Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bus rapid transit systems: a comparative assessment

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Discussions with Raymond Lam, Singapore’s Minister of Transport, have been useful in highlighting this position.

  2. For 35,000 passengers with a load of 160, there would need to be 219 buses in the peak hour, or almost four buses each minute.

  3. With recent claims of up to 45,000 trips per hour.

  4. Hidalgo (2005) refers to high level BRT as HBRT.

  5. One reason for differences in infrastructure costs relates to the physical conditions prior to start of construction, which are difficult to define. Adelaide, for example, started from scratch, although they had the advantage that most of the land was in Government ownership, but they had to build a lot of bridges. Bogota, in most cases, converted some existing road lanes into BRT lanes.

  6. Like any highly aggregate analysis that summarises the dimensionality of each system by a single average indicator, the data will be subject to disagreement, and indeed would display varying deviations around specific averages depending on the source used to obtain the data. Despite this, there is some useful broad evidence that signals specific strengths of BRT systems in respect to costs and ridership.

  7. A referee suggested we undertake a comparison with other public transport systems (i.e., heavy and light rail). We have resisted this since the focus herein is on BRT per se, and understanding what factors may contribute to variations in unit and total infrastructure costs. The debate on the comparative cost of BRT, light rail and heavy rail is reported in other papers in the literature (see for example, Edwards and Mackett 1996; Hensher 1999, 2007a, Chap. 17; Vuchic 2007).

  8. We adjusted the ridership figures by dividing by kilometres of corridors to correct for any comparisons that would tend to deliver higher patronage simply because of the amount of coverage regardless of the role of other factors.

  9. Tom Wilson has pointed out that both enthusiasts and professionals in public transport often use “maximum” and “minimum” jointly with “frequency” and “headway” without thinking about what they really mean. In the case of very high frequency services, “frequency (or services) per hour” is a better concept.

  10. The Thredbo 10 conference in August 2007 concluded that frequency and reliability are increasingly becoming the major contributors to evidential growth in public transport bus patronage in many parts of the world.

  11. Optimal scales have a specific advantage over the dummy variable specification. If one uses multiple dummies from the same nominal variable, they will naturally be highly (negatively) correlated. In forecasting the effects of a change in categories, the analyst may have to decrease one category while simultaneously increasing the other.

  12. When we initially adopted a dummy variable specification without the insights from NLCAA, we obtained, after extensive estimation, very few statistically significant effects. When we used NLCCA as the guiding framework, the selection of final statistically significant dummy variables was immediate as well as producing a much better model in terms of explanatory power.

References

  • Canadian Urban Transit Association.: Bus Rapid Transit: A Canadian perspective, Issues Paper #10. CUTA, Toronto (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • Edwards, M., Mackett, R.L.: Developing new urban public transport systems: an irrational decision-making process. Transp. Policy 3, 225–239 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Transit Administration: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making, FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1, US Department of Transportation, Washington DC (2004)

  • Gifi, A.: Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis, Department of Data Theory. Leiden University, The Netherlands (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifi, A.: Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. Wiley, Chichester (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D.A.: Bus Transport: Economics, Policy and Planning, Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 18. Elsevier, Oxford (2007a)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Menckhoff, G.: Latin American experience with bus rapid transit, paper presented at the Annual Meeting, Institution of Transportation Engineers, Melbourne, August (2005)

  • 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

  • Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, TCRP Report 118. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, E., De Leeuw, J.: Nonlinear canonical correlation. Br. J. Math. Statist. Psychol. 36, 54–80 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuchic, V.: Urban Transit Operations, Planning, and Economics. Wiley, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L., Hook, W.: Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, 3rd edn. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Hensher.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1 Candidate variables

Given that many, but not all, of the candidate influences are nominally scale variables (such as shown in Figures in the text as yes, no, partial, etc.), a technique known as nonlinear canonical correlation analysis (NLCCA) was proposed as a way of considering the best way of scaling the range of levels. The first stage uses NLCCA as a way of quantifying mixtures of nominal, ordinal, and ratio scaled variables all at once, while determining the strength of the relationship between each optimally quantified variable and the (one, in this case) dependent variable. Given the small sample size (in terms of low category frequencies) and missing data, we had to progressively work through subsets of potential explanatory variables.

A solution to the nonlinear CCA problem was first proposed by Gifi (1981), De Leeuw (1985), Van der Burg and De Leeuw (1983). The method simultaneously determines both optimal re-scaling of the nominal and ordinal variables and explanatory variable weights, such that the linear combination of the weighted re-scaled variables in one set has the maximum possible correlation with the linear combination of weighted re-scaled variables in the second set. Both the variable weights and optimal category scores are determined by minimising a loss function derived from the concept of “meet” in lattice theory (see Gifi 1990). A nonlinear CCA solution involves, for each canonical variate, weights for all the variables, optimal category scores for all ordinal and nominal variables, and a canonical correlation.

After NLCCA identifies which variables are statistically significant, and how their categories score, we can do one of two things as stage 2: use the variables in terms of their new rescored scales, or break them into dummy coded (1,0) variables. The optimal scores often show that some categories can be combined. Although this can be explored from the outset through dummy variables (e.g., testing ‘yes’ and ‘partial’ separately and combined), the dummy variable approach results in more variables, and the effect of a single nominal variable (here both ‘yes’ and ‘partial’) is sometimes spread into two variables. Without NLCCA, in order to test all categories of all nominal variables, one would have more than 40 dummy variables (and, given missing values, a sample size much lower). Clearly this is too many variables. Using the new scales obtained with NLCCA is more elegant in terms of measuring the total effect of a single multi-category nominal variable. Importantly, even if one adopts a dummy variable specification as the final model, the guidance offered through NLCCAFootnote 11 is substantial in reducing the problem to a workable size.Footnote 12

We present the NLCCA results in Table A2 and used this as the basis of selecting the appropriate dummy variable specification for traditional multivariate regression estimation (Table A2) for inclusion with ratio scaled variables. In Table A2, the categories of the nominal variables are optimal in that the resulting variables provide the best linear combination that explains the optimally recoded ordinal dependent variable. It is a closed-form eigenvalue least squares solution. We then use the rescaled variables in ordinary (log-linear) regression.

 Table A2 The NLCCA results used to establish the candidate levels of potential explanatory variables
Table A3  Dummy coded multivariate regression

We can clearly see that there are some very influential design and service delivery features that are linked to the costs of infrastructure, some of them being strictly associative such as operating subsidy, the presence of an independently operated and managed fare system, and entry restricted to prescribed operators. In one sense, these variables are beneficiaries of a particular infrastructure design that limits the number of operators, is designed to support efficient operators who do not require operating subsidy, and has a separate supplier of the managed fare system. Of particular note is the positive parameter estimate for operator entry, suggesting that systems with fewer operators (in many cases a single operator selected by competitive tendering or negotiated performance-based contracting) tend to be those that have more expensive infrastructure per kilometre.

Three design elements have an upward effect on infrastructure costs and two have a downward impact. Higher commercial speeds above 20 kph where this is always the case or partially the case, and signal priority or grade separation at intersections (distinguishing always and partially), result in substantially higher infrastructure costs per kilometre (noting that the dependent variable is a natural logarithmic transformation). At-level boarding and alighting, where it is the only facility in place or where it is partially provided, has a strong downward impact on infrastructure costs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hensher, D.A., Golob, T.F. Bus rapid transit systems: a comparative assessment. Transportation 35, 501–518 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9163-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-008-9163-y

Keywords

Navigation