Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.
Date Posted
10/09/2009
Nationwide, United States
Nationwide,
United States
TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide
Summary Information
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide supports transportation professionals by identifying and assessing the costs, impacts, and effectiveness of bus rapid transit (BRT) components. The Guide covers running ways, stations, vehicles, operating strategies, ITS applications, and branding. ITS applications focus on transit signal priority, transit automatic vehicle location (AVL), security, vehicle guidance, fare payment, and traveler information.
Surveys were conducted with selected transit agencies that implemented or planned to implement BRT systems. Information was collected on ridership, capital and operating costs, community acceptance, associated land-use development, funding support, support for system expansion, improved mobility, quality of service, travel time, comfort, dwell time, reliability, convenience, safety, security, improved frequency, and wait time. The survey data were compared to previous related research (TCRP Report 90) and updated findings were input into the Practitioner's Guide.
Surveys were conducted with selected transit agencies that implemented or planned to implement BRT systems. Information was collected on ridership, capital and operating costs, community acceptance, associated land-use development, funding support, support for system expansion, improved mobility, quality of service, travel time, comfort, dwell time, reliability, convenience, safety, security, improved frequency, and wait time. The survey data were compared to previous related research (TCRP Report 90) and updated findings were input into the Practitioner's Guide.
FINDINGS
The costs and performance data collected from selected agencies were input into the Practitioner’s Guide and used to model six different BRT development scenarios. The analysis provided a representative example of how agencies can use locally derived data to estimate the costs and impacts of BRT. The following six alternatives were modeled for a 15-mile corridor.
Although the estimated travel times, ridership changes, and costs derived from the model were dependent on the assumptions made for each scenario, the results showed the effects of various running way types and station spacings.
The table below excerpted from Exhibit 5-36 in the report detailed the estimated costs and impacts of each scenario.
EXHIBIT 5-36 Summary of Anticipated BRT Travel Times, Ridership, and Costs
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
*In 2004 dollars.
Notes:
Previous research can be found in TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Washington, DC, 2003. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v1.pdf
The costs and performance data collected from selected agencies were input into the Practitioner’s Guide and used to model six different BRT development scenarios. The analysis provided a representative example of how agencies can use locally derived data to estimate the costs and impacts of BRT. The following six alternatives were modeled for a 15-mile corridor.
- Grade-separated busway (14 miles) and central business district (CBD) bus lanes (1 mile)
- At-grade busway (14 miles) and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Median arterial busway (5 miles), at-grade busway (5 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Bus lanes with transit signal priority (TSP) (10 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Bus lanes without TSP (10 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
Although the estimated travel times, ridership changes, and costs derived from the model were dependent on the assumptions made for each scenario, the results showed the effects of various running way types and station spacings.
The table below excerpted from Exhibit 5-36 in the report detailed the estimated costs and impacts of each scenario.
EXHIBIT 5-36 Summary of Anticipated BRT Travel Times, Ridership, and Costs
Item | Scenario 1 Grade-Separated Busway | Scenario 2 At-Grade Busway | Scenario 3 At-Grade Busway & Median Arterial Busway | Scenario 4 Bus Lanes (Rebuilt) & TSP | Scenario 5 Bus Lanes Only | Scenario 6 TSP Only |
Existing (base) one-way travel time | 94 min | 94 min | 94 min | 94 min | 94 min | 94 min |
BRT in-vehicle travel time | 29 min | 43 min | 48 min | 50 min | 57 min | 58 min |
BRT in-vehicle travel time % reduction | 69% | 54% | 49% | 47% | 39% | 38% |
Assumed BRT base ridership | 10,000 | 10,000 | 20,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 |
Anticipated BRT ridership | 17,660 | 15,700 | 33,020 | 11,600 | 10,885 | 10,815 |
Anticipated BRT ridership % increase | 77% | 57% | 65% | 45% | 36% | 35% |
Existing local bus ridership | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 |
Anticipated local bus ridership | 10,000 | 10,000 | - | 8,490 | 8,490 | 8,000 |
Estimated development costs* | $242.0 million | $109.4 million | $84.3 million | $40.3 million | $12.5 million | $11.4 million |
*In 2004 dollars.
Notes:
Previous research can be found in TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Washington, DC, 2003. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v1.pdf
TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide
TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide
Source Publication Date
01/02/2007
Publisher
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board
Taxonomy (ARC-IT)
Public Transportation »
Transit Vehicle Tracking (PT01)
,
Public Transportation »
Transit Signal Priority (PT09)
Goal Areas
Deployment Locations