BUS RAPID TRANSIT

(BRT)Presented by: Sina Vadaei, Ali Razmpa, and

Nick Stoll

USP 537

Introduction – Combination of Bus and LR

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/

http://www.wildish.com/

http://www.portlandground.com/

Introduction - Comparison

• To Urban Rail System

• High Capacity

• High Speed and Quality

• Reliable

• To Buses

• Cost Effective ($13.5 million/mile vs. $34.8 million/mile)

• United States Government Accountability Office

• Flexible

Introduction - Elements

• Busway Alignment

• Dedicated Right of Way

• Along Rail Road

• Medians

• Tunnels

• Elevated Structures

• Off-board fare location

• Intersection Treatment

• Platform-Level Boarding

http://upload.wikimedia.org/

Bogota, Columbia

Bogota’s TransMilenio BRT

http://thecityfix.com/files/2010/03/Bogota-bus-strikes-Carlos-Pardo.JPG

BRT Performance

• U.S: 24% to

33% new riders

served by new

BRT

• Bogota: 1.65

million

passengers/ day

• Curitiba: 2.26

million

• Eugene: 4,700

• 50% increase

from bus ridership

• $6.25 million/mile

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport

Performance Measures

• Operating Speeds

• Comfort

• Safety

• Environmental Impacts

• Social Equity

Comparisons● 4 to 20 times less than

LRT, and 10 to 100

times less than

metrorail.

○ BRT can do more

with the same

budget.

● Higher Urban Density:

Urban rail.

● Urban rail tends to

provide better quality of

service

● Urban rail usually

better for city shaping.

● Can work together

Curitiba: Trinary Road System

“Managed Competition”

• Public control, private operation

o similar to privatization seen last week.

o awarded to lowest bidder.

o Bogota: incentives given for service instead of number of

passengers.

“Ultimately, the obstacle to BRT development are more

likely to be political than financial or technical. However,

for the few political leaders who take the chance to

redefine their cities with full BRT, the rewards are clear.”

-Lloyd Wright

A Review Over Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Economic Development Article: Case Study of the Eugene-Springfield BRT System

Economies of Agglomeration :

“The decline in average cost as more production occurs within a specified geographical area”

Research Method and Data:

The Emx BRT system is evaluated for its economic development outcomes in terms of employment change within 0.25 and 0.50 miles of BRT stations. Employment data obtained from the Local Employment Dynamics (LED) database.

8%

-19%

-43% -37%

4%7%

37%

13% 10%

-6%

118%

55%

23%17%

-14%

12% 15%

-2%

49%

-22%-41%

-15%

3%

160%

-14%

24%

3%-6%

-23%-32%

17%

52%

130%

-1%

9%13%

Change in Jobs with Respect to Distance from EmX BRT Stations, 2004 and 2010

Change in Jobs within 0.25 mile of Emx Station,2004- 2010

Change in Jobs between 0.25 and 0.5 mile of Emx Station, 2004-2010

-38 -8 -41-103

118 69

361

187111

-7

281

846

95

-615

-134

2691

-542

698

30

-14 -8 -10

59 87

-86

11031 0

-43

-341

10

242

55

-132

23

-1

12

Shift-share distribution of employment change with respect toBRT station areas, Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, 2004–2010

BRT Shift 0.25 Mile BRT Shift .25-0.5 Mile

Questions

• Many great benefits were mentioned about BRT. What are

some of the downfalls and shortcomings of a BRT

system?

• Third world countries take advantage of BRT due to its

low cost. If money is not an issue would a light rail system

be a better choice? Would a new right rail system attract

more new transit users or BRT?

Questions

• What negative effects might BRT system have on job

changes and distribution of employment? (Assuming in

Portland)

• According to the graphs, Please give some reasons for

considerable changes in certain jobs and distribution of

employment ?

Questions

• What would be some good ways to improve the social

image of BRT?

• With increased focus and environmental technologies,

what do you see as the future for BRT systems?

• In doing a CBA for implementing a BRT vs. a LRT system,

what factors would you consider?