Difference between revisions of "Bus rapid transit"

From TransitWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Additional Reading)
(Introduction)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
  
In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.
+
In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.
 +
 
 +
The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system.  They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).
 +
 
 +
Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays.  Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.
 +
 
 +
While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems.  A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route.  This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.
 +
 
 +
When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines.  The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested.  Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.
 +
 
 +
==Features==
 +
 
 +
===Bus lanes===
 +
 
 +
===Busways===
 +
 
 +
===Fare collection===
 +
 
 +
===Automatic vehicle location===
 +
 
 +
===Land use===
 +
 
 +
===Signal priority===
 +
 
 +
===Stops & shelters===
 +
 
 +
===Vehicles design===
 +
 
 +
===Expressways===
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==Examples==
 +
 
 +
The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line.  Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.
  
Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded traditional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays.  Or in major urban areas, the transportation needs may make appropriate to invest in heavy rail, light rail or various types of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
 
  
For instance, while the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is embarking on construction of over 70 miles of rail (per voter mandate), the more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line.  Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.
 
  
The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system.  They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).
 
  
While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems.  A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route.  This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.
 
  
When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines.  The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested.  Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service. 
 
  
 +
Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, "Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making." Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.
  
 
==Additional Reading==
 
==Additional Reading==
 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf
 
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf

Revision as of 21:46, 5 April 2012

Introduction

In corridors with high travel demand, bus rapid transit lines can help move people quickly and provide a viable alternative to the private automobile. Typically, BRT lines are distinguished from baseline bus service by their speed, frequency, capacity and reliability.

The Federal Transit administration identifies several features, the presence of which determines the type and quality of a BRT system. They include: bus lanes, busways, fare collection, automatic vehicle location, land use, signal priority, stops, shelters, vehicles design, and expressways (Diaz 2009).

Depending on the community’s needs, a BRT service might be an upgraded conventional bus line that features frequent all-day service and improved bus stops with real-time arrival displays. Corridors with heavier travel demands may justify a greater capital investment in BRT.

While full BRT is often viewed as less expensive to construct than rail, there are important tradeoffs to consider within the spectrum of BRT systems. A BRT line with its own dedicated right-of-way, grade separated intersections and transit stations would provide very fast and reliable “rail lite” service, but could easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Operational improvements which speed buses can also reduce the cost of offering service by reducing the time to complete a route. This means that drivers can complete more routes in a day and a transit agency can maintain set headways with fewer buses than in slower operations.

When funding is limited, the benefits of adding these expensive features to one line should be weighed against implementing less expensive measures – i.e. bus-only lanes, upgraded shelters, signal priority – on a greater number of lines. The question may ultimately come down to which alternative saves the most time per dollar invested. Agencies may, however, want to consider other factors as well, such as mobility improvements, social impacts, and land use effects of new fixed route transit service.

Features

Bus lanes

Busways

Fare collection

Automatic vehicle location

Land use

Signal priority

Stops & shelters

Vehicles design

Expressways

Examples

The more suburban city of San Bernardino is investing in a BRT line. Dubbed SBX, the line will connect Cal State San Bernardino with the city center.




Diaz, Roderick. Federal Transit Administration, "Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making." Last modified 2009. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf.

Additional Reading

http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2011/path_final_report_ucb-its-prr-2011-08.pdf