BRT and BHLS Evolution

Worldwide

Dario Hidalgo, PhD

Director Transport Practice

EMBARQ Signature Initiative

WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities

Contents

Introduction

BRT and BHLS Evolution Worldwide

BRT and BHLS in Different Markets

Discussion

BRT

“flexible, rubber-tired

form of rapid transit

that combines stations,

vehicles, services,

running ways and

information

technologies into an

integrated system with

strong identity”

(Levinson et. al, 2003b)

Key BRT Components

Segregated

Busways

Stations with

prepayment and

level boarding

Large buses with

multiple doors

Distinctive Image

Centralized Control

Macrobús – Guadalajara

BHLS “is an urban transport system

integrating a bus, but within

new conditions providing an

increase in performance

thanks to a triple optimization

of:

The internal characteristics of

the technical and commercial

offer.

The integration of this offer

into the whole public

transport network.

The integration of this

network into the urban area”

(Finn et. al, 2011)

Cambridge, UK

Key BHLS Components (for better performance)

The Busway – Nantes

Running

ways

Stations

Vehicles

Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS), operation

management tools

Identity of the

BHLS scheme

BHLS COST

Bus priority systems in the world

# of cities and length (km) per country

2 km

320 km

80 km

1

13 8

5

33

3

1

6

3

19

2

8 1

20

2

2 2

1

10

1

1

2

1

1

1 19

3 1

1

3 1

1

3

3

1

195 cities = 402 corridors = 5,229 km

700 km

1

1 1

5

1

1

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

1

1

3

2

5

1

3

1

1

Bus priority systems in the world

# of cities and daily demand per country (M pax/day)

195 cities = 32,498,456 pax/day

8

5

33

1

6

3

19 2

8 1

2

2 1

10

1

1

2

1

1 19

3

12 M

pax/day

1

3

1

13

20

1

3

2.5 M

1.5 M

0.5 M

0.05 M

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

Oceania 2 countries

6 cities

8 corridors

0.43 M pax/day

96 km

Latin America and

the Caribbean 12 countries

63 cities

198 corridors

20,03 M pax/day

1,745 km

Africa 2 countries

3 cities

4 corridors

0.26 M pax/day

83 km

Asia 11 countries

40 cities

77 corridors

8.73 M pax/day

1,429 km

Europe 14 countries

56 cities

69 corridors

1.98 M pax/day

935 km

USA and Canada 2 countries

27 cities

46 corridors

1.04 M pax/day

942 km

Bus priority systems in the world

Daily demand per region adds up to 32 M pax/day

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

Before 1990 (21 cities)

1991 - 2000 (20 cities)

2001 - 2010 (104 cities)

625

605

2979

Since 2011 (50 cities)

1020

625

1230

4209

5229

Bus priority systems in the world

evolution # of cities and km per decade

Cum

ula

tive length

(km

)

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

Bus priority systems in the world

Planned / in

construction

(141 cities)

In expansion

(48 cities)

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

0

40

80

120

160

200

0

5

10

15

20

25

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Cu

mu

lative

Nu

mb

er

of C

itie

s

Ne

w C

itie

s

2010: Guanghou

2000: Bogotá

(TransMilenio)

Evolution of the number of cities per year

Bus priority systems in the world

1972/2010*: Lima

* Busway / BRT year commencement

1974/1991*: Curitiba

1968: Liège

source: BRTData.org, September 2015

Evolution of total length of systems

Bus priority systems in the world

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cu

mu

lative

le

ng

th (

km

)

Co

nstr

ucte

d le

ng

th (

km

)

source: BRTData.org, August 2015

Contents

Introduction

BRT and BHLS Evolution Worldwide

BRT and BHLS in Different Markets

Discussion

Curitiba, RIT, 72 km median busways

1.2 million passengers per day

Initial Bus Corridor 1972

Full BRT in 1991

1. Making buses run like surface metro –

Curitiba 1982

median bus-ways longitudinally

segregated

tube stations with fare

prepayment and level access

physical and fare integration

dispatch control at terminal

stations.

differentiated services:

Expresso, Ligerao, Ligeirinho,

Interbairros, Alimentador

Special services downtown,

hospitals, touristic bus, schools

2010

Evolution of the Integrated Network

Source: Prefeitura de Curitiba, Parana

“Linha Verde” Curitiba

Corredor de 18 Km

2009

Fotos: Prefeitura de Curitiba, Parana

Capacity Expansion

“Corredor Boqueirao”

2010

Fo

to: P

refe

itu

ra d

e C

uritib

a, P

ara

na

2. Implementing buses of high level of service,

The Trans Val de Marne TVM – Paris 1993

Implementing buses of high level of service,

The Trans Val de Marne TVM – Paris 1993

Is the most used BHLS

1993 (13 km) and 2007

(7 km)

20 km bus lanes, 95%

dedicated, mostly

central segregated

29 stations (@ 700m)

39 articulated buses,

specially designed and

branded for the system

Implementing buses of high level of service,

The Trans Val de Marne TVM – Paris 1993

Information systems

23 km/h

17 km/h minimum peak

3.5 min headway (peak)

Interval plus 3 minutes

for 96% of the pax

66,000 trips/day,

growing 7% per year

Good integration with

pedestrians and rail

(4 RER and 1 subway) New vehicle Créalis for the BHLS routes

3. Expanding capacity with advanced operations

Bogotá, 2000

Very high capacity

48,000 pphpd

Bogotá, TransMilenio, 112 Km busways

2,4 million pax/day

Express Way Lanes

TransMilenio, Bogota

New Fleet of Bi-articulated Buses Euro V

Downtown Transit Mall (Eje Ambiental)

Photo

: G

. K

ash, Julio

2011

User Perception of the Travel Modes In Bogota

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Colectivo 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6

TransMilenio 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0

Bus/Ejecutivo 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.1

Buseta 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2

3.0

3.3

3.5

3.8

4.0

4.3

4.5

4.8

Source: User perception survey “Bogotá

¿Cómo Vamos?” 2006 y 2009

4. Integrating transit services across

modes and services – Santiago 2007

Single process

(¿big bang?)

Fare integration

Route optimization

Formalization of

providers

Elimination of

“competition on the

street”

The planning and implementation team was too

optimistic – implementation had troubles

Lack of proper

infrastructure for the

trunk services

Stations without

prepaid area

Inadequate transfer

facilities

Lack of centralized

dispatch and control

Large subsidies

Despite the initial difficulties, Santiago has

risen to a higher level of performance

The current system is

better than the one it

replaced

Travel times have

reduced

Large decreases in

emissions

Substantial reductions

in fatalities and injuries

Still a lot to improve

Traffic Crashes in Santiago Source: CONACET

6366

4951

3406 3291 3047 2937

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

High commercial

speed

42 km/h

5. Introducing high speed buses on

expressways – Istanbul 2008

45 Km central bus ways on

expressway (100% segregated)

Long station platforms -90m,

separated 1.1 km on average

Non-grade queue jumpers to

access the Bosphorus Bridge,

(mixed traffic)

Low floor buses (articulated

and bi-articulated)

23,000 passengers/ hour/

direction, 15 sec interval

800,000 passengers/day

35,800 pax/day/km

6. Reducing transfers with direct services –

Guangzhou 2010

22.5 km corridor

Long stations –from

55m to 260m, with

overtaking lanes

Combines multiple

direct services on the

same infrastructure.

27,000 pphpd

350 buses phpd

800,000 passengers per

day

Contents

Introduction

BRT and BHLS Evolution Worldwide

BRT and BHLS in Different Markets

Discussion

237,000 Pax/día

497,000

Pax/día

552,000

Pax/día

814,000

Pax/día

1,114,000 Pax/día

2003 2005 2008 2009 2011

Optibus

Leon,

Guanajuatio

Length: 26 km

Fleet: 61

+Metobus

Insurgentes

Mexico DF

Length: 46 km

Fleet: 156

+ Metrobus

Insurgentes Sur

Length: 55 km

Fleet: 216

+Macrobus

Guadalajara

Length: 92 km

Fleet: 330

+Mexibus

Mexico State

Length: 128 km

Fleet: 472

1,164,000 Pax/día

2012

+ Metrbus

Line 4

Length: 156 km

Fleet: 526

BRT Chihuahua

BRT Mexicali

BRT Ecovía Monterrey

BRT Chimalhuacán

BRT Tampico

BRT Acapulco

BRT Lechería

BRT Tijuana

BRT Puebla

Metrobus Line 5

BRT Monterrey

BRT Villahermosa

BRT Cd. Azteca - Tecámac

BRT Toluca

Authorized

Under review

Tren Sub 1 Cuautitlán

BRT Oaxaca

BT Puebla 2

Tren LRT Guadalajara

BRT Pachuca

BRT Cd Juarez

BRT León

Under construction

BRT systems in Mexico

35 BRT systems: 5 new systems in operation

30 planning

31 Cities in Brazil with BRT and Bus Corridors

Belo Horizonte, Blumenau, Brasília,

Campinas, Campo Grande,

Caxias do Sul, Criciúma, Curitiba,

Diadema - Feira de Santana,

Fortaleza, Goiania, Jaboatão dos

Guararapes, Joinville, João Pessoa,

Juiz de Fora, Londrina, Maceió,

Mauá – Diadema, Natal, Niteroi,

Olinda, Porto Alegre, Recife,

Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, Santos,

Sorocaba, Sumaré, São Paulo,

Uberlândia

Plans in Brazil PAC Big Cites, Copa 2014, BNDS, Olympics

Projects/Corridors 120

Cities 32

Km 527

Funding 15,165 million Real

7,734 million USD

Demand 8,115 million people per day

Required Buses 13,000 vehicles

Source: EMBARQ Brasil

Rio de Janeiro 100 km (out of 150 km planned for the Summer Olympics in 2016,

including TransBrasil for 56,000 passengers per hour per direction)

Status of BRT cities in India

New

Delhi

Operational (5)

Jaipur

Ahmedabad Rajkot

Pune

Expected to be operational in a year (4)

Bhopal Indore

Surat

Pimpri-Chinchwad Others under construction / DPR approved

(5)

Kolkata

Vishakhapatnam

Vijaywada

Naya Raipur

Hubli-Dharwad

DPR / DFR under preparation (5)

Guwahati Lucknow

Vadodara

Bangalore Chennai

Prof. H. M. Shivanand

Ahmedabad, Janmarg (People´s Way), BRT System

Photo: EMBARQ

15 cities with BRT/Bus Corridors in China, 2 opened in 2012

BRT in Hangzhou. Bus and mixed traffic congestion. Buses in and out the BRT corridor

ITDP China

Largest Station in Guanghzou: 8,500 passenger boardings in a single hour during the morning peak. Station

access is via a bridge with escalators, and a pedestrian crossing with refuge islands

ITDP China

BHLS in Europe

Country Cities with BHLS

England Cambridge, Crawley, Dartford, Leeds

France Lille, Lorient, Lyon, Nantes, Paris, Rennes, Rouen, Toulouse

Germany Essen, Hamburg, Oberhausen

Ireland Dublin

Italy Brescia*, Pisa, Prato

Netherlands Alkmaar, Almere, Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Twente, Utrecht

Spain Barcelona*, Castellón, Madrid

Sweden Gothenburg, Jönköping, Lund, Stockholm

Brendan Finn ETTS Ltd., Ireland

Regionbuss på Lundalänken

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/trivector/images/regionbuss-paa-

lundalaenken-308363

http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-

files/BHLS_COST_final_report_October2011.pdf

BHLS role in Europe

European Context is different:

Mass transit is often already well provided by metro and tram

Bus is rarely assigned the ‘mass transit’ role

Constraints of space, roadwidth and alignment in city centres

European cities have a different focus:

Restore reliability and operational effectiveness to bus

Enhance image of bus, reposition the product

High focus on quality of vehicles and stopping places

In France, focus on “urbanism” – improve host environment

Strategic motivations for BHLS

Mostly to upgrade quality and ridership of existing bus lines

Sometimes alternative to tram/LRT, especially if finances tight

Brendan Finn ETTS Ltd., Ireland

Contents

Introduction

BRT and BHLS Evolution Worldwide

BRT and BHLS in Different Markets

Discussion

BRT/BHLS Current Status:

195 cities worldwide; concentration in Latin

America, high growth in Asia and the Pacific

Innovation continues: adapted to local conditions

and needs; new technologies (vehicles and ITS)

High performance, low cost, rapid implementation

Trend: from corridors to citywide integrated systems

Some issues outstanding: reliability, occupancy

Discussion

Perceived as “low quality”; poor systems for poor

cities – planners, decision makers, public

Not an industry – disaggregated provision of

components

Implementation barriers:

Reducing the space for cars

Lack of knowledge/familiarity by decision makers and

transport planners

Environmental considerations – buses bring air pollution

and GHGs

User fares and self-sustainability

¡Muchas Gracias!

Volvo Research and Educational

Foundations