Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.
Surveys were conducted with selected transit agencies that implemented or planned to implement BRT systems. Information was collected on ridership, capital and operating costs, community acceptance, associated land-use development, funding support, support for system expansion, improved mobility, quality of service, travel time, comfort, dwell time, reliability, convenience, safety, security, improved frequency, and wait time. The survey data were compared to previous related research (TCRP Report 90) and updated findings were input into the Practitioner's Guide.
The costs and performance data collected from selected agencies were input into the Practitioner’s Guide and used to model six different BRT development scenarios. The analysis provided a representative example of how agencies can use locally derived data to estimate the costs and impacts of BRT. The following six alternatives were modeled for a 15-mile corridor.
- Grade-separated busway (14 miles) and central business district (CBD) bus lanes (1 mile)
- At-grade busway (14 miles) and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Median arterial busway (5 miles), at-grade busway (5 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Bus lanes with transit signal priority (TSP) (10 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
- Bus lanes without TSP (10 miles), mixed traffic (4 miles), and CBD bus lanes (1 mile)
Although the estimated travel times, ridership changes, and costs derived from the model were dependent on the assumptions made for each scenario, the results showed the effects of various running way types and station spacings.
The table below excerpted from Exhibit 5-36 in the report detailed the estimated costs and impacts of each scenario.
EXHIBIT 5-36 Summary of Anticipated BRT Travel Times, Ridership, and Costs
& Median Arterial
|Existing (base) one-way travel time|
|BRT in-vehicle travel time|
|BRT in-vehicle travel time % reduction|
|Assumed BRT base ridership|
|Anticipated BRT ridership|
|Anticipated BRT ridership % increase|
|Existing local bus ridership|
|Anticipated local bus ridership|
|Estimated development costs*|
*In 2004 dollars.
Previous research can be found in TCRP Report 90 Bus Rapid Transit Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, Washington, DC, 2003. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v1.pdf
Author: Kittelson & Associates, in association with Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants and DMJM-Harris
Published By: Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board
Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration
Source Date: 2007URL: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf
Average User Rating
Related Metropolitan Integration Links
Typical Deployment Locations
bus priority, traffic signals, TSP, automated vehicle location, computer aided dispatch, automatic vehicle locator, AVL, CAD, AVL/CAD