met by BRTS

operations, higher segmental demands are met by

city buses.

Provides reliability and high service quality as

well brand image along with flexibility and

convenience.

Fare collection and control within corridor may be

simplified by providing closed shelters with off-

board ticketing

24

Open and Closed Systems

Open System

• Buses can enter and leave the busway depending on the origin and destinations – shared busway with multiple routes

Closed System

• Buses remain within the busway and operate between terminals

25

Trunk and Feeder System

26

Network Planning Existing routes

•36 bus routes

•4 through routes

•120-150 buses/h

AMBEDKAR NAGAR

VIRAT MARG (MID BLOCK)

ORTHONOVA

PRESS ENCLAVE

CHIRAGH DELHI

10 Routes, 85 Buses/hr4 Routes, 38 buses/hr

2 Routes, 19 buses/hr 2 Routes, 15 buses/hr

1 Route, 12 buses /hr

5 Routes, 46 Buses/hr

1 Route, 5 buses/hr1 Route, 15 Buses/hr

2 Routes, 12 Buses/hr

123

Bus

es/h

r12

3 B

uses

/hr

157

Bus

es/h

r12

3 B

uses

/hr

115

Bus

es/h

r

Buses On Corridor

Buses Joining Corridor

Buses Leaving Corridor

Bus Shelters

LEGEND

(14

Rou

tes)

(14

Rou

tes)

(18

Rou

tes)

(14

Rou

tes)

(14

Rou

tes)

27

Understanding Capacity

Line capacity vs vehicle capacity

• Line capacity : Vehicle capacity(Transit Unit, TU) X

TU/h

• TU capacity= No. of vehicles /TU

• Vehicle Capacity : vehicle size, standing, seating, load

factor, passenger comfort

• Frequency: TU/h= cycle time/headway

• Cycle time: Station time+ running time

• Running time: corridor length/speed

• Station time: boarding and alighting time

• Vehicle design, station design

Why do cities invest in Public

transport?

• “reduce” congestion

• Improve air quality

• Control sprawl

• Provide mobility choices

This requires 1. retaining PT and NMV users

2.attracting people car users & two wheeler users to PT

What do people want

• Get me from point A to point B,

(connectivity)

• Quickly and don’t make me wait (system

performance)

How do you reduce door to door

journey time?

• Reduce Waiting time~ increase

frequencies

• Door to door travel that is faster than

driving~ increase direct service and

express service

Pedestrian connectivity

IIT Delhi 2006

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time, minutes

Dis

tan

ce

, k

m

Metro Walking

Bicycling BRT

2-Wheeler/car

car bicycl

e BRT

metro

walk

3 km trip

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time, minutes

Dis

tan

ce, km

Metro

BRT

2-Wheeler/car

IIT Delhi 2006

car

BRT

metro

12 km Trip

S’pore average metro trip 12 km

BRTS Design and Evaluation Process

• Design and operation

selection currently based on

experience in different cities

– Problem– cities differ in

context and requirements

• Lack of comprehensive

indicators of “success” – Mostly operational indicators

commercial speed and capacity

used, user or social

indicators not used.

* source- www.chinabrt.org BRT Corridors–Global Examples

Xiamen*

Seoul*

Taipei

Possible Designs (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/10/0/10_1292/_article

15

Island Stations Staggered Stations

Junction Stations Mid-block Stations

Stations with overtaking lane Stations without overtaking lane

Bus Lanes Bus Lanes

Bus Lanes Bus Lanes

Bus Lanes Bus LanesMotor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle LanesMotor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Motor Vehicle Lanes

Station Station

StationStation Station

Station Station

Open System – Multi route operation Closed System – Single route operation 2

X

2

2

2

= 1

6

X

X

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/10/0/10_1292/_article

Possible Design Variations Average Trip Length – 7km Demand 7500 PPHPD

Average Walk Speed – 1m/s Average Station Spacing :600m

Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) :150s

At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing: 26m

30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system

Demand (PPHPD) 2500, 5000, 7500, 10000, 12500

Average Station Spacing (m) 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000

Signal Cycle (s) 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300

Boarding bay dist. From int. (m) 0, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78

Variations in features modeled (for 16 design options)

Results compared (for 16 design options) Average commercial speeds Maximum achievable frequency

Door to door journey time Access & egress time

Total walk distance in a one way trip

Findings

• Commercial Speed: – Closed systems are better

than open

– Staggered are better than island stations

– Junctions are better than mid block shelter locations

– Higher speeds with overtaking lane than without

• Journey Time – Lowest journey time at 750-

800m station spacing

– Open systems better than closed systems for station spacing >450m.

– Staggered better than island

– Junctions better than mid block

– With overtaking better than without

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

Op

era

tio

na

l S

pe

ed

in

Km

/h

Average Distance Between Stations (m)

Average Distance Between Stations vs. Operation Speed

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

Avera

ge J

ou

rney T

ime in

M

inu

tes

Average Distance Between Stations (m)

Average Distance Between Stations vs. Journey Time

13.414.5

15.516.4

17.218.0

18.819.5

20.120.7

21.321.8

22.3

16.7

17.918.9

19.920.8

21.622.3

23.023.6

24.224.7

25.225.7

13.214.2

15.216.1

17.017.7

18.519.2

19.820.4

21.021.5

22.0

16.4

17.618.6

19.620.5

21.322.0

22.723.3

23.924.4

24.925.4

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000

Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed

Junction with overtaking staggered in open system Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close systemJunction With Overtaking Island in Open system Junction With Overtaking Island in Close systemJunction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Closed systemJunction Without Overtaking Island in Open system Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system

13.414.5

15.516.4

17.218.0

18.819.5

20.120.7

21.321.8

22.3

16.7

17.918.9

19.920.8

21.622.3

23.023.6

24.224.7

25.225.7

13.214.2

15.216.1

17.017.7

18.519.2

19.820.4

21.021.5

22.0

16.4

17.618.6

19.620.5

21.322.0

22.723.3

23.924.4

24.925.4

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000



Findings • Max. Achievable Frequency:

– Higher frequency for closed systems than open

– Higher frequency for mid block stations than junction

– Higher for staggered stations than island

– Higher with overtaking lane

• Total Access+Egress Time – Compared to open system

access+ egress time is almost double for junction stn. and 15% higher for mid. block stn. in closed systems

– Compared to junction stations it is 30% higher for mid block stations in open systems and 10% higher in closed systems

• Total walk dist. in a trip – Shorter for open system than for

closed system

– Shorter for junction stations than for mid block

13.414.5

15.516.4

17.218.0

18.819.5

20.120.7

21.321.8

22.3

16.7

17.918.9

19.920.8

21.622.3

23.023.6

24.224.7

25.225.7

13.214.2

15.216.1

17.017.7

18.519.2

19.820.4

21.021.5

22.0

16.4

17.618.6

19.620.5

21.322.0

22.723.3

23.924.4

24.925.4

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000



13.414.5

15.516.4

17.218.0

18.819.5

20.120.7

21.321.8

22.3

16.7

17.918.9

19.920.8

21.622.3

23.023.6

24.224.7

25.225.7

13.214.2

15.216.1

17.017.7

18.519.2

19.820.4

21.021.5

22.0

16.4

17.618.6

19.620.5

21.322.0

22.723.3

23.924.4

24.925.4

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 13 26 39 52 65 78

Ma

xim

um

Fre

qu

en

cy P

Distance of First Boarding Bay from Stop line in m

Distance of First stop fr Stop line vs. Max. Frequency (Bus Capacity)

15

20

25

30

35

40

To

tal A

cc

es

s T

ime

(m

in.)

Average Distance between Stations (m)

Average Distance between Stations Vs. Total Access Time

Trip length variation Impact

• Passenger Speed gain over regular buses: – Open system with

staggered stations better than closed system with island stations for trip lengths up to 9km.

– BRTS has little or no advantage over regular bus systems if avg. motor veh. speed >22.5 km/h.

– In all systems longer avg. trip lengths are more attractive over regular buses for avg. MV speeds less than 20 km/h.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

4

10

16

Spe

ed

Dif

fere

nce

in k

m/h

r

Trip Length in Km

Average motorized

speed in City in km/hr

Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Open System)

4.0-5.0

3.0-4.0

2.0-3.0

1.0-2.0

0.0-1.0

-1.0-0.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

4

10

16

Spe

ed

Dif

ferr

en

ce in

km

/hr

Trip length in Km

Average Motorized

speed in city in km/hr

Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular Bus Service (in Closed System)

5.0-6.0

4.0-5.0

3.0-4.0

2.0-3.0

1.0-2.0

0.0-1.0

-1.0-0.0

Typical System/Design comp

No. of boarding bays :3 per direction Demand 7500 PPHPD

Average Walk Speed :1m/s Bus overtaking lanes at station: None

Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) – 150s

At grade signalized access for ped. Boarding Bay from Crossing – 26m

30% turning buses in open system 5 distinct routes in open system

Trip Length (km) - 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16

Average Station Spacing (m) - 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000

Peak bus speed (km/h) - 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100

Avg. veh. speed in corridor (km/h)

-

10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5,

30.0

Common Design Features(for both designs)

Variations in Context Elements

Travel time (min), Operational/Commercial speed

(km/h),

Passenger Speed (km/h)

Results compared

1. Staggered Stations in open system, first bay is 26m from crossing

2. Island station in closed system, first bay is 60m from stop line

Stn spacing and peak speed Impact

• Commercial Speed:

Avg. Trip length variation does not effect commercial speed in BRTS

Commercial speed increases with increasing station spacing and increasing peak bus speeds in all systems.

Commercial speed is more sensitive to station spacing and peak bus speed in closed systems.

Steepest gain in commercial speed with increase in peak speeds from 40 to 60km/h

At ideal station spacing of 750m, an increase in peak bus speeds from 40 to 60km/h ,commercial speed increases by 10% in open system and 15% in closed system.

18

23

28

33

40

60

80

100Op

era

tio

nal

Sp

ee

d in

Km

/Hr

Peak Bus Speed in Km/hr

Close System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length

33-36

28-33

23-28

18-23

12

17

22

27

32

40

60

80

100

Op

era

tio

nal

Sp

ee

d in

Km

/Hr


Open System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip Length

32-36

27-32

22-27

17-22

12-17

Impact on Journey Time

• Door to Door Journey

Time:

– Open systems are more

sensitive to station spacing

than closed systems

– Ideal station spacing for all

systems is about 750m

– Journey time advantage of

increasing peak bus speed

increases with avg. station

spacing increase

– Increasing peak bus speed

has minimal impact on

journey time

500600

700800

9001000

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

40

60

80

100

Trip

tim

e in

min


Open System Travel Time Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length

44-45

43-44

42-43

41-42

40-41

39-40

38-39

37-38

36-37

36.00

37.00

38.00

39.00

40.00

41.00

42.00

43.00

44.00

45.00

40

60

80

100

Trip

tim

e in

min


Close System Travel Time (min) Comparison for 6 Km Trip Length

44.00-45.00

43.00-44.00

42.00-43.00

41.00-42.00

40.00-41.00

39.00-40.00

38.00-39.00

37.00-38.00

36.00-37.00

Conclusions

• In general closed systems perform better against operator indicators while open systems perform better against passenger and social indicators.

• Open systems work better in cities with avg. trip length less than 9-10km when no bus overtaking lane is used and less than 14-16km when bus overtaking lanes exist.

• Staggered stations perform better than island stations in all conditions, for all operational designs.

• Stations perform better with overtaking lanes than without

• BRTS systems are useful on inner city roads with higher congestion and avg. MV speed of 15-20km/h or less. They are counter productive on corridors with speeds in excess of 27.5km/h

• Increasing peak bus speeds over 40km/h results in no significant advantage either to passengers or to operators but significantly increases fatality risk.

WAY FORWARD

What is a 21st

century city?

An Alternative Approach

Sustainable Mobility(D. Banister, T.Litman, J.Gehl..................

• Social dimensions

• Accessibility

• People focus, instead of vehicle

• Local in scale

• Street as a space

• All modes of transport often in a hierarchy with pedestrian and cyclist at the top and car users at the bottom

• Visioning on cities

• Scenario development and modelling

• Multicriteria analysis to take account of environmental and social concerns

• Travel as a valued activity as well as a derived demand

• Management based

• Slowing movement down

• Reasonable travel times and travel time reliability

• Integration of people and traffic

BRTS in Future Cities

• Inclusive

• Compact

– High density

– Mixed landuse

• Short to medium trip lengths

• Less dependent on personal motorized

vehicles

OPEN BRTS or CLOSED BRTS??

webinar: bus rapid transit system: metro on surface or high performance bus system?

Technology

metro system

high performance bus

bus rapid transit system

bus floor

closed system

hybrid system hybrid

open system predictability

system low floor buses