1 / 36

Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics

Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics. Presentation originally by Dennis Hinebaugh, Director National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), University of South Florida http://www.nbrti.org Presented today by Tom Rye, Edinburgh Napier University. What’s wrong with normal buses?. Slow

leonora-karis
Télécharger la présentation

Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bus rapid transit (BRT) – the basics Presentation originally by Dennis Hinebaugh, Director National Bus Rapid Transit Institute (NBRTI), University of South Florida http://www.nbrti.org Presented today by Tom Rye, Edinburgh Napier University

  2. What’s wrong with normal buses? • Slow • Unreliable • Not always frequent • Take the long way around • Uncomfortable • Untrendy, not technologically appealing • Make you feel like a loser if you take one? • BRT – tries to solve these problems

  3. How we treat local bus customers! How we treat BRT customers! Well! Badly!

  4. BRT Systems • United States: • Alameda, CA • Albany, NY • Boston, MA • Charlotte, NC • Cleveland, OH • Chicago, IL • Dulles Corridor, VA • Eugene, OR • Hartford, CT • World: • Curitiba, Brazil • Brisbane, Australia • Adelaide, Australia • Ottawa, Canada • Leeds, England • Amsterdam • Utrecht • Kent, England • Ipswich, England • Rouen, France • Jonkoping, Sweden

  5. ] [ It’s no single trait, but the combination of traits that make BRT systems successful!

  6. Speed of BRTs in km/h 6

  7. Infrastructure • Needs to give priority to bus • Does not all have to be the same – one BRT can combine different types of priority • Key: ensure speed and reliability –bus protected from other traffic

  8. Arterial Bus Lanes London Quality Bus Corridor Boston: Silver Line

  9. Arterial Median Transitway Vancouver: 98B

  10. The Balkan BRT – before and after E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ ESKİ HALİ E-5 CEVİZLİBAĞ MEVKİİ YENİ HALİ

  11. Running Ways Arterial Median Busway Rouen, France: TEOR

  12. LEEDS/BRADFORD Guided Busways

  13. Elevated Sections Runcorn, UK

  14. Running Way Color, Markings Auckland Paris Sao Paulo

  15. Route Structures • More direct than local service • “Off-line” stations • Anchored by major activity centers • Major corridors • Feeder routes • Can operate in low-density residential • Flexible • High frequency, turn up and go • Effect on Land use • No map

  16. ADELAIDE CBD Adelaide, Australia

  17. Stations: Potential Characteristics • Differentiated from regular bus stops • Enhanced shelters and/or station design • Designated passenger “platform,” possibly raised • Enclosed • Can be multi-modal • Other facilities (taxi stands, parking, etc.) • Customer information (real-time) • Joint-development/multi-use • Facilitates quick boarding and exit • Docking • Disabled accessible

  18. Vehicles • Unique/distinct aesthetic design/look • Environmentally friendly • Variable propulsion systems • High capacity (articulated, bi-articulated) • Wide aisles, increased passenger comfort • Low-floor • Large window design • Increased amenities (laptop connections) • Multiple double-wide doors • Dual-sided entry/exit • LRT like

  19. Range of BRT Vehicle Options:Conventional Buses Van Hool 300AG Zuidtangent Amsterdam; York Rapid Transit Toronto New Flyer 60LF Vancouver 98, 99B Ottawa Transitways

  20. Specialized BRT Vehicles ATS Phileus Eindhoven, Netherlands Irisbus Civis Las Vegas MAX

  21. Well- Lit, Open, Quiet Interior

  22. Los Angeles, CA • Signal Preemption and low floor vehicles aided in a: • 28 to 33% decrease in travel time • 30% increase in ridership, 14% net new • No appreciable impact on cross–streettraffic

  23. Faster Fare Collection • Fast, efficient so as to speed boarding • Simple to understand • Minimal on-vehicle transactions • Cashless • smart cards (multi-use) • pre-purchased tickets • passes • Proof of payment • enter station

  24. Off–Board Fare Collection Options Proof-of Payment: TVM York, On. Rapid Transit Smart Card Fare Gates TransMillenio, Bogota

  25. Cost Effective • Vehicles • can be off-the-shelf • No track or overhead wires • “Travel Ways” • construction and maintenance • incrementally built (phases, flexible) • existing roadway network (mixed traffic) • Uses existing vehicle storage facilities • Uses existing and simple signal systems • Workforce composition • using existing vs. acquiring new staff • wage differential for BRT vs. LRT

  26. Rapid Transit Mode Comparisons Source: SpeedLink- A Rapid Transit Option for Greater Detroit. June 2001.

  27. Rail-Like Vehicles $5-30 m

  28. Another take on costs

  29. Impacts on ridership, car use • Survey of 14 BRT systems around world • Typically 15-35% increase in system ridership • 10-25% of these people transferred from car • Istanbul system carries 500,000 people/day of whom about 10% came from car. 400% increase in total PT riders • See http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Low%20Res%20CBRT%202009%20Update.pdf

  30. Conclusions • BRT quick to implement – politically attractive • Does not always have to be heavily engineered – can combine a range of infrastructure • Can be implemented incrementally • Ultimately it’s about reliability, directness, convenience, premium service, good image • Low cost, high capacity alternative to rail • Keep It Simple Stupid

More Related