MTI Report 06-02

BUS RAPID TRANSIT:

 

A Handbook for Partners

 

Table of Contents

Foreword

Caltrans Director's Message

Purpose of Document

Defining Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Lessons Learned from California Experiences

Planning And Design

Operations And maintenance

state-local partnerships

Roles and Responsibilities

California Department Of Transportation

Caltrans BRT Coordinators

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Transit Operators And Transit Development Entities

Local Agencies

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Private Business Sector

Final Word

Appendix A: Directors Policy

Appendix B: Caltrans District Contact Information

Appendix C: BRT Projects in California

Case Study 1: Los Angeles MTA Rapid

Case Study 2: AC Transit Rapid Bus And BRT

Case Study 3: San Diego I-15 Managed Lanes/BRT

Case Study 4: Los Angeles MTA Metro Orange Line BRT

Other California BRT Projects (October 2005)

Appendix D: International BRT and Busway Experiences

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Ecuador

England

France

Germany

Holland

Mexico

United States

Appendix E: Key Transportation Terms and Acronyms

References: Internet Access

References: Hard-Copy

About the Authors

Foreword

While the main subject of this report is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), the parallel concept that shares equal billing is that of partnership. Thus, the title, "Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners."

When it comes to BRT planning and implementation in California, the importance of a Caltrans-local partnership is demonstrated in a new Director's Policy on "Bus Rapid Transit Implementation Support." This policy was developed in parallel with the report and is presented as See . The policy describes the role of Caltrans to support the development of BRT projects and technology and, in that context, to strengthen partnerships, expedite project delivery, and improve the performance of California's transportation system. In doing so, the policy underscores and clarifies Caltrans' role as a full partner with transit operators, and transit planning and development agencies.

The process that led to this report was initiated in June 2004 with the formation by Caltrans of a working group called the BRT Task Team. Members were selected from among Caltrans districts and divisions1 and included stakeholders from throughout California involved in BRT implementation: public planning and transportation agencies, transit operators, and the private sector, 49 individuals in all. The team was led by Peter Steinert of Caltrans, who was task team chair. The team met 15 times over the course of the project, culminating with a final meeting in November 2005 when the final draft handbook was reviewed and accepted.

During September-October 2005, a special subcommittee of the BRT Task Team worked with the MTI consultants to review the initial draft of the report. This led to the preparation of a final version, eventually reviewed by the entire BRT Task Team. This review took the place of the peer review process normally employed by MTI.

MTI was brought on in April 2005 to provide consultant support to Caltrans in the development of the handbook and included these activities: literature search, conduct of on-site interviews, preparation of case studies of BRT projects where Caltrans provided assistance, and overall report preparation. As a result, the BRT Handbook represents the collaborative efforts of MTI, Caltrans, and the BRT Task Team.

Finally, two versions of the handbook have been prepared, this one as an MTI document meeting the requirements of the MTI federal funding grant, and the other revised and published by Caltrans in March 2007 in a more popularized format for wide distribution throughout the state. As part of the project, MTI assembled 47 photos of BRT-related scenes that were transmitted to Caltrans for use in their report. This MTI publication retains the draft language delivered to Caltrans in November 2005 with four exceptions: The Director's message is the final message, not the draft; Appendix A is the final Director's Policy 27, not the draft; the excerpt from the draft policy featured in the box on page 4 was revised to reflect the final policy language; and changes were made to the references to reflect Chicago Style documentation and MTI style guidelines. To see a copy of the final Caltrans handbook, refer to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Bus-Rapid-Transit.htm.

Caltrans Director's Message

"Go California" envisions a world-class transportation system available to all our State's residents. California taxpayers have invested tens of billions of dollars in our transportation system, and it is crucial that we maximize the usefulness and utility of these facilities. With new freeways virtually unaffordable and difficult to implement from an environmental and community impacts standpoint, we need to focus on enhancing capacity in the existing system.

It is our policy to transport the maximum number of people as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible through comprehensive, multimodal "system management." Of the declining number of options available, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is emerging as one of the most attractive investment choices, especially since our State Highway System presents tremendous opportunities to quickly implement BRT services. With one of the most extensive networks of High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes in the world, California already has a foundation in place to support the development of BRT operations in our urban areas.

I am committed to fully integrating BRT as an investment alternative in our system and comprehensive corridor planning and project development processes. To carry out this commitment, I have directed Caltrans staff to work closely with local transit planning and development entities to innovate, advocate, and assist in the implementation of BRT projects.

This document provides examples of the flexibility of BRT and presents successful experiences. In every case, the objective is to maximize the movement of people, not just vehicles. BRT offers a potentially cost-effective means to increase the effectiveness of our highway and street system, and we at the California Department of Transportation are excited about the opportunities to advance affordable high-quality transit services.

 

 

 

Purpose of Document

This document describes the policy and role of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to support the development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects and technology and, in that context, to strengthen partnerships, expedite project delivery, and improve the performance of California's transportation system. It also presents an overview of BRT and distinguishes it from traditional bus services.

The foundation for Caltrans' role in BRT development is a new Director's Policy, which is contained in full in See and excerpted on the following page. The policy underscores and clarifies Caltrans' role as a full partner with transit operators, and transit planning and development agencies, in support of this innovative transit mode. A joint Deputy Directive will provide details of the implementation of the policy. For additional information on BRT, contact the local Caltrans District BRT Coordinator.

This is not a technical manual. Rather, this document strives to inform Caltrans staff and others what elements constitute a BRT system while addressing Caltrans' role with its partners considering BRT features as an alternative on the State Highway System.

Caltrans coordinates with local planners and transit operators in a BRT partnership that now operates in a broader, systemwide context. This document is intended for use by Caltrans professionals, elected officials, local jurisdictions, transit operating and planning agencies, and the general public to understand Caltrans' role in BRT development, both on and off the state highway system.

BRT is a maturing mode with proven operational experience in many parts of the world. The United State's experience in implementing BRT, in its fullest form, is more limited but promises exciting new developments in coming years. BRT is universally accepted, offers a potentially cost-effective transportation mode that bridges a capital cost gap between regular bus service and light rail transit, and can deliver services with features that normally are found only with rail service. Many systems have been evaluated within the United States and from around the world. This document draws on those experiences and pulls them together to clarify the service and infrastructure characteristics that define BRT.

Contact information for each Caltrans district is provided in See . Technical information about many BRT and rapid bus projects in California is included in See ; international experiences are found in See . See lists transportation terms and acronyms used in this document.

Defining Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Because the design and operation of BRT systems vary widely, a succinct definition is difficult to come by. However, the following descriptions together provide a good understanding of the scope of BRT.

Lessons Learned from California Experiences

Caltrans' rapid transit project experience extends back to 1973, when the Interstate 10 El Monte Busway opened for service, followed by light rail transit (LRT) projects in San Diego, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. These experiences led to general guidance that should be considered when developing cost-effective BRT operations, the eventual goal for a transit project.

The development process has three essential aspects, further explained in the following pages:

Planning And Design

The planning and design portion of the BRT project development process has been a challenge for the transportation community. As BRT is being developed rapidly in California as a cost-effective strategy to address growing congestion and mobility needs, Caltrans is working to fully integrate BRT as an investment alternative into system and comprehensive corridor planning documents and project development processes. Planning and design solutions must integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals.

Actions taken during planning and design will accumulate and significantly influence the eventual cost-effectiveness of subsequent transit operations. Issues such as funding feasibility, maintenance feasibility, impacts on affected routes, impacts on safety, and relevant laws, rules, and regulations must be addressed. Where state highways are being considered for all or part of BRT operations, Caltrans should be directly involved with the local transit operator to take into account the operational needs and consequences of project actions, from initial planning through design of a BRT project. This involvement is crucial as a way to positively influence the operational cost-effectiveness, and needs to be a two-way commitment between Caltrans and the local transit operating and development entities.

The following lessons from California experiences apply to the planning and design phases:

Bus Priority : BRT can have many forms, but the common, and most important, trait is to give bus operations priority over general traffic. Although transit users benefit from reduced travel times en route, an unintended result may be worsened levels of service for some auto users. Planners must balance the competing needs between transit and traffic objectives. In terms of increasing person-throughput capacity in a given corridor, transit priority measures combined with high-frequency service should be factored into the analysis. Finding safe and efficient ways to give buses priority requires significant cooperation between the infrastructure owner (Caltrans or a city/county) and the transit operator.

Easily Accessible Stations : To achieve attractive, efficient, high-speed BRT operations, arterial and freeway stations should be located on, or immediately adjacent to, the facility and connected with high-speed direct access. Arterial and freeway BRT stations should provide safe and easy pedestrian access.

Cautions Regarding Transferability : Not all BRT strategies are transferable and applicable to California, particularly those from overseas locations. Although many technical and operational elements of BRT applications can be adapted successfully, institutional partnerships may be the key to whether they will work locally with the same effectiveness.

Capital Costs : It can be expected that the more exclusivity given to buses in a BRT system, the higher the customer benefit will be, but with a higher unit cost of construction.

Conflicts Between Costs and Effectiveness : Lowering capital costs by sacrificing BRT features to fit a budget can be risky and could diminish a BRT project's benefits to a level below an acceptable operating cost-effectiveness.

Service Attributes : As the amount of bus priority along a route declines from 100 percent, other attributes of BRT service become more important, for example, station amenities, ride comfort, fare collection convenience, and real-time information for passengers and waiting patrons.

Adaptability : BRT should be designed to take advantage of the inherent flexibility of buses to use the different running way opportunities available in the particular local situation.

System Integration : No matter how it is designed, to be effective, BRT must be operated as an integrated part of the overall regional transit network.

Service Simplicity : To enhance BRT customers' understanding and use of the service, the individual BRT route structure should be as direct as possible--that is, emulating the service nature of a rail rapid transit line.

Operations And Maintenance

The transit operator establishes fare pricing and structure, transfer policies, and service levels for its operations. Caltrans may use standard agreements for specific traffic operational components relating to BRT.

Where BRT capital infrastructure elements (for example, running way, traffic control devices, stations) are located on state and local rights-of-way, a formal, multi-agency, multidisciplinary team may expedite evaluation of project design features. Each feature must be evaluated with respect to state highway design standards in regard to safety and maintenance issues. This evaluation process may lead to some design practices being modified for purposes of BRT. Therefore, it is essential that development of a partnership agreement be started early in the planning process. Guidance on such agreements is discussed more fully in the following section.

If the transit entity owns the running way (as might be the case with a dedicated busway), maintenance responsibilities would rest with the owner, obviating the need for a partnership agreement.

State-Local Partnerships

BRT and LRT project experiences, as seen from the point of view of both Caltrans and the local transit development entity, offer several lessons:

Joint Ownership of Project Goals : All partners must commit to sharing the common project goals and objectives. Past experiences have shown that when all partners do not share "ownership" of project goals, there will be unanticipated increases to the project budget and schedule, diminishing the overall project effectiveness.

Resource Commitment : Caltrans must provide its project management team at all levels with sufficient resources to be effective.

Timely Responses : The saying "time is money" applies to BRT development. It is important to adhere to schedules, particularly because numerous Caltrans functions are involved in plan and report reviews. Strong project management is required to shepherd the project through multiple review stages on time, to prevent eventual budget overruns.

Issue Resolution : Partners must quickly identify and resolve issues when they arise. Caltrans has extensive experience with this process when it comes to construction projects (for example, partnering agreements). Where appropriate, sufficient authority should be delegated to the Caltrans project manager in the local district to resolve disputes. Where this authority is exceeded, a process should be in place to elevate the issue within the district to minimize delay to the project.

Consistent Project Management : Changes to the project team during a project can disrupt the schedule and budget. As a large agency, Caltrans is vulnerable to this possibility. Because unforeseen personnel changes can occur, continuity is difficult to address; however, the Caltrans district director should have a succession plan ready in advance for any project management changes that become necessary.

Creative Advocacy : BRT planning and design will often test the project team's ability to develop innovative solutions, often on a block-by-block basis for a BRT project on an arterial street, or mile-by-mile for one on a freeway. All partners need to investigate possible solutions through changes or waivers to warrants and standards, without having an adverse impact on safety.

California Department Of Transportation

When BRT systems were first introduced in California, Caltrans' role in Bus Rapid Transit evolved around the state on a project-by-project basis. To ensure consistency and commitment, the Director's Policy contained in See was developed. With this policy, Caltrans will be an active and constructive partner in the development of BRT where the state's facilities are involved.

As Caltrans plans for the state highway system, it is important to preserve the option for BRT operations. To ensure that no viable BRT potential is overlooked, Caltrans will integrate BRT fully as an investment alternative in State Highway System planning, comprehensive corridor planning, and project development processes. The full range of alternatives will be considered during the planning process, providing the people of California with a full range of transportation options. To reach the full potential of this public transportation mode, the Director's Policy instructs Caltrans staff to work closely with local transportation planning agencies, transit operators, and other stakeholders to innovate, implement, and advocate BRT systems.

Caltrans will provide clear, consistent information to staff professionals of city and county agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and elected officials. BRT coordinators are designated in each district office that has existing or planned BRT systems, and a leadership position has been established within the Division of Mass Transportation in the Sacramento headquarters.

The Director's Policy on BRT Implementation Support (See ) sets the tone for Caltrans to work in partnership with transit development entities in implementing BRT projects. To reinforce this shared ownership, a Deputy Directive will spell out ways for Caltrans to better assist local and regional entities and guide staff in the implementation of BRT strategies on the State Highway System and within state rights-of-way.

The best way for Caltrans to share project ownership is through formal agreements with the BRT development entities, such as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or Cooperative Agreement. In some cases, a less formal "charter" may suffice; in others, a more formal agreement would be preferable. The appropriate document will be determined for each case, but each ratified document will cover key areas of the partnership, such as the following:

Project budget, including (as appropriate) a specific funding amount for Caltrans.

Project schedule, with all parties "owning" the commitment to adhere to the schedule.

Budget and schedule management and a consistent way of tracking Caltrans and project expenditures in real time.

Dispute resolution provisions that identify the individuals who have authority to make decisions and an overall process that promptly escalates issues and moves to resolve conflicts.

Resource commitment, delineating the specific district staff resources (person hours) being committed to the project and identifying the Caltrans project manager for the BRT project.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) architecture compatibility to ensure interoperability among all Caltrans and local ITS component systems. To remain eligible for federal funding, systems must conform with federal and statewide ITS architecture and standards, including those contained in the Final Rule and Final Policy as outlined in 49 CFR Parts 613 and 621 (enacted by FHWA in Section 940 and by FTA in Section 5206(e)).

Asset management responsibilities to ensure early consideration of the ongoing maintenance of the capital (nonvehicle) facilities, such as running ways, traffic control devices, stations, and ITS. For BRT to remain attractive to customers and achieve its full operational goal, it must meet high quality standards that do not waver over time. The variable, ongoing costs of doing this must be addressed early in the preparation of an agreement. Negotiating long-term maintenance is essential and deserves substantial time where the transit entity does not own the running way.

The nature of the partnership role that Caltrans will play in BRT projects depends largely on the nature of the particular project. A real partnership will embrace joint ownership of project goals and objectives as reflected in the associated planning documents, project budget, and schedule.

Caltrans BRT Coordinators

Developing BRT systems requires experienced judgment and creative thinking. Caltrans will designate BRT Coordinators who have sufficient knowledge of BRT implementation to make informed decisions. Caltrans also will provide training opportunities for these persons to ensure that they possess this knowledge base.

The coordinators need to be positive and skillful in communicating the success and benefits of BRT. The difference between success and failure of a BRT system can hinge on the coordinator's patience, flexibility, commitment, and status within the district organization. District appointments of BRT coordinators will be made with these essential skills in mind.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

The long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides the foundation for all state and federal funding investments in urban areas. It is developed and approved by an urban region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Because the MPOs largely control capital funding for these transportation projects, it is crucial for MPO staff to be involved at the earliest stages of BRT plans and proposals.

MPOs are responsible for comprehensive regional planning, including setting priorities and assessing tradeoffs and proposals submitted by many entities within its jurisdiction, including Caltrans, Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), transit operators, cities, and counties. The MPO submits its priorities to the state in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Projects in the RTIPs are included for funding in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

Transit Operators And Transit Development Entities

Transit operators are the focal point of BRT projects. In most cases, they are responsible for successfully implementing and operating the systems. The transit operator is responsible for determining if the operating costs, capital costs, and operations of a BRT project are feasible. Caltrans' role is to evaluate BRT potential in its comprehensive planning and project development processes. Identifying the impacts (positive or negative) of a BRT system on the State Highway System and providing oversight to determine if BRT is operationally feasible is central to the state's role. This is where mutual accommodation, cooperation, and partnership are expected to yield common agreement.

Local Agencies

BRT systems will traverse through many neighborhoods, cities, and unincorporated communities, each with its own identity, values, and needs. BRT project team members must be flexible to satisfy these varying local requirements and still propose a BRT project that will be part of a larger coordinated transit network. Cities, CMAs, or similar organizations often want to see a prototype or limited pilot project to determine if BRT is a benefit before making major commitments. Forming project development teams that include the affected cities and county communities early will enhance the potential for agreement to system parameters. Members of BRT project teams should be prepared to address city council meetings and community groups to inform, educate, help resolve conflicts, and ultimately gain project support. This involvement also will help to identify local officials who could champion the project.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users) was signed into law in August 2005. This law authorizes funding for fiscal years (FY) 2005 through 2009 and is a primary source of federal funds for BRT projects.

Capital-intensive BRT projects fall under the category of New Starts in SAFETEA-LU. The act also has a provision for Small Starts, where the total project cost is under $250 million and the federal share would be below $75 million. To be eligible for such funding, the BRT must be a fixed guideway project defined in the Act as follows: "a substantial portion of the project operates in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transit use during peak hour operations." It is noteworthy that the definition of what is meant by "substantial" remains to be determined by FTA.

A project without any exclusive bus lane operations might be eligible for New Starts and Small Starts funding if project expenditures represent "a substantial investment in a defined corridor as demonstrated by features such as...

Park-and-ride lots,

Transit stations,

Bus arrival and departure signage,

Intelligent transportation systems technology,

Traffic signal priority,

Off-board fare collection,

Advanced bus technology, and

Other features that support long-term corridor investment."

Although this definition clearly is meant as an opportunity for federal funding of deserving BRT projects, the FTA will be issuing implementation guidelines.

Private Business Sector

The positive impact that private business organizations and private developers can have on BRT, and vice versa, is sometimes overlooked. Many urban areas have densely populated business zones that can be ideal BRT destinations. BRT planners should be in contact with existing organizations representing downtowns and business parks. These groups can be well organized to advocate for their own issues and needs. Early coordination and regular contact with these organizations will enhance the potential for success of BRT projects. It is in a business's self-interest to seek transportation improvements for its employees and customers, and some businesses have provided capital financial support for transit systems. Business leaders can also become effective project advocates during competition for federal, state, and local funding.

Land developers and other property owners also can help by participating in funding and maintenance agreements for BRT station facilities. Properties adjacent to BRT stations benefit by having transportation options nearby. Businesses can save on direct and indirect parking costs and can offer attractive transportation advantages to their employees. It is often in property owners' best interest to have and help maintain a high-quality environment near their buildings. Some may even want to secure naming rights for the stations. Thus, early in the development process, the transit operating entity should evaluate each station area for opportunities to share the capital and maintenance costs of the adjacent station.

Case Study 1: Los Angeles MTA Rapid

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has implemented the Metro Rapid Program, which is a low-cost BRT system on surface streets in Los Angeles County. The Metro Rapid projects fall toward the basic end of the BRT spectrum outlined in See Summary of Los Angeles MTA Rapid Project.

This was a demonstration project, with planning started in 1999 and a Spring 2000 startup. Two lines were selected for the demonstration:

Line 720, Wilshire-Whittier (very high passenger demand urban corridor connecting through the Los Angeles Central Business District)

Line 750, Ventura (high passenger demand suburban corridor serving the Metro Red Line)

See Summary of Los Angeles MTA Rapid Project summarizes the two Metro Rapid lines as compared to the seven main features of BRT. Although the operation is in mixed traffic, numerous features are on the high-quality end, such as the distinctive branding of the buses, the shelters, and the intelligent transportation elements.

Case Study 2: AC Transit Rapid Bus And BRT

Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit will implement the International-Telegraph Road BRT project in phases, and some operational changes are already in place. The Rapid Bus system is scheduled to be in operation by June 2006. Full BRT implementation is scheduled for June 2009. The project traverses the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro, covering a distance of 16 miles.

A summary of AC Transit's project, separated into the Rapid Bus and BRT phases, is shown in See Summary of AC Transit Rapid Bus and BRT Projects. This table shows the planned enhancement from basic Rapid Bus to enhanced BRT that is envisioned between 2006 and 2009. When complete, nearly 90 percent of the operation will use exclusive, dedicated median lanes. This project illustrates how enhanced infrastructure improvements increase capital costs.

Final implementation of the BRT will use bus-only lanes on arterials, along with some mixed flow with special pavement delineation and mountable curbs. No grade separations are provided. Stations will be located approximately half a mile apart. Fare collection will be a proof-of-payment concept with a flat fare structure, using cash, cards, or passes. Headways will be at 5-minute intervals as opposed to the 10- to 12-minute intervals to be employed on the rapid system on the same route. There will be a green extension signal system with real-time, next-bus-arrival passenger information at kiosks and shelters. Dedicated vehicles are committed to this system.

This is a good example of a transit agency starting with a Rapid Bus system, now being implemented in the corridor and, while maintaining this system, constructing the more advanced BRT system that is outlined here.

Case Study 3: San Diego I-15 Managed Lanes/BRT

This San Diego I-15 project will provide a freeway-based BRT service. Although it does not provide dedicated lanes, the Managed Lanes in the north part of the corridor and HOV lanes in the south part of the corridor will ensure that free-flow conditions are provided for high-speed BRT operations. In other respects, it includes most of the other full BRT features.

The project is 35 miles in length. As shown in See Summary of San Diego I-15 BRT Project, different running way configurations will characterize its operations: Managed Lanes (20 miles), HOV lanes (10 miles), dedicated lanes (4 miles), and mixed traffic (1 mile).

Case Study 4: Los Angeles MTA Metro Orange Line BRT

The best current California example of a full BRT project is the Metro Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles, opened for service in October 2005. The El Monte Busway on Interstate 10 (the San Bernardino Freeway), established in 1973, has many attributes of a BRT facility, but it shares its lanes with high occupancy vehicles (HOV) and, therefore, does not have an exclusive or dedicated running way.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is the owner-operator of this project. The facility, designated the Orange Line, runs from the northern terminus of the Metro Red Line in North Hollywood for 14 miles to the Warner Center in Woodland Hills. This east-west line is operated over a landscaped 13-mile transit facility constructed in the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and 1 mile of city streets, using 60-foot articulated low-floor buses with low-pollutant power units.

See Summary of Los Angeles Metro Orange Line Project provides a summary of the MTA's Orange Line Project. There are 13 stations along the line, spaced approximately 1 mile apart and generally serving major activity centers such as the Van Nuys Government Center, the Warner Center (the third-largest employment center in Los Angeles County), and two colleges. The stations feature signage displaying operating information and such amenities as public telephones, bicycle racks, ticket machines, security cameras, and distinctive original art. Five stations have park-and-ride lots, totaling about 3,000 parking spaces.

Other California BRT Projects (October 2005)

See Other BRT Projects in California (October 2005) provides a summary of other BRT projects that are in operation or in various stages of development throughout California.

Australia

Adelaide. The guided 12-kilometer three-station busway established in 1986 using Mercedes-Benz O-Bahn technology has been well received and continues ridership growth in the northeastern corridor. Buses operate on concrete tracks with lateral guide wheels for automatic steering on the guideway. It provides over 7 million passenger trips per year with 113 articulated buses operating at up to 100 km/hr.

Brisbane. A Southeast Queensland busway network using the O-Bahn technology is in operation. Significant emphasis is placed on passenger amenities in the stations and aboard the vehicles. Buses operate at high frequencies and on completely separated rights-of-way.

Sydney. A suburban busway between Liverpool and Parramatta opened recently.

Brazil

Curitiba. This city's 50 kilometers of busways are the backbone of one of the most successful, award-winning, and extensive urban busway systems in the world. One key to the success of this 1,100-bus system was the early establishment of a master plan for growth and its strict implementation over the years. The resulting bus system is characterized by the following features that enable the bus service to approach the speed, efficiency, and reliability of a much more costly subway system:

Integrated planning

Exclusive bus lanes

Signal priority for buses

Preboard fare collection

Easy boarding (raised platforms, multidoor buses, tube stations)

Free transfers and discounted or free fares for such groups as the disadvantaged and elderly

Large-capacity, wide-door buses (up to 270 passengers per bus)

An overlapping system of bus services

As a result of this system, about 70 percent of the area's commuters use transit for their work trip. The Curitiba urban area, with its 2.2 million population, enjoys congestion-free streets and pollution-free air where 1.3 million passengers daily ride the system.

Canada

Ottawa. A key feature of Canada's capital city is a 31-kilometer busway system begun in 1983 and now operating with 3 corridors, 24 stations, and 42 kilometers of exclusive bus lanes located on the freeway shoulder, which were added in 1998. In the central city, the buses operate on exclusive lanes.

Vancouver. Three BRT routes (B-Line) provide 40 kilometers of various levels of service. The B-Line features limited stops, frequent service, and low-floor buses with distinctive exterior styling and colors.

Ecuador

Quito. Ecuador's capital city has three busways, with the first implemented in 1996 using trolley buses on a dedicated street space. The other two busways use conventional articulated buses.

England

Leeds. The first unit of the North Leeds guided busway (called Superbus) opened in 1995. Low-floor, single-deck and double-deck buses equipped with front-axle guidewheels operate on the guideway. A second unit opened in 2001 and a third in 2002.

France

Nancy, Rouen, Caen, and Clermont-Ferrand. All these cities have busway facilities. The last-named system uses buses with optical guidance.

Germany

Essen. With funding from the federal government, an 8.9-kilometer guided bus system has been operating since 1980. It uses 18 articulated 1987 Mercedes dual-propulsion buses (diesel/trolley).

Holland

Haarlem. A 34-kilometer busway connects the Schiphol Airport and the city. Plans for its extension are under way.

Mexico

Mexico City, the state of Guanajuanto, and the city of Leon . These localities all have operating guideways. The Mexico City Metrobus service operates along 12.5 miles of Insurgentes Bulivard, the city's main north-south street. The lanes next to the tree-lined median are devoted to bus use. The 36 modern stations are served by 80 articulated buses, each capable of holding 160 passengers.

United States

Busways using dedicated lanes were established on the Shirley Highway (Interstate 95) in the Washington DC, area in the early 1970s and on the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate 10) in the Los Angeles area in 1973. Both of these facilities subsequently were converted to allow HOV use. Also in the 1970s, busway facilities were established on the I-495 approach to the Lincoln Tunnel in New Jersey, Highway 101 north of San Francisco, and a separate right of way in Pittsburgh. About the same time, bus lanes as part of transit malls were introduced in many downtowns, including the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, the Portland Oregon Transit Mall, and the 16th Street Mall in Denver. Bus lanes on Madison Avenue in New York City in 1981 reduced bus travel times by 34 percent to 42 percent and increased ridership by 10 percent.

Robust, high-quality bus services that include major busways exist in Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Miami. Such services also exist or are under development in other U.S. cities, including Eugene, Oregon; Las Vegas, Nevada; Orlando, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; Cleveland, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; and Phoenix, Arizona.

GEORGE E. GRAY, P.E., CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

George Gray is a transportation consultant and a retired employee of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). He has more than 55 years of experience in the transportation field. The first fifteen years were in highway planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations, including two years private sector design work in Vietnam. His subsequent work was in public transportation, transportation planning, administration, privatization (toll road development), environmental studies, and California-Baja California border issues for Caltrans. He spent four years as an advisor on public transportation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr. Gray is a Life Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and an emeritus member of the Transportation Research Board. He is coeditor with Dr. Lester A. Hoel of the textbook Public Transportation , is author of numerous transportation studies and reports, and has developed training and education programs in transportation. George Gray holds a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering from Stanford University, an Masters in Public Administration from California State University, San Diego (now San Diego State University), and an Masters of Engineering in transportation planning from the University of California, Davis.

NORMAN KELLEY, CONSULTANT

Research Associate Norman Kelley holds a BS from the University of the State of New York, with postgraduate work at Pepperdine University. He has over 30 years of domestic and international executive experience, and was the Director of Transportation for the California Public Utilities Commission, and an Assistant Director at Caltrans.

THOMAS F. LARWIN, P.E., CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Tom Larwin heads up Larwin Consulting in San Diego, California, and is former Chief Deputy Executive Director with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) where he served from 2003-2005. Before SANDAG, he worked for the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), joining MTDB in 1976 and serving as its General Manager from 1979-2003. From 1965-1976, Mr. Larwin was a Principal Associate with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. He also served two years as a Civil Engineer in the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. He earned his Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois and a Master of Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University (Bureau of Highway Traffic). Mr. Larwin is a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and served three years on its Board of Direction. He is a registered civil engineer and traffic engineer in California, and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Emeritus Member of the TRB Committee on LRT, and served on TRB's Executive Committee for three years. He has written numerous articles on transportation matters, notably the chapter on "Urban Transit" in the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook.