**ISSUES IN**

**BUS RAPID TRANSIT**

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**

This document was sponsored by the United States Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation.
Bert Arrillaga, Chief of the Service Innovation Division in the Office
of Mobility Innovation, provided guidance and overall direction for its
content. Staff members from both the FTA and the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) participated in its
writing. The major contributors were Mr. Joseph Goodman of FTA's Service
Innovation Division; and Ms. Melissa Laube and Ms. Judith Schwenk of the
Volpe Center's Service Assessment Division in the Office of Research and
Analysis. Technical assistance was provided by Mr. Paul Schimek, also of
the Volpe Center's Service Assessment Division.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**1.0 INTRODUCTION: CREATING BETTER BUS SYSTEMS** 1

**1.1 What is Bus Rapid Transit?** 1

> **1.2 Reducing Delay: The Key to Bus Rapid Transit** 3

**2.0 UNITED STATES EXPERIENCE** 6

**2.1 Busways and High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes** 6

**2.2 Problems of Arterial Bus Priority Treatments** 7

**2.3 Examples of Recent or Planned Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit
Elements** 9

**3.0 CURITIBA EXPERIENCE** 11

**3.1 Evolution of the Bus System** 11

**3.2 The Bus System** 12

**3.3 Integration of Transit with Land Use Planning** 13

**3.4 Staged Development of the Bus System** 14

**3.5 Results of Bus Rapid Transit** 15

**4.0 APPLICATIONS OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES** 17

**4.1 Planning for Bus Rapid Transit** 17

**4.2 Implementation: Bus Rapid Transit Features** 18

**4.3 New Technology in Bus Rapid Transit** 20

**4.4 Effects of Bus Rapid Transit** 22

**5.0 CONCLUSIONS** 24

**ACRONYMS** 25

**REFERENCES** 26

**1.0 INTRODUCTION:** **CREATING BETTER BUS SYSTEMS**

Bus systems provide a versatile form of public transportation with the
flexibility to serve a variety of access needs and an unlimited range of
locations throughout a metropolitan area. Because buses travel on urban
roadways, infrastructure investments needed to support bus service can
be substantially lower than the capital costs required for rail systems.
As a result, bus service can be implemented cost-effectively on routes
where ridership may not be sufficient or where the capital investment
may not be available to implement rail systems.

Traffic congestion, urban sprawl, central city decline, and air
pollution are all problems associated with excessive dependence on
automobiles. Increasing recognition of the need for high-quality transit
service to alleviate these conditions has fueled growing demand for new
rail services throughout the United States (U.S.). Rail systems have in
fact played an essential role in preserving and revitalizing the
downtown areas of major American cities, ranging from New York to San
Francisco and Washington, D.C. In these and numerous other cities,
however, buses also provide an attractive and effective alternative to
automobiles, reaching into central cities, local neighborhoods, and the
suburbs to meet the mobility needs of millions of people.

Despite the inherent advantages of bus service in terms of flexibility
and low capital cost, the traveling public frequently finds the quality
of bus service provided in urban centers to be wanting. Conventional
urban bus operations often are characterized by sluggish vehicles
inching their way through congested streets, delayed not only by other
vehicles and traffic signals, but also by frequent and time-consuming
stops to pick up and discharge passengers. Buses travel on average at
only around 60 percent of the speeds of automobiles and other private
vehicles using the same streets due to the cumulative effects of traffic
congestion, traffic signals, and passenger boarding. Moreover, compared
to rail systems, the advantageous flexibility and decentralization of
bus operations also result in a lack of system visibility and permanence
that contributes to public perceptions of unreliability and
disorganization.

**1.1 What is Bus Rapid Transit?**

Low-cost investments in infrastructure, equipment, operational
improvements, and technology can provide the foundation for *Bus Rapid
Transit* systems that substantially upgrade bus system performance.
Conceived as an integrated, well-defined system, Bus Rapid Transit would
provide for significantly faster operating speeds, greater service
reliability, and increased convenience, matching the quality of rail
transit when implemented in appropriate settings. Improved bus service
would give priority treatment to buses on urban roadways and would be
expected to include some or all of the following features:

-   ***Bus lanes***: A lane on an urban arterial or city street is
    reserved for the exclusive or near-exclusive use of buses.
    ![](media/image1.png){width="2.5229166666666667in"
    height="1.570138888888889in"}

-   ***Bus streets and busways***: A bus street or transit mall can be
    created in an urban center by dedicating all lanes of a city street
    to the exclusive use of buses.

-   ***Bus signal preference and preemption***: Preferential treatment
    of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or
    actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon
    detection of an approaching bus. Intersection priority can be
    particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus lanes
    or streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene
    between buses and traffic signals.

-   ***Traffic management improvements***: Low-cost infrastructure
    elements that can increase the speed and reliability of bus service
    include bus turnouts, bus boarding islands, and curb realignments.

-   ***Faster boarding***: Conventional on board collection of fares
    slows the boarding process, particularly when a variety of fares is
    collected for different destinations and/or classes of passengers.
    An alternative would be the collection of fares upon entering an
    enclosed bus station or shelter area prior to bus arrivals. This
    system would allow passengers to board through all doors of a
    stopped bus. A self-service or "proof-of-payment" system also would
    allow for boarding through all doors, but poses significant
    enforcement challenges. Prepaid "smart" cards providing for
    automated fare collection would speed fare transactions, but would
    require that boarding remain restricted to the front door of the
    bus.

> Changes in bus or platform design that could provide for level
> boarding through the use of low-floor buses, raised platforms, or some
> combination thereof could make boarding both faster and easier for all
> passengers.

-   ***Integration of transit development with land use policy***: Bus
    Rapid Transit and compact, pedestrian-oriented land use development
    are mutually supportive. The clustering of development has the
    additional benefit of conserving land and promoting the vitality of
    neighborhoods and urban commercial centers. Bus Rapid Transit can be
    most effective when integrated within a broader planning framework
    encompassing land use policies, zoning regulations, and economic and
    community development.

-   ***Improved facilities and amenities:*** The operational and travel
    time benefits resulting from the separation of buses from
    general-purpose traffic can be augmented with improved amenities
    such as bus shelters and stations. These facilities provide
    protection from the elements and can also be equipped to furnish
    information such as printed routes and schedules or electronically
    transmitted real time schedule data. Space can also be leased to
    commercial convenience services.

**1.2 Reducing Delay: The Key to Bus Rapid Transit**

Bus operations on a typical urban or suburban arterial are subject to
several types of delay that reduce bus operating speed to generally only
60 percent of that of other vehicles. Figure 1 is from Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 26, *Operational Analysis of Bus
Lanes on Arterials.* This figure summarizes and graphically displays the
several components of bus travel time such as moving, passenger stops,
and traffic delay, which consists of traffic signal delay, right turn
delay and general congestion delay. Figure 1 also shows how certain
types of delay such as congestion delay and passenger stop delay are
proportionately greater in more congested areas.

The essence of Bus Rapid Transit is that bus operating speed and
reliability on arterial streets can be improved by reducing or
eliminating the various types of delay. A discussion of each travel time
component and methods for reducing delay follows:

***1. Uncongested moving or free flow operating time***

This component can only be reduced if speed limits are raised.

***2. Delay due to general congestion***

This component can be reduced if general congestion is reduced and/or if
buses are given preferential treatment through creation of a reserved
lane. Policies requiring general-purpose traffic to yield to buses
re-entering the traffic stream from bus stops could also reduce delays
associated with general congestion.

***3. Delay due to traffic signals***

Priority treatment of buses at intersections holds the potential to
reduce a significant source of delay in bus operations. Today's traffic
signal control systems are tightly interconnected, however, in order to
provide progression of general traffic through urban grid networks.
Therefore, bus signal priority treatments would have to be constrained
to modest variations within the context of maintenance of progression.
Bus operating speeds may also improve if traffic signal cycles are
coordinated to the time required for passenger service, i.e., the red
phase occurs during the time needed for passenger boarding and fare
collection.

***4. Delay due to right turns***

This type of delay occurs when buses are traveling in the curb lane and
a queue of right‑turning vehicles blocks the bus from moving forward.
This delay may be overcome by relocating bus stops to the far side of
the intersection so the bus may be able to bypass the right turning
queue in the lane next to the curb lane. Alternately, right turns may be
prohibited as they were on Madison Avenue (with two exclusive bus lanes
between 45th and 59th Streets) in New York City, significantly reducing
bus travel times. This solution, however, may not be viable everywhere.

***4. Delay due to passenger stops***

This includes passenger boarding time, collection of fares, etc.
Boarding time can be reduced by improvement of the fare collection
process, e.g. pre‑payment of fares, self-service fare collection (honor
system), greater use of passes, smart cards, etc. and by easing the
boarding process with low-floor buses together with high platforms so
that wheelchair‑bound passengers could roll on without lifts. This
component can also be reduced if stop spacing is increased and the
number of stops are reduced. There is a trade‑off between stop spacing
and convenience to passengers.

**2.0 UNITED STATES EXPERIENCE**

**2.1 Busways and High-occupancy Vehicle Lanes**

The history of bus infrastructure in the U.S. is intertwined with the
development of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The 1970s inaugurated
an era of vigorous development of busways and other HOV facilities.
Exclusive busways or bus lanes were implemented on the Shirley Highway
in the Washington, D.C. area, the El Monte Freeway in Los Angeles, the
I-495 approach to the Lincoln Tunnel in New Jersey, California Highway
101 in the San Francisco metropolitan area, and a separate right-of-way
in Pittsburgh. At the same time, HOV lanes open not only to buses, but
also to vanpools and carpools, were being created on highways serving
New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and
Honolulu.

With the exception of the I-495 lane in New Jersey and the Pittsburgh
busway, the early highway exclusive bus lanes have all since been
converted to HOV lanes, with carpools being the predominant users.
During the 1980s, the number of freeway HOV route miles increased by
over 100 percent, although there are several examples of highways \--
such as the Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles and the Garden State
Parkway in New Jersey \-- where HOV lanes were discontinued due to
insufficient usage or other problems, such as public opposition, which
led to a court decision terminating the Santa Monica Freeway HOV
treatment. There are now over 80 HOV facilities greater than 3.5 miles
in length throughout the U.S.
![](media/image2.png){width="3.032638888888889in"
height="1.948611111111111in"}

At the same time that HOV and exclusive bus facilities were being
implemented on the nation's highways, bus lanes and transit malls were
introduced in the downtown areas of many cities. The most prominent
examples include the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, the Portland Transit
Mall in Portland, Oregon, and the 16th Street Mall in Denver, all of
which are still in operation. Bus lanes were introduced on New York
City's Madison Avenue on May 26, 1981, reducing bus travel times by 34
to 42 percent and increasing ridership by 10 percent. Some downtown and
arterial bus lane projects implemented in the 1970s and 1980s have been
discontinued or cut back, however, and there are only a few cases in
which infrastructure investments have been integrated into a high
quality bus transit network.

The premier examples of high quality bus transit facilities in the U.S.
are in Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Miami. The Port Authority of Allegheny
County operates two 2-lane busways in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area:
the 7-mile East Busway, which shares right-of-way with light rail
transit, and the 4-mile South Busway. A 5-mile Airport Busway currently
is under construction. These facilities serve express buses traveling to
the downtown area, where several bus lanes operating on city streets
expedite local access and distribution. The opening of the East Busway
in 1983 reduced travel times by 15 to 23 percent on the various bus
routes served. In Seattle, a regional network of freeway HOV lanes
connects buses to a core of underground tunnels in the city center,
where grade separation allows buses to operate in a rapid transit mode,
bypassing traffic congestion on surface streets. The 8.2-mile South Dade
Busway opened on February 3, 1997, connecting to the southernmost stops
on Miami's Metrorail. The 2-lane busway, which parallels U.S. Route 1,
is served by 16 stations. Eleven bus routes serving Dade County now
operate on or feed the busway.

**2.2 Problems of Arterial Bus Priority Treatments**

Extensive development of HOV lanes throughout the U.S. represents a
significant effort \-- illustrated most clearly in the case of busways
\-- to improve bus service on the highways connecting suburban and
downtown areas. Providing high quality service within the downtown
sections of metropolitan areas is key to the Bus Rapid Transit concept,
however, and has not been the subject of a comparable effort. While
busways and freeway HOV facilities can substantially reduce travel times
and improve service, mobility within congested urban centers is
essential to support the economic and social functions of cities and to
sustain high levels of transit ridership.

In most cities, a number of factors impede the upgrading of right-of-way
to provide for exclusive bus lanes on arterial and local city streets.
The most basic obstacle to creating a bus lane on a city street is the
lack of an adequate cross section to separate buses from general-purpose
traffic. At a minimum, bus lanes require an 11-foot cross section per
direction. On most major two-way streets, the creation of even a single
direction, reversible bus lane will limit at least one direction of
general-purpose traffic to a single lane, likely producing serious
adverse consequences for general-purpose traffic. There may be more
opportunities to dedicate a lane for exclusive bus use on relatively
wide one-way streets, although in many cases this too will produce
adverse effects on general-purpose traffic flows and losses of scarce
on-street parking spaces.

Depending on whether a bus lane is located along the curb or in the
median of a two-way street, conflicts are created with right- or
left-turning vehicles. The need to allow general-purpose traffic to use
a bus lane for turning interferes with bus operations, causing
substantial increases in travel time and adding to the problems of
enforcing the restriction of the lane to buses under all other
circumstances. Curbside parking by delivery and service vehicles also
obstructs bus movement and is particularly problematic if the bus lane
is restricted to only a single lane width. Dual-width bus lanes are
markedly superior to single-width lanes, but obviously require a
substantially wider cross section, which typically is not available. In
the case of a median lane, another drawback is that passengers must walk
across general-purpose traffic lanes to reach the bus stop.

As a practical matter, traffic signal priority or preemption can be
implemented effectively only in conjunction with dedicated bus lanes,
streets, or where geometry allows, queue bypass lane segments that allow
buses to circumvent traffic at an intersection approach. A major
limitation on bus signal preference is the adverse effect associated
with the reduction of green signal time for general-purpose traffic on
the cross streets. Moreover, the constraints imposed by traffic signal
progression will limit the effective application of signal preemption in
many urban arterial street networks.

From the standpoint of bus service quality, there is a trade-off between
the improvement in travel times that can be achieved by reducing the
number of stops, as in the case of rapid rail service, versus the
convenient access made possible by frequent stops, as in conventional
bus service. A number of inherent difficulties also affect efforts to
reduce boarding times. An innovation that promises to speed the time
required for payment of fares is the use of "smart" card electronic
systems. Nevertheless, this improvement will not eliminate the need to
restrict boarding to the front door of the bus.

One potential option for alleviating this and other physical constraints
on boarding would be greater use of enclosed bus waiting areas or
stations where passengers would be required to enter the waiting areas
in advance, thus allowing boarding through all doors of the bus.
Enclosed boarding areas take up significant sidewalk space, however,
which may not be available in many locations. Moreover, capital,
operating, and maintenance costs are likely to limit the number of such
facilities that can be provided, even in areas where spatial constraints
are not a significant problem. Thus, if the convenience of frequent
stops is to be maintained, conventional boarding procedures would
continue at many or most locations.

System integration is an issue arising from the need to provide for
transfers between routes where passengers pay fares upon entering
boarding areas and routes with on board payment. Another potential
concern is that specialized vehicle boarding features designed to be
compatible with platforms in enclosed areas may impose constraints on
the deployment of a transit system's vehicle fleet.

**2.3 Examples of Recent or Planned Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit
Elements**

Several U.S. and Canadian cities have introduced or are in the process
of implementing elements of Bus Rapid Transit, as illustrated in the
following examples.

-   ***Eugene, Oregon -*** After determining that Bus Rapid Transit
    would cost about 4 percent of a comparable light rail system, Eugene
    officials decided to implement Bus Rapid Transit in a pilot corridor
    by 1999. This service will consist of a main truck route and feeder
    routes to provide neighborhood connections. Some of the features to
    be incorporated include easy boarding, low-floor buses on the main
    corridor, smaller neighborhood feeder buses, signal priority for
    buses at intersections, dedicated bus lanes, prepaid fares from bus
    ticket vending machines and passes to speed boarding, and
    comfortable transit stations. Planners hope the new system will be
    competitive with the automobile and provide frequent bus service
    with little or no waiting on the main travel corridors.

-   ***Orlando, Florida -*** Orlando's Lymmo system offers passengers
    free bus rides throughout the downtown area on three miles of
    dedicated lanes. Ten low-floor buses fueled by
    environmentally-friendly compressed natural gas run every 5 minutes
    during working hours, every 10 minutes after hours, and every 15
    minutes on weekends between eleven lighted and computerized Lymmo
    stations and eight additional stops. Service is fast because
    low-floor buses speed passenger loading, even for passengers with
    wheelchairs, and because signal priority for buses at intersections
    insures that traffic does not interfere with bus operations.
    Electronic kiosks at stations show passengers the location and
    expected arrival time of the next bus.

-   ***Cleveland, Ohio -*** Plans are under way in Cleveland for
    exclusive bus lanes on 5.6 miles of Euclid Avenue, connecting the
    downtown area with University Circle, another of the city's major
    employment centers. This major infrastructure investment will be
    implemented in conjunction with the development of a "Transit Zone"
    throughout the downtown area that will feature expanded and more
    visible bus operations and more convenient transfers between
    crosstown bus routes.

-   ***Ottawa, Ontario -*** Ottawa's Transitway, built in stages from
    1978 through 1996, is a 19-mile bus-only road leading to the central
    business district, where it connects to exclusive bus lanes on city
    streets. Over 75 percent of passenger bus trips are made using the
    Transitway. The Transitway was constructed largely on rail
    rights-of-way and was designed for possible conversion to rail
    should ridership warrant. The main Transitway routes use articulated
    buses with proof-of-payment fare collection to speed boarding \--
    only one quarter of the riders pay cash. Feeder buses operate on a
    timed transfer system.

**3.0 CURITIBA EXPERIENCE**

The bus system of Curitiba, Brazil, exemplifies a model Bus Rapid
Transit system, and plays a large part in making this a livable city.
The buses run frequently \-- some as often as every 90 seconds \-- and
reliably, commuters ride them in great numbers, and the stations are
convenient, well-designed, comfortable, and attractive. Curitiba has one
of the most heavily used, yet low-cost, transit systems in the world. It
offers many of the features of a subway system \-- vehicle movements
unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare collection prior to
boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading \-- but it is above
ground and visible. Even with one automobile for every three people, one
of the highest automobile ownership rates in Brazil, and with a
significantly higher per capita income than the national average, around
70 percent of Curitiba's commuters use transit daily to travel to work.
Greater Curitiba with its 2.2 million inhabitants enjoys congestion-free
streets and pollution-free air.

**3.1 Evolution of the Bus System**

The bus system did not develop overnight, nor was it the result of
transit development isolated from other aspects of city planning. It
exists because thirty years ago Curitiba's forward-thinking and
cost-conscious planners developed a Master Plan integrating public
transportation with all elements of the urban system. They initiated a
transportation system that focused on meeting the transportation needs
of the population \-- rather than focusing on those using private
automobiles \-- and then consistently followed through over the years
with staged implementation of their plan. They avoided large scale and
expensive projects in favor of hundreds of modest initiatives.

A previous comprehensive plan for Curitiba, developed in 1943, had
envisioned exponential growth of automobile traffic and wide boulevards
radiating from the central core of the city to accommodate the traffic.
Rights of way for the boulevards were acquired, but many other parts of
the plan never materialized. With the adoption of the new Master Plan in
1965, the projected layout of the city changed dramatically. The Master
Plan sprang from a competition among urban planners prompted by fears of
city officials that Curitiba's rapid growth, if unchannelled, would lead
to the congested, pedestrian-unfriendly streets and unchecked
development that characterized their neighbor city, São Paulo, and many
other Brazilian cities to the north.

As a result of the Master Plan, Curitiba would no longer grow in all
directions from the core, but would grow along designated corridors in a
linear form, spurred by zoning and land use policies promoting high
density industrial and residential development along the corridors.
Downtown Curitiba would no longer be the primary destination of travel,
but a hub and terminus. Mass transit would replace the car as the
primary means of transport within the city, and the high density
development along the corridors would produce a high volume of transit
ridership. The wide boulevards established in the earlier plan would
provide the cross section required for exclusive bus lanes in which
express bus service would operate.

**3.2 The Bus System**

Curitiba's bus system evolved in stages over the years as phases of the
Master Plan were implemented to arrive at its current form. It is
composed of a hierarchical system of services. Small minibuses routed
through residential neighborhoods feed passengers to conventional buses
on circumferential routes around the central city and on interdistrict
routes. The backbone of the bus system is composed of the express buses
operating on five main arteries leading into the center of the city much
as spokes on a wheel lead to its hub. This backbone service, aptly
described as *Bus Rapid Transit*, is characterized by several features
that enable Curitiba's bus service to approach the speed, efficiency,
and reliability of a subway system:

-   integrated planning

-   exclusive bus lanes

-   signal priority for buses

-   pre-boarding fare collection

-   level bus boarding from raised platforms in tube stations

-   free transfers between lines (single entry)

-   large capacity articulated and bi-articulated wide-door buses

-   overlapping system of bus services

Each artery is composed of a "trinary" road system, consisting of three
parallel routes, a block apart. The middle route is a wide avenue with
"Express" bus service running down dedicated high-capacity express
busways in the center two lanes, offering frequent stop service using
standard, articulated and bi-articulated buses carrying up to 270
passengers apiece. The outer lanes are for local access and parking.
Back in the 1960s the building of a light rail system in these avenues
had been considered, but proved to be too expensive. The two outer
routes are one-way streets with mixed vehicle traffic lanes next to
exclusive bus lanes running "direct" high-speed bus service with limited
stops. Both the express and direct services use signal priority at
intersections.

Buses running in the dedicated and exclusive lanes stop at tube
stations. These are modern design cylindrical-shaped, clear-walled
stations with turnstiles, steps, and wheelchair lifts. Passengers pay
their bus fares as they enter the stations, and wait for buses on raised
station platforms. Instead of steps, buses are designed with extra wide
doors and ramps which extend when the doors open to fill the gap between
the bus and the station platform. The tube stations serve the dual
purpose of providing passengers with shelter from the elements, and
facilitating the efficient simultaneous loading and unloading of
passengers, including wheelchairs. A typical dwell time of only 15 to 19
seconds is the result of fare payment prior to boarding the bus and
same-level boarding from the platform to the
bus.![](media/image3.png){width="3.203472222222222in"
height="1.9590277777777778in"}

Passengers pay a single fare equivalent to about 40 cents (U.S.) for
travel throughout the system, with unlimited transfers between buses.
Transfers are accomplished at terminals where the different services
intersect. Transfers occur within the prepaid portions of the terminals
so transfer tickets are not needed. In these areas are located public
telephones, post offices, newspaper stands, and small retail facilities
to serve customers changing buses.

Ten private bus companies provide all public transportation services in
Curitiba, with guidance and parameters established by the city
administration. The bus companies are paid by the distances they travel
rather than by the passengers they carry, allowing a balanced
distribution of bus routes and eliminating the former destructive
competition that clogged the main roads and left other parts of the city
unserved. All ten bus companies earn an operating profit.

The city pays the companies for the buses, about 1 percent of the bus
value per month. After ten years, the city takes control of the buses
and uses them for transportation to parks or as mobile schools. The
average bus is only three years old, largely because of the recent
infusion of newly designed buses, including the articulated and
bi-articulated buses, into the system.

**3.3 Integration of Transit with Land Use Planning**

Curitiba's Master Plan integrated transportation with land use planning,
with the latter as the driving force, and called for a cultural, social
and economic transformation of the city. It limited central area growth,
while encouraging commercial growth along the transport arteries
radiating out from the city center. The city's central area was partly
closed to vehicular traffic, and pedestrian streets were created. The
linear development along the arteries reduced the traditional importance
of the downtown area as the primary focus of day-to-day transport
activity, thereby minimizing congestion and the typical morning flow of
traffic into the central city and the afternoon outflow. As a result,
during any rush hour in Curitiba, there are heavy commuter movements in
both directions along the public transportation arteries.

The Master Plan also provided economic support for urban development
along the arteries through the establishment of industrial and
commercial zones and mixed-use zoning, and encouraged local community
self-sufficiency by providing each city district with its own adequate
education, health care, recreation, and park areas. By 1992, almost 40
percent of Curitiba's population resided within three blocks of the
major transit arteries.

Other policies have contributed to the success of the transit system, in
the areas of zoning, housing development, parking and employer-paid
transit subsidies. Land within two blocks of the transit arteries has
been zoned for mixed commercial-residential uses. Higher densities are
permitted for office space, since it traditionally generates more
transit ridership per square foot than residential space. Beyond these
two blocks, zoned residential densities taper with distance from
transitways. Land near transit arteries is encouraged to be developed
with community-assisted housing. The Institute of Urban Research and
Planning of Curitiba (IPPUC), established in the 1960s to oversee
implementation of the Master Plan, must approve locations of new
shopping centers. They discourage American style auto-oriented shopping
centers by channeling new retail growth to transit corridors. Very
limited and time-restricted public parking is available in the downtown
area, and private parking is very expensive. Finally, most employers
offer transportation subsidies to workers, especially low-skilled and
low-paid employees, making them the primary purchasers of tokens.

**3.4 Staged Development of the Bus System**

As the population increased during the period from 1970 through the
present, Curitiba's bus system evolved incrementally. It required
expansion of service routes, frequencies, and capacities, and
improvements in fare payment, scheduling, and facility design to
facilitate the passenger transferring process. Innovative low-cost and
low-tech options for new services and features were chosen over more
expensive alternatives at each stage. Planners did not hesitate to
abandon choices that did not work in favor of more effective solutions.

At several points throughout the bus system development, the option of
constructing a rail network was considered. Initially, buses were chosen
over rail because they were far more adaptable and cheaper for a
developing city such as Curitiba. In the mid-1980s the ridership had
grown enough to support a rail network, but capital costs were
prohibitive. Instead, the high capacity, high speed service known as
"direct" service was eventually introduced on the one-way exclusive bus
lanes that parallel the main corridors one block away. This service,
including the tube stations, cost about \$200,000 per kilometer to
build, and was far cheaper, faster and less disruptive than the
estimated \$20 million per kilometer for a light rail system.

Not to be underestimated in the evolution of the transit system is the
influence of the current governor of the State of Parana, Jaime Lerner.
Lerner left his position as president of the IPPUC to become a
three-time Mayor of Curitiba, and then governor. With a stake in the
development of the Master Plan, he was its champion throughout the
years, providing guidance, a firm governmental commitment to transit,
and leadership. His steady promotion of the plan enabled it to withstand
any tendencies for local politics to alter its course.

**3.5 Results of Bus Rapid Transit**

The popularity of Curitiba's Bus Rapid Transit system has effected a
modal shift from automobile travel to bus travel, in spite of
Curitibanos' high income and high rate of car ownership relative to the
rest of Brazil. Based on 1991 traveler survey results, it was estimated
that service improvements resulting from the introduction of Bus Rapid
Transit had attracted enough automobile users to public transportation
to cause a reduction of about 27 million auto trips per year, saving
about 27 million liters of fuel annually. In particular, 28 percent of
direct bus service users previously traveled by car. Compared to eight
other Brazilian cities its size, Curitiba uses about 30 percent less
fuel per capita, because of its heavy transit usage. The low rate of
ambient air pollution in Curitiba, one of the lowest in Brazil, is
attributed to the public transportation system's accounting for around
55 percent of private trips in the city.

Residential patterns changed to afford bus access on the major arteries
to a larger proportion of the population. Between 1970 and 1978, when
the three main arteries were built, the population of Curitiba as a
whole grew by 73 percent, while the population along the arteries grew
by 120 percent. Today about 1,100 buses make 12,500 trips per day,
serving more than 1.3 million passengers per day, 50 times more than 20
years ago. Eighty percent of the travelers use either the express or
direct bus service, while only 20 percent use the conventional feeder
services. Plans for extending the rapid bus network will reduce the need
for conventional services. In addition to enjoying speedy and reliable
service, Curitibanos spend only about 10 percent of their income on
travel, which is low relative to the rest of Brazil.

**4.0 APPLICATIONS OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES**

**4.1 Planning for Bus Rapid Transit**

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) encourages U.S. cities to
consider, analyze, and evaluate the benefits of implementing Bus Rapid
Transit. Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit in the United States begins
with the metropolitan planning process, which provides a forum for the
development and evaluation of strategies to meet mobility needs at the
regional level. Bus operations planning is generally the responsibility
of the local transit operator, in cooperation with regional
transportation planning agencies such as metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs). Consequently, several low-cost *operational*
strategies \-- including many improvements associated with Bus Rapid
Transit \-- may be evaluated and implemented by transit operators to
improve the efficiency of their existing bus service. Where the
multimodal transportation planning process determines that some type of
major transportation *capital* investment (such as a fixed transit
guideway/busway and/or passenger boarding facilities) may be required to
meet the mobility needs in a given corridor, an analysis and evaluation
of potential alternatives to meet these needs is typically undertaken.

Corridor planning for Bus Rapid Transit should incorporate community
participation. Bus Rapid Transit should be analyzed and evaluated in
relation to locally-defined goals and objectives for the transportation
system, mobility needs, and the relative advantages, disadvantages and
costs of alternative approaches to meeting those needs. Curitiba-style
Bus Rapid Transit may be introduced as a capital investment option. A
variety of enhanced bus elements also may be considered, depending on
local concensus. Determination of the effectiveness of specific
applications of Bus Rapid Transit will require consideration of multiple
criteria:

-   ***Mobility*\--** access to employment, services, and facilities;
    bus travel time savings*;* impacts on traffic operations; increases
    in bus ridership

-   ***Environmental Impacts*** \-- reduced use of private vehicles and
    attendant air pollution; impacts on water resources and wetlands,
    parks and open spaces, and historical and cultural resources.

-   ***Land Use** \--* compatibility with local land use policies,
    contribution to economic development

-   ***Costs** \--* total project cost and measures of
    cost-effectiveness, including, for example, operating and capital
    cost per passenger or cost per passenger mile for each alternative
    under consideration; funding availability.

Following the selection of Bus Rapid Transit as the preferred solution
in a multimodal analysis, proposed capital improvements need to be
incorporated into the financially-constrained regional long-range
transportation plan, developed by the MPO in cooperation with local
transportation agencies and communities. More detailed engineering and
completion of required environmental documentation would be necessary
before Federal funding could be made available and construction could
begin. FTA rates projects competing for its discretionary capital
resources and recommends to Congress those projects which best justify
continued Federal investment. Consequently, low‑cost, high‑performance
Bus Rapid Transit projects that emerge from a locally‑managed,
multimodal analysis of alternatives may rate favorably in both local
*and* Federal evaluations of potential transportation investments.

**4.2 Implementation: Bus Rapid Transit Features**

Many of the features of the Curitiba experience may be directly
transferable to the U.S.; others may be applicable in concept only. For
example, signal priority for buses moving along city streets could be
implemented by many U.S. cities, but cashless fare collection methods
during passenger boarding, rather than pre-boarding fare collection as
in Curitiba, may be more feasible in some U.S. cities for reducing dwell
time at bus stops. Features that are likely to be applicable to U.S.
implementations of Bus Rapid Transit include the following:

-   ***Exclusive bus lanes*** \-- may be separated from automobile lanes
    by barriers, or simply signage and road markings. On city streets,
    there are several ways these can be implemented. A two-way street
    might have one exclusive bus lane in each direction, while a one-way
    street might have one dedicated lane. The bus lanes might be the
    outside lanes of a two-way street, or, as in Curitiba, the two
    center lanes. In older cities with narrow street patterns, the
    dedication of an entire street to bus traffic is a possibility.

> On highways, exclusive bus lanes can be installed in each direction,
> and separated from other traffic by barriers or signage. Often these
> lanes will fit into median strips, rather than decrease the number of
> lanes available for automobiles. Where space is constrained, one
> exclusive bus lane could change direction to coincide with the rush
> hour traffic flow.

-   ***Traffic signal priority for buses*** \-- eliminates delays in bus
    service due to excessive waits at intersection signals. There are
    two general types of systems. In the first, depending on the program
    algorithm, a bus approaching a downstream traffic signal extends the
    green light or advances the cycle to green, either through
    transponders or other electronic communications means, to proceed
    through the intersection. The bus operator determines when signal
    priority is needed to maintain the bus schedule. In the second, a
    bus system equipped with an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system
    and advanced radio communications gives signal priority control to
    the operations center, where typically a computerized system
    determines bus adherence to schedule and automatically triggers
    traffic signals when needed.

> On streets with exclusive bus lanes, signal priority can be used when
> needed to give buses a head start over the rest of the traffic (a
> queue jump) by adding a signal phase that advances the green light for
> the bus lane prior to the green light for the other traffic lanes.

-   ***Fare collection system that speeds up the boarding process*** \--
    would decrease dwell time and improve overall system efficiency. A
    subway-like solution is the prepayment of fares prior to boarding,
    as in Curitiba's tube stations. However, the amount of space
    required to accommodate and secure prepaid customers waiting for
    buses may prohibit this option on many American city streets.
    Cashless fare payment methods that customers use as they board, such
    as prepaid passes, credit cards and "smart" cards, are likely more
    appropriate for most U.S. transit operations.

![](media/image4.png){width="1.8944444444444444in"
height="2.6305555555555555in"}

-   ***Same-level boarding platform and bus floor*** \-- would speed up
    the boarding and deboarding processes, especially where
    wheelchair-bound passengers are involved. Such a feature would help
    bring a U.S. transit system into compliance with the Americans with
    Disabilities Act. There are two options here: buses with low floors
    that are even with the curbside, and loading platforms that bring
    passengers level with the floors of stairless buses. Innovative bus
    stop designs could incorporate accessibility as an integral element
    for use not only by disabled passengers, but the general riding
    public.

-   ***Effective, clearly designated off-street facilities to handle
    increased numbers of buses in the central business district*** \--
    will ease congestion, provide visibility for bus services, and
    increase the efficiency and safety of boarding operations that do
    not have to compete with city traffic. Cities with central business
    districts concentrated in a small geographical area would generate
    enough local passengers to make off-street bus terminals effective.
    Terminals might feature convenient passenger services, such as
    newspaper stands, dry cleaning and film drop-off counters, and stamp
    machines. Bus malls might provide circulator service on bus-only
    streets through the central business district, and connect bus
    terminals at opposite ends of the district.

-   ***Hierarchical system of services*** \-- would build upon the high
    speed bus service to offer a broad network of services (feeder,
    direct, express and/or circulator buses) covering an entire
    metropolitan area. The system would be characterized by ease of
    transfer between services with regard to fare payment and
    passenger-friendly signage and identification of bus routes and
    schedules. Such a system would have the capability of linking suburb
    to suburb as well as suburb to downtown, setting the stage for
    changes in land use policy.

-   ***Supportive land use policy*** \-- including zoning regulations
    and master planning can promote high density development along
    transit corridors and in central cities and other commercial or
    neighborhood centers. Compact development will not only encourage
    use of Bus Rapid Transit, but promote the vitality of communities
    and local business districts and reduce automobile use, urban
    sprawl, pollution and energy consumption.

**4.3 New Technology in Bus Rapid Transit**

New Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) or Advanced Public
Transportation Systems (APTS) applications could contribute to improved
bus service and increased bus operating speeds. Some ITS and APTS
applications that a Bus Rapid Transit system might employ are described
below, but this list is by no means exhaustive:

-   ***"Smart" card fare collection methods*** \-- use read-and-write
    technology to store dollar value on a microprocessor chip inside a
    plastic card. As passengers board a bus, the card reader determines
    the card's value, debits the appropriate amount for the bus ride,
    and writes the balance back onto the card, all within a fraction of
    a second. There are two types of card readers, the proximity reader
    which can read cards held a few inches away, and the contact reader
    which requires physical contact with a card. Under development are
    systems that will be able to read cards carried in passengers'
    pockets, wallets and purses. Cashless systems such as "smart" cards
    speed up the fare collection process and eliminate expensive cash
    handling operations at transit agencies.

> "Smart" cards can also be programmed for distance-based pricing by
> recording where a passenger enters a transit system and debiting the
> appropriate amount from the card balance according to the point where
> the passenger exits the system, regardless of the number of internal
> transfers.

-   ***Automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems*** \-- enable transit
    agencies to track their vehicles in real time and provide them with
    information for making timely schedule adjustments and equipment
    substitutions. AVL systems are computer-based vehicle tracking
    systems that measure the actual real time position of each vehicle,
    and relay the information to a central location. The measurement and
    relay techniques vary, but the most common are: signpost and
    odometer, wherein a receiver on a bus detects signals sent by
    signposts along the bus route and transmits the identity of the
    signpost and the odometer reading to the control center; and Global
    Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology, wherein an onboard GPS
    receiver determines the bus position and transmits the information
    to the control center. AVL systems can be augmented by geographical
    information systems (GIS) on control center computers that display
    the location of the vehicles on route map grids.

-   ***Computer-aided dispatching and advanced communications*** \-- are
    systems that enable transit dispatchers, in combination with AVL
    systems, to maintain bus system efficiency by performing service
    restoration activities and communicating instructions to and
    receiving messages from drivers. Service restoration activities
    include such operations as adjusting dwell times at bus stops or
    transfer points, adjusting vehicle headways, rerouting vehicles,
    adding buses to routes, and dispatching new vehicles to replace
    disabled vehicles. Communications can be received in buses via
    radiotelephones, cellular telephones, or mobile display terminals.

-   ***Precision docking at bus stops*** \-- uses sensors on buses and
    on the roadside to indicate the exact place where the bus should
    stop. Bus doors opening at the same location each time make it
    possible for passengers to be in position for immediate boarding
    once a bus has stopped, shortening dwell time.

-   ***Tight terminal guidance*** \-- uses sensors similar to those for
    precision docking to assist buses in maneuvering in terminals with
    limited space. This type of system can help minimize the amount of
    space needed for bus terminal operations, as well as reduce the
    overall amount of time a bus spends at terminals.

-   ***Warning systems*** \-- are beginning to appear on the market to
    assist the bus driver in a number of safety areas: collision
    avoidance, pedestrian proximity warning, attentive driver monitoring
    and warning, intersection collision avoidance, and low tire friction
    warning. Safety improvements can help any bus system increase its
    reliability and efficiency by reducing the likelihood of accidents
    and incidents.

-   ***Passenger information systems*** \-- give passengers the means to
    make informed decisions about their transit travel. Of the many
    technologies now available for passengers to access this type of
    information, the APTS applications most appropriate for Bus Rapid
    Transit are in-vehicle information systems. These systems
    automatically announce approaching bus stops, allowing disembarking
    riders to position themselves near the doors prior to arriving at
    their stops, and speeding up the unloading and loading operation.

-   ***Automated enforcement systems for exclusive bus lanes*** \-- are
    being enhanced by new technology, including automatic video cameras
    and infrared sensors. These state-of-the-art systems are just now
    appearing on the commercial market.

**4.4 Effects of Bus Rapid Transit**

Successful Bus Rapid Transit systems can be expected to produce
improvements in bus service, operations, and ridership, and to affect
traffic congestion and air quality:

-   ***Bus speeds and schedule adherence***: Perhaps the most
    fundamental effect of a Bus Rapid Transit system, travel times would
    likely improve due to the lack of impediments to bus movement along
    exclusive bus lanes. Bus speeds would be expected to improve not
    only in absolute terms, but also relative to the automobile traffic
    that parallels the exclusive lanes.

-   ***Ridership***: Ridership would be expected to increase due to
    improved bus speeds and schedule adherence. Customers who use buses
    infrequently might ride more often, and some automobile users might
    convert to transit. A visible improvement in bus speeds might be
    noticeable to drivers of other vehicles, presenting a positive image
    of transit as an alternative to driving.

-   ***Other traffic***: If the creation of exclusive bus lanes reduces
    the number of lanes available for other traffic, then in the short
    term the possibility of increased congestion on the roadways is
    raised. Traffic flow on cross streets and turning traffic may be
    disrupted as buses use their signal priority to travel uninterrupted
    through intersections. Further, mobility on alternate routes may
    deteriorate, as drivers seek ways to avoid roads with exclusive bus
    lanes. One of the challenges of implementing an exclusive bus lane
    would be to minimize this disruption.

-   ***Air quality***: Long term, as ridership increases and the overall
    level of general-purpose traffic decreases, urban areas may
    experience improved air quality due to reduced emissions from
    automobiles.

**5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS**

The example of Curitiba, Brazil and experience in the U.S. illustrate
the potential of improved bus services to address mobility needs in
metropolitan areas. Buses provide flexible and cost-effective public
transportation. Metropolitan areas throughout the U.S. can build on the
experience of Curitiba and other cities to develop Bus Rapid Transit
systems that provide fast, reliable, and convenient service in cities
and suburbs.

Upgrading the performance of bus services to meet the objectives of Bus
Rapid Transit will require policies that give priority to bus operations
and provide for investment in crucial system components: infrastructure
that separates bus operations from general-purpose traffic; facilities
that provide for increased comfort and system visibility; and technology
that provides for faster and more reliable operations. New guidance,
information, and fare technologies offer an expanded range of
possibilities for operating bus systems that have the potential to
produce marked improvements in performance, surpassing previous
standards and changing public perceptions of bus service. High-quality
bus operations have the potential to create new, improved land use
options that provide for compact, pedestrian-friendly and
environmentally-sensitive development patterns that preserve
neighborhoods and open space. Bus Rapid Transit thus will have maximum
benefit when developed in close coordination with land use policies and
community development plans.

Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit poses a number of challenges,
ranging from the need for adequate cross sections on city streets to
provide separate rights-of-way for buses, to maintaining the quality of
general-purpose traffic flow and minimizing local noise and air quality
impacts. These challenges require detailed analysis in the context of
specific local applications to identify appropriate solutions and to
determine where Bus Rapid Transit can have the greatest benefit. Bus
Rapid Transit is a concept that merits widespread evaluation and
consideration as an adaptable, effective public transportation
alternative to automobiles that has the potential to meet a broad range
of mobility needs and support an improved quality of life in U.S.
metropolitan areas.

**ACRONYMS**

**APTS** Advanced Public Transportation Systems

**AVL** Automatic Vehicle Location

**DOT** Department of Transportation

**FTA** Federal Transit Administration

**GPS** Global Position System

**HOV** High-occupancy Vehicle

**IPPUC** Institute of Urban Research and Planning of Curitiba

**ITS** Intelligent Transportation System

**MPO** Metropolitan Planning Organization

**U.S.** United States

**Volpe Center** Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

**REFERENCES**

Birk, M.L., and P.C. Zegras. *Moving toward Integrated Transport
Planning: Energy, Environment, and Mobility in Four Asian Cities.*
Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Energy Conservation. 1993.

Casey, Robert F., and John Collura. *Advanced Public Transportation
Systems: Evaluation Guidelines*, FTA-MA-0007-94-2, DOT-VNTSC-FTA-93-9.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration. January 1994.

Fuhs, Charles A. *Preferential Lane Treatments for High-Occupancy
Vehicles*. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council. 1993.

Gluck, Jerome S. *Preferential Treatment for Buses: An Analysis of Their
Impact on Various Urban Sectors.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. March 1978.

*Jane's Urban Transport Systems, 1997-8, Sixteenth Edition*. Coulsdon,
Surrey: Sentinel House. 1997.

Kain, John F., with Ross Gittell, Amrita Daniere, Sanjay Daniel, Tsur
Somerville, and Liu Zhi. *Increasing the Productivity of the Nation's
Urban Transportation Infrastructure.* Graduate School of Design, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. January 1992.

Kuzmyak, J. Richard, *Madison Avenue Dual Exclusive Bus Lane
Demonstration - New York City.* UMTA-MA-06-0049-84-4,
DOT-TSC-UMTA-84-18. Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass Transportation
Administration. May 1984.

Lloyd-Jones, Tony. "Curitiba: Sustainability by Design," Urban Design
Group Resources Page on the Internet. 1997.

Rabinovitch, Jonas. *"Curitiba: towards sustainable urban development,"
Environment and Urbanization*, Vol. 4, No. 2. October 1992.

Rabinovitch, Jonas, and Josef Leitmann. *Environmental Innovation and
Management in Curitiba, Brazil*, Working Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.:
UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat)/World Bank. June 1993.

Rabinovitch, Jonas, and John Hoehn. *A Sustainable Urban Transportation
System: "The Surface Metro" System in Curitiba, Brazil*. Washington,
D.C.: EPAT/MUCIA. May 1995.

Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
*Transit and Urban Form*. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
1996.

St. Jacques, Kevin, and Herbert S. Levinson, Wilbur Smith Associates,
prepared for Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, *Operational Analysis of Bus
Lanes on Arterials.* Washington, D.C. November 1996.

Turnbull, Katherine F., Texas Transportation Institute. *An Assessment
of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities in North America: Executive
Report*. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation. August 1992.

Turnbull, Katherine F., and James W. Hanks, Texas Transportation
Institute.*A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North
America.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban
Mass Transportation Administration. July 1990.

Vukan Vuchic, with Eric C. Bruun, Nikola Krstanoski and Yong Eun Shin,
University of Pennsylvania. *The Bus Transit System: Its Underutilized
Potential*. Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration. May 1994.