Brt report


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Brt report

  1. 1. Lessons learned from major bus improvements in Latin America and Asia modernizing public TransporTaTion
  2. 2. © 2010 World Resources Institute Report by: DARIO HIDALGO Senior Transport Engineer EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport AILEEN CARRIGAN Transport and Urban Planning Associate EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport Design and layout by DAVE K. COOPER
  3. 3. ConTenTS 02 About WRI and EMBARQ 03 Foreword 05 Executive Summary 09 Overview 21 Synthesis of Findings: Lessons Learned 31 Conclusions and Recommendations 35 Acknowledgments 37 Sources This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
  4. 4. The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an environmental The EMBARQ global network catalyzes environmentally think tank that goes beyond research to find practical and financially sustainable transport solutions to ways to protect the earth and improve people’s lives. improve quality of life in cities. Our mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth’s environment and its capacity to Since 2002, the network has grown to include five provide for the needs and aspirations of current and Centers for Sustainable Transport, located in Mexico, future generations. Brazil, India, Turkey and the Andean Region, that work together with local transport authorities to reduce Because people are inspired by ideas, empowered pollution, improve public health, and create safe, by knowledge, and moved to change by greater accessible and attractive urban public spaces. The understanding, WRI provides—and helps other network employs more than 100 experts in fields institutions provide—objective information and ranging from architecture to air quality management; practical proposals for policy and institutional change geography to journalism; and sociology to civil and that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitable transport engineering. development. EMBARQ is a member of the Bus Rapid Transit: Across WRI organizes its work around four key goals: Latitudes and Cultures (BRT-ALC) Centre of Excellence People & Ecosystems: Reverse rapid degradation (, funded by the Volvo Research and of ecosystems and assure their capacity to provide Educational Foundations. humans with needed goods and services. Governance: Empower people and support institutions to foster environmentally sound and socially equitable decision-making. Climate Protection: Protect the global climate system from further harm due to emissions of greenhouse gases and help humanity and the natural world adapt to unavoidable climate change. Markets & Enterprise: Harness markets and enterprise to expand economic opportunity and protect the environment. In all its policy research and work with institutions, WRI tries to build bridges between ideas and action, meshing the insights of scientific research, economic and institutional analyses, and practical experience with the need for open and participatory decision making. 2 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  5. 5. foreword Foreword EMBARQ, WRI's Center for Sustainable Transport, promotes the use of bus rapid transit (BRT) around the world as a sustainable, high-impact and relatively low-cost transport solution. The data compiled for this report confirms that BRT can provide high-capacity— WItH MORE Of tHE WORLD’s POPuLAtION up to 45,000 passengers an hour in each direction— LIVING IN uRbAN AREAs tHAN EVER bEfORE, with comparatively low capital investment—less than and the largest agglomerations now home to more than US$12.5 million per kilometer. Equally impressively, the 10 million people, cities today face urgent and complex modernized or new transit systems we looked at were development challenges. implemented relatively quickly—in only two to five years from concept to commissioning—and were able In managing growth and providing services, planners to break even or require small operational subsidies. and politicians increasingly seek to balance economic priorities with sustainable development that meets social The report also summarizes common pitfalls and needs and mitigates environmental impacts. This report shortcomings encountered in these 13 cities in examines efforts by major cities across Latin America and designing, financing and implementing BRT and Asia to apply such approaches to public transport. citywide bus systems. Urban transportation systems significantly affect cities’ We hope our findings will enable urban transportation quality of life and, through associated air pollution agencies in cities already pursuing sustainable solutions and greenhouse gases, the wider regional and global to learn from others’ experiences, improve their systems, environments. These impacts can be mitigated by and achieve greater transport, environmental and public sustainable transport policies which promote cleaner, health impacts. We also hope that cities embarking on more efficient public transport systems in order to new transportation projects can draw on our analysis reduce congestion, minimize travel times, reduce GHG to avoid the shortcomings of others’ approaches in emissions and local air pollutants, decrease road traffic delivering environmentally and financially sustainable injuries and deaths and improve public health. transport solutions. Sustainable urban transport can have measurable As the world searches for low-cost, low-carbon transport positive impacts and externalities, but in order to solutions, this report underlines that BRT projects should realize its full potential to transform cities, a transport be championed and prioritized, especially in developing project must be planned, implemented and operated countries where infrastructure financing options are effectively. This is far from an easy task, involving a more limited and rapid motorization is exacerbating myriad political, financial, technical, institutional and urban problems of congestion, pollution and road traffic communication challenges. injuries and deaths. In order to shed light on these challenges, Modernizing We thank the city officials, experts and professionals who Public Transportation: Lessons Learned from Major Bus shared their data and were candid about their transport Improvements in Latin America and Asia, presents projects’ challenges and shortcomings, in order that a comparative analysis of the performance of 13 others may learn from their experiences. We believe modernized bus systems in cities including Bogotá, their willingness to share processes undergone and São Paulo, and Santiago, Jakarta and Beijing. The result lessons learned will give rise to improved urban transport is an illuminating snapshot of the state of practice of planning, design, implementation and operation, bus transport in Latin America and Asia, highlighting ultimately bringing a better quality of life and cleaner both common hurdles and problems encountered, environments to the cities of the emerging world. and positive lessons learned, from recent efforts to make getting around mega-cities more efficient and Jonathan Lash environmentally-friendly. President emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 3
  6. 6. execuTive suMMary execuTive suMMary tHE MEGA-CItIEs Of LAtIN AMERICA AND AsIA in 13 Latin American and Asian cities. In particular, rely on public transport to keep their citizens it reviews and synthesizes information regarding moving and economies working while mitigating challenges experienced by transport system decision the negative environmental impacts of rapid makers in three key areas: planning, implementation motorization. Increasingly, these cities are upgrading and operations. In order to assist urban transport or even transforming their public transport systems planners and implementing agencies, the study also to better serve the needs of their populations and provides recommendations on avoiding or mitigating the environment. Some of these efforts have been similar difficulties when introducing bus reforms more successful than others and some more widely in developing world cities. publicized. To date, however, there has been no synthesis of benefits and shortcomings of the various The selected cities were chosen for several reasons approaches taken, in order to inform future urban including: long-term recognition in urban transport transport projects in emerging nations. There are several practices, multi-functional land usage practices for studies, for example, about the celebrated successes urban environments, and/or the recent1 completion of the TransMilenio bus rapid transit system in Bogotá, of bus system improvements. The review includes the Colombia, and its counterpart in Curitiba, Brazil, but following cities: Curitiba, Quito, Bogotá, São Paulo, little literature on the shortcomings of these, and similar León, México City, Pereira, Guayaquil, Santiago and systems, creating an informational gap in constructive Guadalajara in Latin America, and Jakarta, Beijing and advice on lessons to be learned. Ahmedabad in Asia. The cities vary in size and socio- economic characteristics (see table 1), but in each case This study seeks to fill that information gap by buses account for a substantial portion of total public summarizing key findings and lessons learned from transport use and bus rapid transit (BRT) was introduced a comprehensive review of major bus improvements as a component of reform. 1 completion within the past 15 years is considered recent. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 5
  7. 7. Table 1 Key Statistics of Selected Cities Metro AreA 2009 HuMAn Metro AreA City Country PoPulAtion Density DeveloPMent inDex PoPulAtion 2006 (PoP/kM2) vAlue (rAnk) a Curitiba 2,960,000 4,568 0.813 Brazil (75) são Paulo 18,610,000 9,456 0.878 santiago Chile 5,700,000 2,896 (44) 0.772 Beijing China 10,850,000 14,505 (92) Bogotá 7,800,000 15,058 0.807 Colombia (77) Pereira 443,000 631 3,236 Quito 1,550,000 0.806 Ecuador (80) Guayaquil 2,460,000 7,130 0.612 Ahmedabad India 5,340,000 11,459 (134) 0.734 Jakarta Indonesia 13,670,000 10,051 (111) léon 1,470,000 1,205 0.854 México City México 19,240,000 9,286 (53) Guadalajara 3,950,000 6,628 Sources: data from city Mayors, statistics,; united nations environment programme, Human development index (Hdi) 2009,; department of risaralda, colombia,; city of Guayaquil,; csT india, eMbarQ center for sustainable Transport, “Transport in cities, india indicators”, 2009,; México national institute for Federalism and Municipal development, e-local, a Hdi rank is out of 182 countries. 6 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  8. 8. execuTive suMMary How to Use this report • Many projects faced extensive challenges in accommodating regular city traffic; This synthesis report summarizes cross-cutting issues • In cities where BRT services were new, or expanded gleaned from an in-depth review of 13 cities based quickly, public information and user education was on an analysis of available material, site visits, and critically important to a smooth launch. interviews with stakeholders, especially members of implementation teams and transit operators. Case studies about several of the reviewed cities have been recommendations published on the EMBARQ ( website. The following three sections of this report provide: PlAnning PHASe • Institute a comprehensive planning process • An overview of transit provision in the target cities, which combines financial, legal, institutional together with technical, financial and performance and environmental concerns with engineering/ information about the bus systems; technical efforts. • A synthesis of lessons learned from addressing • Improve the quality of information used to make issues that arose in the planning, implementation decisions on key building blocks of a new or and operation of the bus systems; improved transport system, such as: route selection, • Conclusions and recommendations for urban basic infrastructure concepts (median lanes, types planners and transit decision makers in of stations, terminals), vehicle technologies, and developing countries. types of operation. • Dedicate enough resources—time and money— for adequate project preparation, but avoid endless Key findings alternatives analysis. The transit improvements in 13 cities reviewed in this • Use experiences from other cities as a reference, but report resulted in a variety of improved conditions adapt system components and characteristics to for city commuters, some of which also benefited local conditions. the population at large and the environment. These • Seek to create special purpose full-time teams for included reductions in air pollutants, greenhouse gas system planning and implementation, independent emissions, noise and traffic accidents, and efficiency from day-to-day responsibilities. improvements by bus rapid transit corridors compared with traditional bus services. Corridors in the selected deCiSion-mAKing ProCeSS bus systems exhibit very high usage levels (1,780-43,000 • Get early approval from high-level decision makers passengers/hour/direction), with comparatively low as top-down approaches are faster and resolve capital investments2 (US$1.4-12.5 million/km), and little interagency conflict. At the same time, maintain or no operational subsidies. community involvement through education and participatory processes. The review also revealed common challenges and lessons: • Maintain and nurture high-level approval and buy-in during the implementation and operation • No project was perfectly executed, due to a of the system. combination of institutional, technical, financial • Pay careful attention to regulatory/institutional and/or politically induced time constraints; issues, adapting the existing regulatory framework • Initial implementation was generally rushed, if required. Where bus improvements are to be causing operational and user problems; integrated with an existing metro system, convince • Financial and institutional sustainability was not the rail operator that the BRT is complementary, necessarily assured; not a competitor. • Bus rapid transit routes were often not fully integrated into the rest of the cities’ public transport system; 2 not including costs of public space and mixed-traffic road improvements that are sometimes carried out at the same time as brT construction. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 7
  9. 9. execuTive suMMary • Create a special purpose agency to plan, oversee oPerATionAl PHASe and control system development, and provide adequate coordination mechanisms. • Match service operations to supply and demand, • Be creative in funding project development, using using the intrinsic flexibility of buses. new taxes, loans and non-traditional sources such • Restructure or transform existing bus operations so as privatizations and special purpose bonds. that they complement rather than compete with • Involve existing bus operators to mitigate conflicts, the new bus rapid transit system. but use bidding processes to reduce user costs • Budget for required infrastructure maintenance through increased market competition. such as pavement, stations and terminals. • Allow time to adapt and implement advanced fare collection systems. deSign PHASe • Use advanced transit management systems if operations are complex to help ensure reliability. • Only attempt citywide reorganization of transit • Promote the system’s image, through good services where institutional capacity for regulation public information provision, user surveys, and is strong and there is broad public support. maintenance of fixed infrastructure and vehicles. • Define clear development objectives, estimate passenger demand and develop a service plan as the basis for physical and operational design. STrUCTUrAl iSSUeS • Implement gradually, adapting the project on the basis of initial experience. • Define user fares according to the actual per • Make an effort to use existing right-of-way passenger cost of providing the transit service to reduce land acquisition and involuntary (known as the “technical fare”), in order to avoid displacement. financial difficulties and political interference. • Use sound engineering design for new • Avoid continuous renegotiation of bus operating infrastructure, especially pavement, to avoid rapid contracts as this approach has often tipped in favor deterioration. of operators. • Opt for median lanes and level access platforms • Integrate the bus system development with other with many bus boarding doors to increase speed transport initiatives such as rail transit projects. and reliability. • Apply transit-oriented urban development • Use strong lane dividers to segregate traffic. Focus concepts to enhance positive impacts and reinforce on physical integration, for instance, by matching project sustainability. For example, consider land- the heights of vehicle floors and station platforms. use reform, permitting higher densities along the • Design vehicles in line with a service provision plan. mass transit corridor. • Wherever possible, minimize negative effects on • Have a clear vision for the BRT system’s expansion. mixed-traffic flow as increased congestion can create vociferous criticism and jeopardize support. imPlemenTATion PHASe • Generate a realistic schedule and manage it to avoid rushed implementation. • Have contingency plans ready if system components are not complete. • Dedicate funds to plan and implement user education programs. • Involve the community in implementation through adequate information and participation/ engagement programs. 8 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  10. 10. overview overview operation, and minimal vehicle and infrastructure maintenance. The cities also suffered from high levels of congestion, accidents, emissions (of local air pollutants and carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas), as well as noise pollution. A common feature ALL 13 CItIEs REVIEWED IN tHIs REPORt of traditional transit services is competition among EMbRACED bus RAPID tRANsIt in response to vehicles for passengers known as “war of the penny”, dysfunctional and inefficient transport conditions, competition on the street, or competition in-the- public discontent, and critical environmental and road market3, which often leads to oversupply of buses safety conditions (Hidalgo and Graftieaux 2008). With and low-quality service. the exception of Brazil, China and India, prior to the implementation of the new bus systems, traditional Compared to the other countries, Brazil had developed bus services were operated by private providers under stronger institutions and regulations to plan and manage semi-deregulated fares and routes, coupled with weak the bus transit services at the local level under private planning, enforcement, and control strategies (Orrico provision by large companies (Orrico Filho et al. 2007). In Filho et al. 2007). While traditional bus transport in the contrast, China and India had mainly kept transit provision featured cities was notable for its low user fares and under local public agencies. Despite the differences in extended coverage, it also featured major inefficiencies regulation and ownership, services in São Paulo, Beijing and negative impacts on the surrounding environment. and Ahmedabad were considered of poor quality before Weak local government regulation had resulted in changes were made: crowded, slow, and unreliable due excessive bus fleets, inadequate vehicle sizes, obsolete to lack of integration, inadequate infrastructure, and equipment, long routes with inefficient and irregular interference from general traffic congestion. 3 Term commonly used by transport economists as opposed to competition for-the-market which is generated through bidding processes for service or concession contracts. competition in-the-market often leads to high fares, oversupply of buses and low quality service, while Bus Rapid competition for-the-market can result in lower user fares, benefitting the public (ardila, 2003). BUS rAPid TrAnSiT defined bus rapid transit (brT), as the name in 1973 and its full brT in 1982, has quality applications of brT exist, there suggests, is a rubber-tired mode of been followed and adapted by 16 remains a lack of widespread familiarity public transport that enables efficient cities throughout latin america and with the concept. brT typically travel (wright and Hook 2007). brT the caribbean. Today, brT systems in uses existing road infrastructure flexibly combines stations, vehicles, various forms are in operation in more which reduces road capacity for services, running ways, and intelligent than 70 cities around the world, and vehicular traffic. Finally, planning transportation system (iTs) elements being planned in dozens more. The and implementing brT requires the into an integrated system with a strong increased interest in brT is the result coordination of several agencies and brand that evokes a unique identity of its ability to deliver high-performance appropriate funding levels. (levinson et al. 2003). brT has the transit services at relatively low costs, potential to provide a higher quality with short implementation times and high eMbarQ, the world resources experience than possible with traditional positive impacts (wright and Hook 2007; institute center for sustainable bus operations due to reduced travel diaz et al. 2004). applications of brT Transport, works to catalyze and waiting times, increased service systems range from isolated corridors environmentally and financially reliability and improved usability (diaz to integrated transport networks, and sustainable transport solutions to et al. 2004). brT is also capable of in some cases, are a component of improve quality of life in cities. To that improving local and global environmental citywide transport reforms. end, eMbarQ has supported the conditions (pnuMa 2010). planning, implementation and evaluation despite the growing popularity of the of brT systems in at least 14 cities. The successful system in curitiba, concept, brT implementation faces whose first busway was in operation several obstacles. since few high-
  11. 11. Bus system improvements sought to change the status quo Bus system improvements reviewed in this study sought to change the status quo of urban transport services in one of two ways: through relatively small-scale corridors4 or through large-scale reorganizations. Each transport system reviewed used components of BRT to different degrees. Although BRT is the core constituent in most systems, in São Paulo and Santiago it is part of much broader, citywide transit reform. The precise mix and scope of the BRT components applied in each project depended on the local market, physical restrictions and the availability of resources. Table 2 describes the scale, supply and demand of the case study bus systems. For comparative purposes, figures 1-7 then summarize the main indicators of system performance and costs. The T scale of systems ranges from six million passengers per weekday in São Paulo, to relatively low-volume corridors such as Ahmedabad’s Janmarg with 35,000 passengers per weekday (figure 1 on page 14). 4 in most cases, small-scale corridors were implemented with the goal of gradual expansion.
  12. 12. Terms overview Key TermS defined ArTiCUlATed BUS ConvenTionAl BUS inTelligenT Typically an 18m-long bus, with Typically a 12m-long bus, with 1–2 TrAnSPorTATion three doors, one pivoting joint doors and capacity of approximately SySTemS (iTS) in the bus body, three axles 80 passengers. conventional buses a suite of technologies that and a capacity of approximately can have low or high floors. allows for dynamic control and 170 passengers operation of a transit system, eleCTroniC (or AUTomATiC) including automatic vehicle Bi-ArTiCUlATed BUS fAre ColleCTion locators, centralized vehicle control, Typically a 25m-long bus, with five efficient cashless passenger fare integrated traffic signal control, doors, two pivoting joints in the bus payment system, incorporating automatic fare collection and real- body, four axles and a capacity of magnetic stripe fare cards or time passenger information systems. approximately 250 passengers. smartcards, fare validation devices, turnstiles and ticket vending ligHT rAil TrAnSiT (lrT) BUS lAne machines. Fare collection can be a railway with less capacity than a traffic lane reserved for buses that on-board or off-board the bus, but heavy rail (subway, metro), that may may be painted, striped or signed, off-board fare collection reduces use shared or exclusive rights-of- but is not physically separated passenger boarding times and way, high or low platform boarding from mixed traffic. buses are given therefore vehicle delays. and either multi-car trains or single priority in the lanes either throughout cars (apTa 1994). the day, or during specific intervals, feeder BUS and sometimes taxis, high- Typically a conventional bus or Trolley BUS occupancy vehicles and bicycles smaller vehicle that connects, or an electric rubber-tired bus drawing are permitted to share the bus “feeds” passengers in lower-density current from overhead wires to lanes. because other traffic is not neighborhoods to trunk route which it is tethered. similar to a physically prevented from entering stations, terminals or integration streetcar or trolley, with rubber tires the lanes, the travel time savings is points where they can transfer instead of track (apTa 1994). typically small, relative to a busway. to other routes. in a physically integrated system, feeders would TrUnK Corridor BUSwAy stop at the brT station. The main spine of a trunk-feeder a priority lane for buses physically brT system, which is typically segregated from mixed traffic by inTegrATion a segregated busway along curbs, rumblestrips, guiderails bus systems can have three levels a high-density corridor. or other barriers. Many at-grade of integration: physical, operational busways are in the median to and fare integration. physical minimize conflicts with turning integration refers to infrastructure vehicles at intersections, but they that allows passengers to transfer can also be elevated or below- between bus routes and other grade. an open busway would modes of transport; operational permit all bus operators to use the integration involves co-ordination of lanes, while an exclusive busway schedules; fare integration involves would be restricted to a single type payment of a single fare or reduced of service or operator (for instance fares for combined services. to only brT buses).
  13. 13. Table 2 Overview of Reviewed Bus Systems (2009) City suPPly/ GenerAl DesCriPtion CoMMents ProJeCt (initiAl yeAr) DeMAnD Curitiba Citywide integrated bus system with 2,200 vehicles, including 114 7 private operators under rit five BRT corridors (65 km of median bi-articulated diesels as well as agreements with a public authority. (1973) busways), 139 stations, 26 terminals, articulated, conventional, small 340 km of feeder routes, 185 km of buses, special service buses; New 22 km BRT corridor under inter-district circular routes, 250 km electronic fare collection system. construction. of "rapid bus" routes; total of 340 bus lines and 1,100 km of bus routes. 2.26 million passengers/day. Quito Three BRT corridors (37 km, mostly 189 articulated buses (113 trolley Public operator/owner (Trolebús and Metrobús-Q median busways); 68 stations, 9 buses), 185 feeder buses, coin- Ecovía corridors), private operator (1995) terminals; integrated feeder services; based fare collection. (North corridor), no fare integration centralized control (separately for among corridors. Discussion to each corridor) 560,000 passengers/day. replace Trolebús with an LRT. Bogotá High-capacity BRT system with 84 1,190 articulated buses, Five private groups, partially formed transMilenio km median busways, 104 stations, 10 bi-articulated buses, by some traditional operators, hold (2000) 10 integration points, integrated 448 feeder buses, electronic concession contracts for 7 trunk and feeder services and advanced fare collection system. 6 feeder zones. Two new corridors centralized control. (22 km) under development as well 1.6 million passengers/day. as a citywide reform of traditional bus services. Metro system under study. são Paulo Integrated system under single 13,711 buses: 1,073 articulated, Private operators under concession integrated system fare with partial BRT treatments in 5,599 padron (90-passenger), contracts with the municipal public (2002) some corridors (e.g. Passa-Rapido 2,423 conventional, 3,063 microbus agency SPTrans. Integration has corridor).104 km median busways, (21-passenger), 1,553 minibus been expanded to regional rail and preferential bus lanes, 327 transfer (42-passenger), integrated several municipal services within the stations, 24 terminals. electronic fare collection system. metropolitan area. 6 million passengers/day. león 3 BRT trunk corridors with 55 articulated buses; 500 auxiliary Thirteen existing private sit-optibús 25km median busways and feeder buses; electronic fare concessionaries formed 4 new (2003) (60% segregated), 3 terminals, collection system. operators for trunk-ways and continue 51 stations, integrated feeder feeder services operation. System services, centralized control. 220,000 passengers/day. under expansion (Phase II) including reorganization of citywide services. Jakarta Three BRT trunk corridors with 37 162 conventional buses (12 m), Two private operators, physical transjakarta km median busway, 4 terminals, electronic fare collection system. integration with commuter train and (2004) 63 stations, poor integrated feeder, local buses. centralized control 260,000 passengers/day. México City Two BRT corridors, 50 km median 209 articulated buses, Eight bus operators, (one public), Metrobús busway, 77 stations, four terminals, 12 bi-articulated buses, electronic two fare collection contractors, insurgentes centralized control using ITS fare collection system. physical integration with regional (2005) buses, regional rail and Metro. 450,000 passengers/day. 12 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  14. 14. overview Table 2 (continuted) City suPPly/ GenerAl DesCriPtion CoMMents ProJeCt (initiAl yeAr) DeMAnD Beijing One BRT trunk corridor with 16 km 60 articulated low-floor buses, One private operator, and Beijing Brt median busway, one terminal, 19 manual fare collection system. physical integration with Metro. (2005) stations, centralized control. 120,000 passengers/day. Pereira 16 km exclusive busways (50% in 52 articulated buses, 82 small feeder Two private operators of buses, Megabús median, 50% on left side on one-way buses, electronic fare collection and one fare collection concessionaire. (2006) streets in downtown), plus 800m control system. in mixed traffic on a major bridge, 37 stations, two terminals, 115,000 passengers/day. centralized control. Guayaquil 35 km exclusive bus lanes on the 92 articulated buses, 80 feeder One private concessionaire for Metrovía median or left side on one way buses, electronic fare collection bus operations, one fare collection (2006) streets, 60 stations, 3 terminals, system. and technology provider. System centralized control. expansion in 2007. 300,000 passengers/day. santiago 18.8 km of segregated corridors, 1,200 new low-floor articulated Buses privately operated through 14 transantiago 4.6 km of new road connections, buses, 1,500 conventional trunk concession contracts: one private (2007) 62.7 km of improvements in road buses (to be gradually replaced by operator for financial management, geometry and pavements (in seven new low-floor buses), and 2,300 one private operator for systems corridors), 70 large bus shelters feeder buses. Integrated electronic integration (control and user along the main corridors, and three fare collection system. information), and one public operator intermodal stations. (Metro). 5.7 million passengers/day. 45 km expansion of Metro network. Guadalajara 16km of median busways, 27 41 articulated buses, 103 feeder Good integration with light rail system Macrobús stations, integrated feeders, buses, electronic fare collection. and feeder routes, one private (2009) centralized control. concessionaire for bus operations. 127,000 passengers/day. Ahmedabad 18km of exclusive median busways, 25 conventional trunk buses, One public bus operator, one private Janmarg 26 stations, centralized control. manual fare collection. fare collection contract and one ITS (2009) contract. 35,000 passengers/day. Sources: data from curitiba; Quito; bogotá; prefeitura do Municipio de são paulo, “o plano do Transporte público em implantacao na Gestao de 2001-04”, 2004; direción General de Transporte, Municipalidad de león, “sistema integrado de Transporte optibús”; Movilidad amable, centro de desarrollo sustentable, México d.F., “Metrobús: bienvenidos a bordo”, septiembre de 2005; institute for Transportation & development policy, “Making Transjakarta a world class brT system: Final recommendations”, June 2005; beijing Transportation research center, “brT demonstration project brT in south-Middle corridor in beijing”, brief report on Feasibility study, september, 2003; pereira; Guayaquil http://www.metrovia-; santiago; santiago interviews, 2006 and 2007; dario Hidalgo et al, “el sistema Macrobús de Guadalajara: un concepto avanzado de planeación e implantación de Transporte Masivo brT”, March 2010, aspx?id=910301; centre of excellence in urban Transport, “Janmarg: brTs ahmedabad, after Five Months of commercial operations”, april 2010, emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 13
  15. 15. figure 1 Total Passenger Demand (2009) RIT, Curitiba 2,260 Metrobús-Q, Quito 560 TransMilenio, Bogotá 1,600 São Paulo 6,060 SIT-Optibús, León 220 Transjakarta, Jakarta 260 Metrobús, México City 450 BRT 1, Beijing 120 Megabús, Pereira 115 Metrovía, Guayaquil 300 Transantiago, Santiago 5,659 Macrobús, Guadalajara 127 Janmarg, Ahmedabad 35 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Passengers per day (thousands) Notes: scope of the systems varies with respect to inclusion of brT components and level of integration. For example, the data for santiago, são paulo and curitiba cover the entire citywide integrated bus systems, of which only a small portion is on brT corridors. For all other cities, passenger data primarily refers to brT passengers. For santiago and são paulo passenger demand data is daily boardings not daily passengers, so each transfer counts as a separate boarding. bogotá data is from 2010. colors differentiate each city. In terms of peak usage on a single BRT corridor, Average commercial speeds vary from Transjakarta’s TransMilenio’s Avenida Caracas in Bogotá, is the best low speed of 15 km/hour to 28 km/hour in Bogotá’s performing, with 43,000 passengers per hour in each TransMilenio (figure 3). Higher speeds are achieved as direction. Passa-Rapido in São Paulo and the Alameda more BRT components are integrated. For example, the in Santiago, with around 20,000 passengers per hour introduction of segregated busways, platform boarding, in each direction, also carry very high volumes. High- prepayment, larger buses, express services, centralized capacity corridors such as these have additional bus- control, and reduced numbers of intersections all only lanes at stations to allow buses to overtake each contribute to increased average speed and effectiveness. other. Many of the remaining corridors have single lanes and only carry 1,800 to 13,000 passengers per hour in each direction (figure 2). 14 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  16. 16. overview figure 2 Peak Loads (2009) RIT, Curitiba 13,000 Metrobús-Q, Quito 12,000 TransMilenio, Bogotá 43,000 São Paulo 20,000 SIT-Optibús, León 6,000 Transjakarta, Jakarta 3,600 Metrobús, México City 9,000 BRT 1, Beijing 8,000 Megabús, Pereira 6,900 Metrovía, Guayaquil 6,500 Transantiago, Santiago 22,000 Macrobús, Guadalajara 5,000 Janmarg, Ahmedabad 1,780 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Passengers per hour per direction Notes: são paulo and Quito data from 2006. data unavailable for santiago. Highest operational productivity5 was achieved in In terms of capital productivity (average number of daily Guayaquil where Metrovía reported 13 passenger passengers per bus), Guadalajara’s Macrobús reported boardings per bus-km (figure 4). The lowest levels 3,100 passengers per bus per weekday and Guayaquil’s of productivity were reported in Jakarta, Beijing and Metrovía nearly 3,000 (figure 5). Lowest capital Bogotá (around five passenger boardings per productivity was reported in León with 396 passengers bus-km). Even these relatively low levels of operational per bus per weekday6. productivity are still five times greater than those observed in traditional systems operating in mixed traffic. 5 operational productivity is defined as passenger boardings per day (output) per daily bus kilometers (input). There are external factors affecting operational productivity such as corridor density, trip length, and availability and characteristics of transport alternatives. conversely, there are also internal factors such as the way routes are programmed (radial/diametric, short/long, local/express), minimum headways, and occupancy levels, among others. 6 This figure combines segregated and mixed traffic operations. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 15
  17. 17. figure 3 Commercial Speeds (2009) RIT, Curitiba 19 Metrobús-Q, Quito 18.5 TransMilenio, Bogotá 28 São Paulo 18 SIT-Optibús, León 18 Transjakarta, Jakarta 15 Metrobús, México City 19 BRT 1, Beijing 21 Megabús, Pereira 20 Metrovía, Guayaquil 22 Transantiago, Santiago 18 Macrobús, Guadalajara 21 Janmarg, Ahmedabad 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kilometers per hour Notes: santiago, são paulo and curitiba data from 2006. 16 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  18. 18. overview figure 4 Operational Productivity—Passenger Boardings per Bus-km (2009) RIT, Curitiba Metrobús-Q, Quito 9.5 TransMilenio, Bogotá 5.1 São Paulo SIT-Optibús, León 8.9 Transjakarta, Jakarta 5.1 Metrobús, México City 9.6 BRT 1, Beijing 5.2 Megabús, Pereira 6.0 Metrovía, Guayaquil 13.2 Transantiago, Santiago 6.4 Macrobús, Guadalajara 10 Janmarg, Ahmedabad 6.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily passenger boardings per bus-km Notes: santiago, beijing, Jakarta and Quito data from 2006. data unavailable for curitiba and são paulo. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 17
  19. 19. figure 5 Capital Productivity—Average Daily Passengers per Bus (2009) RIT, Curitiba 1,027 Metrobús-Q, Quito 1,055 TransMilenio, Bogotá 1,584 São Paulo 625 SIT-Optibús, León 396 Transjakarta, Jakarta Metrobús, México City 2,045 BRT 1, Beijing 1,304 Megabús, Pereira 2,212 Metrovía, Guayaquil 2,975 Transantiago, Santiago Macrobús, Guadalajara 3,100 Janmarg, Ahmedabad 1,529 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Passenger boardings per bus per day Notes: são paulo and Quito data from 2006. data unavailable for Jakarta and santiago. Total capital costs of bus system improvements varied local and external (state or national government) funds. from US$1.4 million per kilometer (Jakarta) to US$12.5 León and México City also attracted private capital million per kilometer (Bogotá) as shown in figure 6. through concession contracts for the construction or New transit systems requiring only minor physical improvement of stations and bus stops. Quito (Trolebús improvements to the roadway cost in the range of and Ecovía), Jakarta and Beijing purchased their buses US$1.4–3.50 million per kilometer to implement. Major with public funds and the México City municipality reconstruction of corridor roadways, two bus lanes directly acquired 20% of the bus fleet7. Quito and per direction, or new trolleybus systems required México City also procured fare collection equipment more capital investment: US$3.8–12.5 million per with public funds. Other systems have equipment kilometer. In each city, the infrastructure to support provided by the private sector, which is paid back with system operations was built by local agencies with user fares. 7 There are two operators in México city’s Metrobús: a private operator cisa and a public operator rTp; the buses acquired by rTp are funded by the municipality. 18 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  20. 20. overview figure 6 Capital Costs per Kilometer (2009) RIT, Curitiba $2.4 Metrobús-Q, Quito $3.6 TransMilenio, Bogotá $12.5 São Paulo $3.5 SIT-Optibús, León $1.8 Transjakarta, Jakarta $1.4 Metrobús, México City $2.8 BRT 1, Beijing $4.8 Megabús, Pereira $5.7 Metrovía, Guayaquil $2.0 Transantiago, Santiago Macrobús, Guadalajara $3.8 Janmarg, Ahmedabad $2.4 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 Total cost (infrastructure + equipment in US$ millions) per km Notes: includes only transit infrastructure and equipment costs. data from different years adjusted. data unavailable for santiago. são paulo and Quito data from 2006. Guayaquil reports capital costs of $0.986 million/km for the 63 lane-km, which equates to $1.97m/km for the 31.5 system kilometers. Fares in most systems were below US$0.80 per trip as of 2009, with the exception of Curitiba and São Total capital Paulo whose fares are US$1.27 and 1.33 respectively (figure 7). Most systems with fares below US$0.40 (Beijing, Ahmedabad, Jakarta, Quito, México City) either received subsidies or were financially strained. costs of However, Guayaquil has been able to operate the bus system Metrovía system with US$0.25 fares without subsidies, due to its very high productivity (13.2 passenger improvements boardings per bus-km, and 2,975 passenger boardings were less than per bus per day). Supervision and planning agencies are typically funded from the general municipal US$12.5million/km budget and not from transit user fares. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 19
  21. 21. overview figure 7 user fares (2009) RIT, Curitiba $1.27 Metrobús-Q, Quito $0.25 TransMilenio, Bogotá $0.79 São Paulo $1.33 SIT-Optibús, León $0.48 Transjakarta, Jakarta $0.37 Metrobús, México City $0.39 BRT 1, Beijing $0.11 Megabús, Pereira $0.74 Metrovía, Guayaquil $0.25 Transantiago, Santiago $0.74 Macrobús, Guadalajara $0.47 Janmarg, Ahmedabad $0.11 $0.00 $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 Fare per passenger (US$) Notes: Quito data from 2006. 20 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  22. 22. lessons learned synTHesis As metropolitan funding for project planning was oF FindinGs: scarce, most cities needed to rely on grants, budget allocations from their national governments and loans. lessons The process of applying for such funds, as well as approval of project activities by sponsoring institutions, took several months. As a result, valuable time was lost learned at the beginning of the planning process. Once high-level commitments were made, planning lead times were shortened to make project implementation Planning issues possible within a short window of opportunity, such as before the end of the term limit of supportive elected GOOD PLANNING Is GENERALLy RECOGNIzED As officials. Generally, when cities used experienced teams A KEy suCCEss fACtOR fOR tRANsPORtAtION and contracted capable consultants, project design PROJECts (MEyER 2010). Nevertheless, providing happened faster. However, planning became difficult in adequate funding for the planning phase was not a cases when local staff, consultants and/or international high priority for most of our featured cities. This failure support organizations (providing technical or financial to invest in planning resulted in significant adverse assistance) were unfamiliar with BRT applications. Such consequences. In many cases, lack of adequate planning situations resulted in protracted discussions of technical resulted in project delays. issues such as the design of busways (median/curbside), types of platform (high/low), corridor capacity, propulsion It is important to note that none of the selected cities technology (compressed natural gas, diesel), and type started their transportation systems from scratch. Some of payment (on-board/prepayment). It is also important preliminary transportation planning usually preceded to note that most of the effort at this stage was assigned the decision to go forward with the new BRT system to resolving transport planning and engineering issues, or citywide service reorganization. For example, in the with less effort dedicated to key institutional, legal and case of Bogotá, busways had been in place since 1989, financial issues. without full BRT components, and conceptual proposals for busway expansion had been proposed. However, no Another aspect that affected project planning was advanced feasibility studies had been completed at the the definition of transit fares by the relevant public time the city decided to initiate the TransMilenio project. regulatory authority. In general, decision makers in our featured cities were tempted to set fares as low On the other hand, advancing planning activities as possible for all users, to maximize political buy-in. depended on the ideas and expectations of key decision This left little financial breathing room for planners makers. In cases where the mayor or other political to incorporate optimal technical and institutional leaders had a clear vision for the project (e.g. Curitiba, components of a BRT system, such as new, larger buses, Bogotá, Guayaquil, Jakarta), development cycles were advanced fare collection and control systems, and new short. When commitment at the highest level was not operators organized as formal companies. clear (e.g. León, Santiago8), project implementation took several years. Thus, political commitment played a key Cities took different approaches to settling final role in the overall speed and of project planning and fare levels. In projects with competitive bidding for implementation. bus operating concessions (e.g. Bogotá, Pereira and 8 despite the fact that Transantiago was a commitment of ricardo lagos as a presidential candidate, the project did not have full support of other top government officials and many key decisions were delayed or changed through the planning and implementation process. For instance, the leadership of the project planning and implementation team changed 4 times in 6 years. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 21
  23. 23. Santiago) final fares were determined as a result of the The experience across our featured cities suggests bidding process itself. Initial user fares were calculated that adequate governance and regulatory structures based on prospective operators’ bids and the contracts are as important as resolving all the technical details built in adjustment formulas to account for changes when aiming to create effective bus-based transport in the cost of fuel, labor and other supplies over time. systems. All the city transport improvement schemes we In other systems, fares were defined by the political reviewed required either regulatory change, the transfer authorities and did not necessarily reflect actual system of public transportation authority between different costs. This produced various predictable adverse levels of government, or the creation of new institutions consequences: Quito´s system was not able to generate to develop the projects. For example, São Paulo passed enough surpluses to repay the operators of trolley a new city transportation law that made possible buses9 and Ecovía buses, while the México City, Jakarta the changes required for an integrated public transit and Beijing systems operated under financial stress until system, including integrated fares. In Quito and León, fare increases were approved. the transport regulatory authority was transferred from the national and state level respectively, to the local One consistent and effective feature of the case studies level. Bogotá, México City and Guayaquil created new was that the planning and implementation teams were institutions for transport system development set up outside existing public institutional frameworks, and oversight. in order to overcome the burden of business-as-usual in existing agencies. Most cities created ad-hoc “task forces” Typically there were no general public transportation that were later transformed into new institutions. regulatory and oversight institutions, such as regulatory commissions or superintendence agencies, in charge of defining and overseeing user fares and quality of decision-making Processes service. Consequently, the new governance structures Two types of decision-making processes were observed that cities put in place for project planning were mostly with respect to the origin of the initiatives: top-down contract based. This meant that the distribution of and bottom-up. Top-down decision making originates responsibilities, risks and revenues was defined in in the upper echelons of the political hierarchy such contractual instruments between local agencies as elected officials and cabinet-level authorities. and operators. Bottom-up decision making is precisely the opposite. It originates with proposals from staff at the planning Providing adequate levels of funding for infrastructure or implementation agencies or from comprehensive was challenging, despite the fact that most projects long-term planning processes. Top-down approaches had low capital costs compared with rail transit options. were implemented in Curitiba, Bogotá, Quito, Guayaquil, New funding mechanisms, such as taxes, privatizations, São Paulo, Jakarta, Beijing, Ahmedabad and Guadalajara and the use of extraordinary budget surplus, as well as and bottom-up approaches in León, México City, Pereira intergovernmental grants were often required to trigger and Santiago. Top-down processes took less time and project implementation10. reduced initial conflicts between agencies. Nevertheless, some interagency conflicts generally emerged later in implementation Approach the process during the operational phase. For instance, in the case of Bogotá, the leadership of the Mayor The preferred approach among reviewed cities was to made interagency cooperation straightforward in manage operations through public private partnerships, TransMilenio’s Phase I, but lack of the same leadership where the private operators provided the equipment in successive administrations made interagency and services and the public sector built and maintained cooperation difficult in Phases II and III. This resulted in the infrastructure. Since all cities but Beijing and to delayed implementation and increased costs. a certain degree México City had private operators 9 Government loans provided for trolley bus acquisition were pardoned. 10 For instance, México city used extraordinary funds in the city budget to fund Metrobús infrastructure; bogotá combined new tax revenues from a gasoline surcharge, funds from the privatization of the local power company, and transfers from the national Government to fund TransMilenio infrastructure. 22 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport
  24. 24. lessons learned already in place, there was an effort to make them part backing them came to the end of their elected term. of the new operation. In general, the approach taken This was the case, for example, in México City, Bogotá, by authorities was to encourage small enterprises and León and Guayaquil. Cities where launches were rushed owners to transform themselves into formal companies. generally suffered from problematic initial operations, This was done either through a limited bidding process which improved within the first few months. or direct negotiation. In Bogotá and Santiago, politically powerful transport authorities were able to open up Problems were generally encountered in the following project operations to general bidding. This resulted in areas. Infrastructure and fare collection systems were protests by existing bus operators but made it possible delayed due to implementation obstacles or contractual to take advantage of competitive bidding. Other city problems, such as delays in approvals by various authorities negotiated terms and conditions directly authorities. Another common problem was limited with the existing operators. This resulted in easier time between bus delivery and the start of operations, implementation (no stand-offs), but with the trade- resulting in incomplete drivers’ training, as was the case off of higher costs and softer contractual conditions, in León and México City. Delays were often the result as observed, for example, in México City and Quito’s of over-optimistic timetables for the delivery of Central Norte corridor. different components. The projects feature a diversity of scope and level In cities with new BRT projects, user education was of integration11, even in their understanding of BRT neglected prior to system implementation causing concepts. There are single-corridor projects without many issues during the first weeks of operation, fare integration with feeders or other transport particularly in México City and León. In cities modes (México City, Beijing); projects with sequential launching extensive bus service changes, including implementation of non-integrated corridors (Quito, the TransMilenio Phase II expansion in 2006 and the Jakarta); some that gradually implement physically Transantiago launch, insufficient public information and integrated corridors (Bogotá, Guayaquil); and others education led to chaotic conditions, and, in some cases, that deployed extended route reorganizations (São public protests requiring law enforcement. Paulo, Santiago, León). Judging from the outcomes observed across the cities, sequential implementation In Quito and Bogotá and during an early phase in with clear integration of bus and other public transport Santiago12, transport operators also protested, largely services is preferable to developing isolated corridors. due to a lack of communication and engagement by Large-scale route reorganizations (Santiago; São city authorities. Involving existing operators through Paulo) seem to be the best conceptual approach, as direct negotiations (México City, León, Jakarta), or this enables optimum use of all system components. limiting external actors from the bidding processes However, this approach can provoke significant (Bogotá, Pereira, Guayaquil, São Paulo) helped to ease or opposition from incumbent operators and carries the avoid protests and discontent. Santiago chose to have risk of institutional or financial overreaching, as was the an open bidding process so that transport users would case in Santiago. reap the benefits of competition for-the-market, but this approach also generated some implementation barriers. In particular, it necessitated the slow and costly removal implementation Hurdles of the obsolete bus fleet from the hands of traditional Most of the transport systems reviewed were rushed operators who were not the new concessionaires. and started operations without all the planned elements in place (table 3). This was generally caused by the need to inaugurate projects before the elected officials 11 integration can be defined at three levels; physical, operational and fare integration. physical integration refers to infrastructure that allows passengers to transfer between bus routes and other modes of transport; operational integration involves coordination of schedules; fare integration involves payment of a single fare or reduced fares for combined services. 12 a pilot implementation of feeder buses for the Metro system in santiago in 2002 resulted in very extensive protests by existing operators; the government used the existing laws to prosecute the operators’ leaders. emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport 23
  25. 25. Table 3 Condition of System Elements When Projects Were Commissioned City, fAre user infrAstruCture Buses Control oBservAtions systeM ColleCtion eDuCAtion Curitiba, Gradually improved Operators reluctant Coin based for Manual not Gradual Negotiated rit over several years to buy new three decades— dynamic control on implementation agreements buses—initially electronic ticketing platforms—based made it part of between traditional bought by the in 2006 on schedules the city’s life and operators and the municipality prepared by the development municipality municipal urban development agency (URBS) Quito, Pavements were Insufficient for Coin based—fare Manual on Scarce Large protests by trolebus not rehabilitated initial demand— cards abandoned platforms and existing operators and deteriorated required special selected points rapidly programming Quito, Ready long before Delayed due to lack Coin based without Manual on Scarce—but users Difficult to get ecovía buses were of finance—bought problems platforms and knew Trolebus existing operators available by the municipality selected points on board Quito, Very incomplete— Insufficient— No fare collection Manual on Non-existent— No single Central norte no terminal, low- traditional buses system— platforms and significant image—low- quality stations not completely large evasion selected points discontent quality temporary retired opportunities structures Bogotá, Incomplete— Insufficient due to Electronic Started with Abundant—system Protests by existing transMilenio gradually financial difficulties system not manual control— was well received operators— Phase i introduced of operators ready—gradually systems gradually early pavement introduced— introduced deterioration unreliable Bogotá, Incomplete— Gradually Not prepared for Vehicles not Scarce—large Changes in route transMilenio gradually introduced as expansion—ran out equipped with changes in route structure caused Phase ii introduced infrastructure was of fare cards automatic vehicle structure problems, user completed locators (AVL), protests manually controlled são Paulo Passa-Rapido Gradually replaced Problems with No centralized Large promotion Operations did corridors gradually over a three-year distribution of the control—AVL and of the changes not improve introduced time span farecards— telematics used in and the use of dramatically— too many terminals for user the farecards— only Passa-Rapdio transactions information, not difficulties in corridors with to process operational actions reaching users median lanes león, sit Incomplete stations Delivered Implemented Manual on Abundant—initial Lengthy feeder optibús and access to one shortly prior to long before platforms and quality fell short of bus trips—some terminal implementation— high-capacity selected points expectations traditional routes no trained drivers corridors— reintroduced successful Jakarta, Small stations and Initial fleet not Delayed No communication Scarce, there is not Performance below transjakarta inefficient terminal sufficient; 12m- implementation, with the buses a focus on the user expectations buses too small technical problems with only one door 24 emBArQ: Modernizing public Transport