Transportation

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 501–518 | Cite as

Bus rapid transit systems: a comparative assessment

Article

Abstract

There is renewed interest in many developing and developed countries in finding ways of providing efficient and effective public transport that does not come with a high price tag. An increasing number of nations are asking the question—what type of public transport system can deliver value for money? Although light rail has often been promoted as a popular ‘solution’, there has been progressively emerging an attractive alternative in the form of bus rapid transit (BRT). BRT is a system operating on its own right-of-way either as a full BRT with high quality interchanges, integrated smart card fare payment and efficient throughput of passengers alighting and boarding at bus stations; or as a system with some amount of dedicated right-of-way (light BRT) and lesser integration of service and fares. The notion that buses essentially operate in a constrained service environment under a mixed traffic regime and that trains have privileged dedicated right-of-way, is no longer the only sustainable and valid proposition. This paper evaluates the status of 44 BRT systems in operation throughout the world as a way of identifying the capability of moving substantial numbers of passengers, using infrastructure whose costs overall and per kilometre are extremely attractive. When ongoing lifecycle costs (operations and maintenance) are taken into account, the costs of providing high capacity integrated BRT systems are an attractive option in many contexts.

Keywords

Bus rapid transit Comparative analysis Infrastructure costs Service levels 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The contribution of Zheng Li in assisting in preparing the data is acknowledged as is the ongoing discussions with Lee Schipper. Detailed comments from Tom Wilson (Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure Adelaide) and Alejandro Tirachini (ITLS and University of Chile) and four referees are appreciated.

References

  1. Canadian Urban Transit Association.: Bus Rapid Transit: A Canadian perspective, Issues Paper #10. CUTA, Toronto (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Cornwell, P., Cracknell, J.: The Case for Busway Transit, PTRC 18th Summer Annual Meeting (1990) (This paper is a summary of TRL Research Report 329 and Overseas Road Note 12 of the Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, UK)Google Scholar
  3. De Leeuw, J.:The Gifi system of nonlinear multivariate analysis. In: Diday, E. et al. (eds.) Data Analysis and Informatics, IV: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium. North Holland, Amsterdam (1985)Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, M., Mackett, R.L.: Developing new urban public transport systems: an irrational decision-making process. Transp. Policy 3, 225–239 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Federal Transit Administration: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making, FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Gifi, A.: Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis, Department of Data Theory. Leiden University, The Netherlands (1981)Google Scholar
  7. Gifi, A.: Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. Wiley, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  8. Hensher, D.A.: Bus-based transitway or light rail? continuing the saga on choice versus blind commitment. Roads Transp. Res. 8(3), 3–21 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Hensher, D.A.: Sustainable public transport systems: moving towards a value for money and network-based approach and away from blind commitment. Transp Policy 14(1), 98–102 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hensher, D.A.: Bus Transport: Economics, Policy and Planning, Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 18. Elsevier, Oxford (2007a)Google Scholar
  11. Hildago, D.: Comparing transit alternatives after recent developments in BRT in Latin America, paper presented at the January 2005 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Menckhoff, G.: Latin American experience with bus rapid transit, paper presented at the Annual Meeting, Institution of Transportation Engineers, Melbourne, August (2005)Google Scholar
  13. Sislak, K.G.: Bus rapid transport as a substitute for light rail: A tail of two cities, paper presented at 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit, Transportation Research Board and American Public Transportation Association, http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/sislak.pdf
  14. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, TCRP Report 118. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2007)Google Scholar
  15. Van der Burg, E., De Leeuw, J.: Nonlinear canonical correlation. Br. J. Math. Statist. Psychol. 36, 54–80 (1983)Google Scholar
  16. Vuchic, V.: Urban Transit Operations, Planning, and Economics. Wiley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Wright, L., Hook, W.: Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, 3rd edn. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and BusinessThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations