Bus rapid transit; a latin american perspectiveCOMM 446 Urban Transportation Economics

PROFF. CHARLES LINDSEYUrban Transportation Economics Essay. November 2014

Luis Enrique Arredondo LópezID 65851131

Abstract A quick view to the Bus Rapid Transit systems; their characteristics and main

points, their advantages, their disadvantages, their history and their limitations and

advantages over other transportation methods, the BRT Standard method to

assessment, the environmental issues and their future in Latin American Cities

since the perspective of a Latin American citizen. We will aboard the cases of

success and what do a city needs to implement this system in a smart growth

future.

1

IndexIntroduction......................................................................................3

Definition and Characteristics...........................................................4

History...............................................................................................5

Advantages........................................................................................7

Disadvantages...................................................................................8

Performance and assessment...........................................................9

Comparisons with other modes......................................................11

Environmental issues......................................................................13

Conclusion.......................................................................................14

Annexes...........................................................................................15

Latin Cities with BRT systems.......................................................15

Architect of possible dreams (Interview with Jaime Lerner)........17

Graphic Description of a BRT System...........................................19

Advantages and Disadvantages Analysis for BRT and LRT in Monterrey, Mexico.......................................................................20

Bibliography....................................................................................21

2

Bus Rapid Transit; a Latin America PerspectiveIntroduction Around the world technologies go through periods of innovation and then they sort

of take off at a certain point, cities are searching for sustainable ways to transport

residents quickly, efficiently, and safely throughout their streets. One such solution

is bus rapid transit (BRT).

Defining Bus Rapid Transit in a few words or sentences appears to be a quite hard

task, for there are plenty different definitions of BRT throughout the literature. The

main ideas do not vary from a definition to another, but each author conveys a

different standpoint. If BRT is “an integrated system of facilities, equipment,

services and amenities that improves the speed, reliability, and identity of bus

transit” according to Levinson (2007), it is rather “a rapid mode of transportation

that can combine the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses” for Thomas

(2001). According to Wright and Hook (2007), BRT is “a bus-based mass transit

system that delivers fast, comfortable and cost-effective urban mobility”, whereas,

for Deng and Nelson (2010), it is more “an emerging form of mass transit, which

ties the speed and reliability of a rail service with the operating flexibility and lower

cost of a conventional bus service”.

There is an obvious common feature in all these definitions, which is the fact that

BRT belongs to mass transit. This term alludes to a large-scale system of public

3

transport serving a city or metropolitan area, characterized by fast running speed,

high passenger-carrying capacity and mostly operating on an exclusive right-of-

way.

BRT is nowadays a very widespread concept, we can see examples of this means

of transport all over the world; if we look at Curitiba, one of the first Latin American

cities which implemented BRT, you will find that what was implemented roughly 40

years ago was only a few elements of what´s today the gold standard of the bus

rapid transit around the world. That technological breakthrough really changed the

game internationally in terms of which cities could afford mass transit.

The next pages will display the characteristics, advantages, disadvantages,

performance and other points of the BRT systems in Latin American cities since

the perspective of a Latin American person.

Definition and CharacteristicsThe Bus Rapid Transit (Express Buss, Massive Public Transit in Busses or Rapid

Transit System in Buses) is a bus-based mass transit system, this systems must

has a specialized design, services and infrastructure to improve system quality and

remove the typical causes of delay. Its objective is combine busses lanes with

stations to achieve the performance and the quality of a light train or a subway, but

with the flexibility, cost and simplicity of the busses system.

If we can define the characteristics of a BRT systems these will be:

4

High Capacity vehicles typically with multiple doors to speed entry and exit.

(however there are some cities where the demand is not that big where

smaller busses are used to accomplish the economy of scale)

Exclusive lanes, to be considered BRT, buses should operate for a

significant part of their journey within a fully dedicated right of way to avoid

traffic congestion.

Payment of fee outside the bus and before this arrives

Fixed stops with platforms that allow customers to board the system.

Alignment in the centre of the road (to avoid typical curb-side delays)

"Bus Rapid Transit" takes its name from rail rapid transit, which describes a high-

capacity urban public-transit system with its own right of way, multiple-car vehicles

at short headways, and longer stop spacing than traditional streetcars and buses.

BRT uses buses on a wide variety of rights-of-way, including mixed traffic,

dedicated lanes on surface streets, and busways separated from traffic (MTA,

2012)

HistoryIn the beginning the “busway” or exclusive bus lanes were firs applied in Chicago

in 1939, this lane had as a purpose to avoid the congestion is the roads. In Latin

America; the BRT concept was development in the 70´s, and was inspired in the

busses of the Public Transit in Lima, Peru. These busses were owned by ENATRU

and travelled the route Via Expresa in exclusive lanes, but once the busses

5

finished these route they share the lanes with the rest of the cars. In this route the

stops were designed every 500 meters.

Then in Curitiba, Brazil, the Lima´s system were improved, the new system now

had routes within exclusive lanes, payments stations outside the bus and platform

stations. This last changes were the key points to the development of the BRT

(platforms and payments outside the bus). Initially just dedicated bus lanes in the

center of major arterial roads, in 1980 the Curitiba system added a feeder bus

network and inter-zone connections, and in 1992 introduced off-board fare

collection, enclosed stations, and platform-level boarding. (IV Conference The Best

Practices SIBRT in Latin America , 2013)

With these improvements the busses were able to transport 200 people and in a

single stop just in seconds. These produced that the frequency of the busses could

increase, generating a capacity of more than 10,000 passenger/hour in one way.

The majority of these innovation were suggested by the Curitiba Mayor Jaime

Larner.

Another improvement made in Latin America with the TransMilenio was the

overpass stops, similar as the subway, these create the Express Routes that were

able to transport more than 40,000 passengers/hour in one way.

In October 2014, 186 cities in all continents have implemented BRT systems,

accounting for 4,757 km (2,956 mi) of BRT lanes. It is estimated that about 31.7

million passengers use BRT worldwide every day, of which about 19.7 million

6

passengers ride daily in Latin America, which has the most cities with BRT

systems, with 60, led by Brazil with 33 cities.

AdvantagesThere are many advantages in the implementation of a BRT system, maybe one of

the most important is the building cost, if we compare the Light Trail and the BRT,

the BRT is able to transport almost the same amount of passenger that the Trail

but the building cost is much lower; the BRT doesn’t need a very expensive

infrastructure and the maintenance of the platforms is much cheaper than the rail,

also the cost of the time that will take to build; BRT systems need less time than

Trail and the congestion problems compared with the Light Trail.

But maybe the advantage that is most perceive for the passenger is the time and

the velocity, this because of the use of exclusive lanes in the streets; many people

would prefer to take the BRT system in a peek hour than take a car or a taxi and

fight again the congestion in the city. This also is because of the number of stops

that the BRT bus makes, the stops are in designed spots and have a very precise

schedule. Also we have to count the time that the bus spends in each stop or

platform; these is lower than the average bus because the passenger had paid

before the bus arrive, this allows the passengers to up and down to the bus at the

same time. The typical Mexico City´s passenger saves 52 minutes per day, which

can represent a save of US$141 million in regained economic productivity as a

result of travel time reduction from the MetrosBus line.

7

Implementing BRT systems contributes to reductions in traffic crashes and

fatalities in a few key ways. First, an overall reduction in VKT results in fewer

drivers on the road and a safer transport environment for drivers, pedestrians, and

cyclists alike. Second, dedicated bus lanes reduce interaction between buses and

other vehicles, minimizing the risk for traffic crashes. Finally, BRT can change bus

drivers’ behavior by reducing on-the-road competition with other vehicles and

providing opportunities to improve driver training.

In the case of Latin America BRT systems some of the safety benefits are that the

streets with BRT systems saw an average 40 percent reduction in fatalities and

injuries. Further evidence suggests that BRT and other forms of sustainable

transport are under-acknowledged components of traffic safety planning, with an

enormous potential to reduce traffic crashes and save lives.

BRT systems also increase physical activity for passengers, thanks to the spacing

of BRT terminals, which tend to require longer walking distances than private

vehicles and other motorized modes of transport. Despite the distance, shorter

overall travel times make BRT worth the walk, with passengers across the world

consistently moving through the city faster even with more time spent getting to

terminals. Mexico City’s MetroBus passengers walk an average of 2.75 minutes

more per day than before the city implemented its BRT system. Because the World

Health Organization recommends adults aged 18-64 do at least 150 minutes of

moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, BRT passengers

already have a jump start on a healthy lifestyle just from their daily commute.

8

DisadvantagesDespite the multiples advantages that the BRT system represents, also brings

disadvantages; despite the exclusive lanes that the system handle, these could

have interference with the local traffic in the intersections, and probably cause

traffic accidents that could stop the system completely.

We have point that the BRT systems are much cheaper than the train or trail

systems because of the fact that it doesn’t require excavation, but it implies space

in the surface. Now let´s imagine a center downtown with multiples intersections

and a few available space, the BRT represents a huge impact and they can only

operate in low velocities.

A case where the BRT system didn’t work was in Paraná, Argentina, where after

one year and 6 BRT lanes, finally the decide to take it out the streets, because the

city considered it “unviable”.

Performance and assessment A BRT system can be measured by a number of factor. The BRT Standard was

developed by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) to

score BRT corridors, producing a list of rated BRT corridors meeting the minimum

definition of BRT. The highest rated systems received a gold ranking. The

Standard establishes a common definition for BRT and identifies BRT best

practices, as well as functioning as a scoring system to allow BRT corridor to be

evaluated and recognized for their superior design and management aspects.

9

There are five essential characteristics of BRT system according to the ITDP. The

first is the Busway alignment; which defines where a busway´s dedicated lane is

located on the road. The busway is best located where conflicts with other traffic

can be minimized. In most cases, the central verge of a roadway encounters fewer

conflicts with turning vehicles than those closer to the curb. Then is the Dedicated

right of way; an exclusive right-of-way is vital to ensuring that buses can move

quickly and unimpeded by congestion. Enforcement of the dedicated lane can be

handled in different ways, such as delineators, bollards, or colorized pavement.

The Off-board fare collection; apply for the collect of the fares before boarding,

either through a “barrier controlled” or “proof-of-payment” method, this one is one

of the most important factors in reducing station dwell time and therefore total

travel time, thus improving the customer experience. The intersection treatment,

explains the several ways to increase the buss speeds at intersections; all of which

are aimed at increasing the green signal time for the bus lane. Forbidding

turns across the bus lane and minimizing the number of traffic-signal phases where

possible are the most important. Traffic-signal priority when activated by an

approaching BRT vehicle is useful in lower-frequency systems. And the Platform-

level boarding ; having the bus-station platform level with the bus floor is one of

the most important ways of reducing boarding and alighting times per passenger.

The reduction or elimination of the vehicle-to-platform gap is also key to customer

safety and comfort. A range of measures can be used to achieve platform gaps of

less than 5 cm (2.0 in), including guided busways at stations, alignment

markers, Kassel curbs, and boarding bridges. (Institute for Transportation &

Development Policy, 2014)

10

There exist other metrics to evaluate BRT performance; for example the Vehicle

Headway which is the average time interval between vehicles; buses can operate

at headways of 10 seconds or less, but average headways on TransMilenio at

busy intersections are 13 seconds. Also there is the Vehicle Capacity; which can

range from 50 for a conventional bus up to some 200 for an articulated vehicle

arranged for standing passengers. This also implies the Effectiveness of the

stations to handle the passenger demand; high volumes of passengers on

vehicles required large bus stations at busy interchange points. (Goldmark, 2012).

Comparisons with other modes When TransMilenio opened in 2000, it changed the paradigm by giving buses a

passing lane at each station stop and introducing express services within the BRT

infrastructure. These innovations increased the maximum achieved capacity of a

BRT system to 35,000 passengers per hour. Light rail, by comparison, has

reported passenger capacities between 3,500pph to 19,000pph. From this there is

little evidence to support the view that LRT can carry more than busways. There

are conditions that favor LRT over BRT, but they are fairly narrow. To meet these

conditions you would need a corridor with only one available lane in each direction,

more than 16,000 passengers per direction per hour but less than 20,000, and a

long block length, because the train cannot block intersections. These conditions

are rare, but in that specific instance, light rail would have a significant operational

advantage.

11

Conventional scheduled bus services use general traffic lanes, which can be slow

due to traffic congestion, and the speed of bus services is further reduced by the

time spent at bus stops for passengers to board the vehicle, pay the fare, and to

pull back into traffic.

Some researches around the globe show for example that in 2013, the New York

City authorities noted that buses on 34th Street, which carried 33,000 bus riders a

day on local and express routes, traveled at 4.5 miles per hour (7.2 km/h), only

slightly faster than walking pace. Even despite the implementation of Select Bus

Service (New York City's bus rapid transit system), dedicated bus lanes, and traffic

cameras on the 34th Street corridor, buses on the corridor were still found to travel

at an average of 4.5 mph.

Also in the 1960s, Reuben Smeed predicted that the average speed of traffic in

central London would be 9 miles per hour (14 km/h) without other disincentives

such as road pricing, based on the theory that this was the minimum speed that

people will tolerate. When the London congestion charge was introduced in 2003,

the average traffic speed was indeed 14 kilometres per hour (8.7 mph) which was

the highest speed since the 1970s. By way of contrast, typical speeds of BRT

systems range from 17 to 30 miles per hour (27 to 48 km/h). (United States

Department of Transportation, 2004)

The capital costs of implementing BRT are lower than for LRT. A study by the

United States Government Accountability Office from 2000 found that the average

capital cost per mile for busways was $13.5 million while light rail average costs

12

were $34.8 million. However, the total investment varies considerably due to

factors such as cost of the roadway, amount of grade separation, station

structures, traffic signal systems and vehicles. (United States Department of

Transportation, 2004)

Operational costs of running a BRT system are generally lower than light rail,

though the exact comparison varies. In the study done by the GAO, BRT systems

usually had lower costs based on "operating cost per vehicle hour", "operating cost

per revenue mile", and "operating cost per passenger trip", mainly because of

lower vehicle cost and lower infrastructure cost. Diesel BRT is also much less

expensive

An ambitious LRT system runs partly underground, which gives free right-of-way

and much faster traffic compared to passing the traffic signals needed in a surface

level system. Underground BRT is rare and expensive and gives air quality

problems. An alternative is an elevated busway, which is also costly. Desire for

grade separation indicates that a rail alternative could be better.

Environmental issuesBRT reduces the overall amount of vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) in a city by

shifting commuters to high-capacity buses that can carry up to 160 passengers at a

time. Fewer vehicles transporting the same amount of passengers reduces traffic

congestion, and presents the opportunity to replace older, more polluting vehicles.

13

The incorporation of modern fuel efficiency technologies into BRT buses and better

driver training can also contribute to lower fuel consumption and emissions. These

cleaner vehicle and fuel technologies lower the concentration of ambient air

pollution citywide and inside BRT vehicles. Passenger exposure to air pollution at

stations or inside buses is further reduced by shorter travel times, meaning cities

have a major opportunity to reduce local air pollutants by implementing BRT

systems. For example, Metrobus Line 3 in Mexico City is poised to eliminate more

than 2,000 days of lost work due to illness, four new cases of chronic bronchitis,

and two deaths per year, saving the city an estimated US$ 4.5 million.

ConclusionAs a growing transport solution in both developed and developing countries, BRT

and busway systems already have a combined daily ridership of more than 29

million people in 163 cities around the world as of October 2013. An additional 143

BRT systems are currently being implemented or expanded. This new analysis

supports the global scaling up of BRT systems, in addition to offering

recommendations for policymakers, technical experts, and financing bodies to

maximize the benefits of BRT. As a safer, cleaner, and more efficient mode of

transport that gives people more time for their personal lives, BRT is a smart

solution to cities’ urban transport challenges (King, 2013).

In the near future the cities will adopt the BRT system as cities growth, we have

analyzed the advantages that this system represents, and if the cities governments

start future plans of smart growth in their cities, in the future the implementation will

14

be easier for both; the government and the citizens. Enrique Peñalosa, a former

mayor of Bogota, Colombia, explain that the duty if the government is to think in

the future of the cities taking in consideration the exponential growth rate that the

Latin American cities have, if the government focus their attention to the smart

growth, the mobility and the accessibility of the future Latin American cities will be

higher.

AnnexesLatin Cities with BRT systems

Argentinao Buenos Aireso Cordoba o Corrienteso Mar de Platao Mendozao Posadaso Rosarioo San Miguel de Tucumano Santa Feo Santiago del Estero

Boliviao La Paz

Brazilo Aracajuo Belo Horizonteo Brasiliao Curitibao Goianao Manauso Recifeo Rio de Janeiroo Sao Pauloo Uberlandia

Chile

15

o Concepciono Santiago de Chile

Colombiao Barranquillao Bogotao Bucaramangao Calio Cartagenao Cucutao Medellino Pereira

Costa Ricao San Jose

Ecuadoro Cuencao Guayaquilo Lojao Quito

El Salvadoro San Salvador

Guatemala o Ciudad de Guatemala

Honduraso Distrito Central

Mexicoo Acapulcoo Cancuno Chihuahuao Ciudad Juarezo Ciudad de Mexicoo Comarca Lagunerao Cuernavacao Estado de Mexicoo Guadalajarao Leono Mexicalio Monterreyo Oaxacao Pachucao Pueblao San Luis Potosio Tampicoo Tijuanao Tuxtla Gutierrez

16

o Veracruzo Villahermosao Xalapa

Panamao Panama

Paraguayo Asuncion

Peruo Arequipao Limao Trujillo

Puerto Ricoo San Juan

Uruguayo Montevideo

Venezuelao Baquisimetoo Caracaso Merida

Architect of possible dreams (Interview with Jaime Lerner)

The architect and urban planner Jaime Lerner - former Mayor of Curitiba for three terms and former Governor of Paraná for two terms – regards large urban center problems with a unique point of view. For him, the voice of the majority that repeats and reinforces the discourse that large cities are doomed to failure when it comes to urban mobility is a blurred vision of the city, "it is like a body receiving people’s life; not just a group of concrete and roads ".

Today, the man who launched his gaze over the city of Curitiba by creating new models and concepts of urbanization in 1971, is now dedicating his time to Jaime Lerner Institute, he is also a consultant for the UN as regards urban matters and is the President of architectural firm that bears his name.

Elected in 2010 by Timemagazine as one of the 25 most influential thinkers, Jaime Lerner believes the private car in the future will look like cigarette nowadays: "It can be used, but it is recommended not to do it so that you will not annoy people.”

SIBRT - What are the main deficiencies of the public transport systems in major cities in Brazil?

Jaime Lerner - The main deficiency is the lack of trust of people in public transport, which makes them opt for the private car. In my opinion, Brazil is a country that has the best of the conditions to solve problems regarding urban mobility: we have the technology, funding programs and the recent willingness to cooperate public transport companies, which are ready to improve. This is the good time to make things change!

SIBRT - What are the most urgent measures to remedy these deficiencies - or at least minimize them?

17

Jaime Lerner - What is missing to complete this positive scenario is a political decision including technical commitment to overcome the current barriers. The system should be integrated so that it can satisfy people’s needs. The secret is to have a metro that operates well and which is integrated with effective bus routes services and other surface solutions. We have to use everything. The bus is now responsible for 70%, 80% current transport.

The government often does not know what he wants and, often, it is difficult to convince people that there will be improvements. The vision of the city should also be reconsidered: it is necessary for people to have an integrated view of the city, as it is a structure of life, work, leisure, all together. I cannot think of the place of residence, place of work, entertainment apart from one another.

SIBRT - The expression "metronizar" the bus is yours: What does that mean exactly?

Jaime Lerner - It means giving to the bus the same performance as the subway, where the user pays his fare outside of the station - and not inside the bus - which speeds the entry of passengers. Accelerating access through boarding at the same level and reserved lanes for buses is a way to provide more convenience, comfort and safety. And above all, ensuring frequency is very important to enhance credibility. With the bus you can reach a frequency of one minute, with subway it is not possible.

People simply will not believe in an alternative if the latter is not better. We have to provide a high quality system to change the paradigm. The car will be like smoking in the future. You can have a car, but you will be advised not to use it in order not annoy people.

SIBRT - What are the main assets/differences of surface transport?

Jaime Lerner - The big asset is the cost, which is 50 to 100 times less per kilometer compared to the subway. Moreover, the implementation speed is 2 to 3 years. The operation pays the cost, if well planned i.e. there is no need for subsidies and it is not necessary to sacrifice generations to provide a quality transportation system.

SIBRT - Do you believe that surface transport is the future of urban transportation in Brazil and in the world?

Jaime Lerner - The future is on the surface, but it is essential that each BRT implementation is well operated integrated to land use and growth of cities. Brazil is the country that has the best know-how in BRT system – system which is currently implemented in 156 cities all over the world, such as Bogota and Mexico City, in Europe, China and the U.S.

For example, I do not believe in the expression “transport corridor”. I prefer to use transportation axis integrated to urban planning. The corridor has no relation to land use.

SIBRT - In your opinion - why the transport sector is still not considered as a priority in public policies in Brazil?

Jaime Lerner - I think there is a reaction against simple solutions from the government. In Brazil, this is not possible. We live in a false dilemma: either the car or the subway. The reality is that we cannot think of a single type of transport. It is very difficult to have a subway system like in Paris or London, which were deployed for more than 100 years. What we know is that in São Paulo it-self, 84% of trips are made on the surface. Then it is necessary that the surface is

18

well made. In some cases, in Brazil, BRT implementation has not been done with an integrated view of the city.

SIBRT - Curitiba is a world reference in public transport thanks to the implementation of BRT over 30 years ago, during your term. What factors determine the success of this model that has already been adopted worldwide?

Jaime Lerner - Curitiba worked with an integrated view of the city, which began to be designed with the structure: life, work, leisure and mobility which all worked together. What we did was to use this concept, and most importantly, make good use of the land. Therefore, we are the benchmark.

SIBRT - In June, the Third SIBRT Conference of Best Practices in Latin America will be held in Belo Horizonte. What are your expectations for the event?

Jaime Lerner - My expectation is that the implementation of BRT systems in Brazil occurs more rapidly. The great resistance came from bus operators. This resistance no longer exists. I hope that this Conference will promote an action plan in the cities and that cities will contemplate their systems with more quality. This needs to happen now!

(IV Conference The Best Practices SIBRT in Latin America , 2013)

Graphic Description of a BRT System

19

Figure 1 (McCann Barbara, 2013)

Advantages and Disadvantages Analysis for BRT and LRT in Monterrey, Mexico

20

Figure 2 (TAMC Monterrey, 2011)

Bibliography Goldmark, A. (01 de May de 2012). Transportation Nation. Obtenido de

http://www.wnyc.org/story/284170-brt-systems-getting-an-international-rating-standard/

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. (2014). Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.

IV Conference The Best Practices SIBRT in Latin America . (08 de May de 2013). Congreso SIBRT. Obtenido de http://congresosibrt.org/en/news/142/architect-of-possible-dreams

King, R. (10 de December de 2013). World Resources Institute. Obtenido de http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/4-ways-cities-benefit-bus-rapid-transit-brt

McCann, B. (12 de November de 2013). Smart Growth America. Obtenido de http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/tag/bus-rapid-transit/

MTA. (2012). MTA. Obtenido de http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/index.html

Swope, C. (5 de March de 2015). Citi Scope. Obtenido de http://www.citiscope.org/story/2014/lessons-and-new-directions-bus-rapid-transit-turns-40

TACMC Monterrey. (March de 2011). TAMC Monterrey. Obtenido de http://www.tamcmonterey.org/committees/rail/meetings/2011/March/Agenda_6_Att-1.pdf

United States Department of Transportation. (August de 2004). Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making . United States.

Wikipedia. (2014). Autobus de Transito Rapido. Obtenido de http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autob%C3%BAs_de_tr%C3%A1nsito_r%C3%A1pido

Wikipedia. (2014). Bus Rapid Transit. Obtenido de http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

21