Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems
Eligibility Criteria and Guidelines
CRITERIA – February, 2017
The following criteria applies to Part B – Low Carbon Criteria, under clauses 8 [Eligible projects and physicalassets] and clause 9 [Technical criteria] of the Climate Bond Standard version 2.1.
For a bond to be certified as a Climate Bond, the funds raised under it must be used to finance or re-finance:
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems– that is, components of any BRT project meeting Bronze, Silver or Gold scoreunder the BRT Standard*, as developed by the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy, will be
eligible for certification under the Climate Bonds Standard (V2.1).
*Refer to guidelines below for minimum performance requirement.

Rationale
High quality BRT has been shown to be associated with the improvement of bus travel speeds and reliability
and the smoothing of traffic flows, leading to greater mode shifting and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Lower quality bus improvements that provide only Basic BRT or less tend to result in lower bus
speeds, reduced reliability of service, less mode shifting, and minimal GHG emission reduction comparedwith business as usual.
The 2014 BRT Standard, attached as Annex 1, has been developed as a simple system for appraising thedesign quality and operational functionality of BRT systems, and is a good surrogate for GHG benefits of BRT.
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Standard was developed by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in2010 to establish a common definition of BRT, which was needed in response to modest improvements to bus
service being inaccurately labeled as BRT. This trend degraded the definition of BRT, particularly as a rapid service.
The BRT Standard was also designed to provide a means of recognizing the best BRT systems (Gold, Silver, andBronze)—those featuring designs that combine efficiency and sustainability with passenger comfort andconvenience. By scoring the level of quality, it is easier to predict a system’s ability to attract new riders and reducebus delays, results which directly affect a system’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
The BRT Standard was developed by a committee composed of the world’s leading BRT experts. The Standard was
designed to evaluate systems based on multiple design elements. These elements are generally easily recognizable
and simple to score without a massive data collection process. This evaluation method celebrates high-quality BRTs
but is not intended to denigrate lighter BRT improvements, or even improvements to conventional bus systems,
that may also yield important benefits to customers.
Other Bus System Improvements. Bus system improvements that fall short of high quality BRT may or may not
produce meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The impact is highly context specific and difficult toevaluate; therefore consideration has been delayed until 2016.

Annex 1: The BRT Standard 2014
Introduction
The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for world-class bus rapid transit based on international best practices. It isalso the centerpiece of a global effort by leaders in bus transportation design to establish a common definition ofbus rapid transit (BRT) and ensure that BRT systems more uniformly deliver world-class passenger experiences,significant economic benefits, and positive environmental impacts.
Despite the increasing prevalence, prominence, and success of BRT, many remain unaware of the characteristics ofthe best BRT corridors and their ability to provide levels of service more typically associated with metro andsubway systems. This lack of awareness frequently results in a preference for rail when BRT is in fact a comparable,
more cost-effective, and equally elegant solution. This false impression stems partly from the lack of a common
definition for BRT. Without a definition, modest improvements to standard bus service are often inaccurately
labeled as BRT.
The BRT Standard functions as a means of achieving a common definition, as a scoring system, and as a planning
tool. By laying out the essential elements of BRT corridors, it provides a framework for system designers, decisionmakers, and the sustainable transport community to identify and implement top-quality BRT corridors. The BRT
Standard celebrates cities that are leading the way on BRT excellence and offers best practice-based guidance tothose in the process of planning a system.
Certifying a BRT corridor as basic BRT, bronze, silver, or gold places it within the hierarchy of international bestpractice; however, all standard levels represent excellence in BRT. These cities with certified BRT corridors arebeacons of progress that have adopted a cutting-edge form of mass transit, elevating urban transport to a newlevel of excellence while making communities more livable, competitive, and sustainable. From Guadalajara,
Mexico to Guangzhou, China, cities that have built gold-standard BRT have seen significant benefits to commuters,
increased revitalization of city centers, and better air quality.
As we continue to clarify and elevate the standards to which all BRT systems are built, more people will experience
the convenience and comfort of this cutting-edge mode of transport, and more cities will experience the benefitsof an efficient and cost-effective mass-transit system. Our hope is that this will bring about the fundamental change
needed to shift people out of their cars towards modern and sustainable BRT.

Why was The BRT Standard created?
The BRT Standard was developed to create a common definition of bus rapid transit and recognize high-quality BRT
systems around the world. It also functions as a technical tool to guide and encourage municipalities to consider
the key features of the best BRT systems as they move through the design process.
Historically, there has been no common understanding of what constitutes BRT. The lack of a common definition
has caused confusion about the concept. The absence of an agreement among planners and engineers has meantthat for every new BRT corridor that is world class, dozens of bus corridors opened that were incorrectly labeled
BRT. The lack of any sort of quality control has made it possible for modest bus system improvements to bebranded as BRT, leading to some backlash about BRT. Modest incremental improvements, while beneficial, areoften not the most cost-effective solution, and they certainly do not add up to the fundamental change needed toshift the travel paradigm from a disbursed pattern of private automobile travel to bus-based mass transit.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 2

BRT also plays an important role in the global effort to reduce transport-sector emissions. As emissions fromprivate motor-vehicle use grow, shifting these trips onto public transit by improving the quality and reach of BRT
becomes critical. Establishing a quality standard for BRT not only ensures that better projects are built, but thattransport sector emissions are reduced.
Certifying a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze, or basic sets an internationally recognized standard for what is BRT
and what is best practice in BRT. The elements that receive points in The BRT Standard have been evaluated in awide variety of contexts. When present, they result in consistently improved system performance and have apositive impact on ridership.

What’s new in 2014?
The BRT Standard 2014 is the culmination of a review of The BRT Standard 2013 by The BRT Standard TechnicalCommittee and practitioners around the world. Revisions were made collectively by the Technical Committee – agroup comprised of the world’s leading BRT engineers, designers, and planners. Descriptions of the most significant
changes follow in the sections below.
Trunk Corridor Definition
The definition of a BRT trunk corridor has been changed from 4 kilometers (km) in length down to 3 km. This wasdone to allow BRT systems in downtown areas to be considered BRT. These systems can provide valuable service tothe regional transit network, even if they are relatively short in length.
Frequency Penalties
The most significant change for 2014 has been the removal of the peak and off-peak frequency design metrics andthe addition of penalty for low peak and off-peak frequencies. This was done since the provision of routefrequencies was seen as more of an operational decision, rather than a design decision.
Emphasis on Basics
Five additional points were added to the five BRT Basics categories, creating a greater emphasis on the basic
elements of BRT. The scoring of the Basic categories has been reconfigured alongside the additional points.

The BRT Standard GovernanceTwo committees govern The BRT Standard: The Technical Committee and the Institutional Endorsers. The Institutefor Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) currently convenes both committees.
The Technical Committee of The BRT Standard comprises globally-renowned experts on BRT. This committee serves
as a consistent source of sound technical advice with respect to BRT and is the basis for establishing the credibilityof The BRT Standard. The Technical Committee certifies corridors and recommends revisions to The BRT Standard
as needed.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee members include:

Manfred Breithaupt, GIZ

Wagner Colombini Martins, Logit ConsultoriaPaulo Custodio, Consultant

Walter Hook, ITDP



Colleen McCaul, Consultant



Gerhard Menckhoff, World Bank (retired)*Carlos Felipe Pardo, Slow Research

Scott Rutherford, University of Washington*

The BRT Standard 2014 | 3Pedro Szasz, Consultant



Lloyd Wright, Asian Development Bank*

Unless indicated by an asterisk (*), each committee member also represents his or her institution.
The emissions scoring detail for buses was recommended by the International Council on Clean Transportation(ICCT), a member of the Best Practice Network of the ClimateWorks Foundation.
The Institutional Endorsers are an integrated group of highly respected institutions in the fields of city building,public transport systems and climate change, with decision-making abilities over The BRT Standard certification
process. All have a commitment to high-quality public transport and a dedication to its contribution for social andeconomic development.
They establish the strategic direction, ensure that BRT projects ranked by the scoring system uphold the goals of
The BRT Standard, and promote The BRT Standard as a quality check for BRT projects globally.
The Institutional Endorsers include:






ClimateWorks Foundation
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (convener)
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Rockefeller Foundation

The BRT Standard Scorecard
The BRT Standard scoring system was created as a way of protecting the BRT brand and offering recognition to highquality BRT systems around the world. Certifying a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze, or basic sets aninternationally recognized standard for the current best practice for BRT.
Awarding Points
Points are only awarded for those elements of corridor design that most significantly improve operational
performance and quality of service. The full point system is shown on page 12 and described in detail throughout
the rest of this document. The criteria used to determine the point system are as follows:

The points should act as proxies for a higher quality of customer service (speed, comfort, capacity, etc).



The points should be awarded based on a general consensus among BRT experts on what constitutes bestpractice in system planning and design, and their relative importance.

The points should reward good, often politically-challenging design decisions made by the project teamthat will result in superior performance, rather than rewarding characteristics that may be innate to thecorridor.



The metrics and weightings should be easily and equitably applicable and scalable to a wide range of BRT
corridors in different contexts—from lower-ridership, smaller corridors to larger, high-volume corridors.



The basis for the score should be reasonably transparent and independently verifiable without recourse to
information that is not readily obtained.

The maximum number of points a system can earn is 100. Below is an overview of the four BRT Standard point
categories. Bronze, silver and gold all reflect well-designed corridors that have achieved excellence. A lower score
could reflect that more significant measures were not justified in a particular case.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 4

BRT Standard 2014 Rankings
Gold-standard BRT: 85 Points or above
Gold standard BRT is consistent in almost all respects with international best practice. These systems
achieve the highest in operational performance and efficiency, while providing a high quality of service. It
is achievable on any corridor with sufficient demand to justify any BRT investments, but may cost a little
more to achieve. These systems have the greatest ability to inspire the public, as well as other cities.
Silver-standard BRT: 70–84 points
Silver-standard BRT includes most of the elements of international best practice and is likely to be costeffective on any corridor with sufficient demand to justify BRT investment. These systems achieve highoperational performance and quality of service.
Bronze-standard BRT: 55–69 points
Bronze-standard BRT solidly meets the definition of BRT and is mostly consistent with international bestpractice. Bronze standard BRT has some characteristics that elevate it above the BRT Basics, achieving
higher operational efficiencies or quality of service than basic BRT.

Basic BRT: 20–55 Points
Basic BRT refers to a core set of elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to the definition of
BRT. This minimum qualification is a pre-condition to receiving a gold, silver, or bronze ranking.
Design versus Performance
The BRT Standard relies on observable corridor characteristics that are associated with high performance, rather
than on performance measurements. This is currently the most reliable and equitable mechanism for recognizing
quality in different corridors. The main reasons for this approach include:

The ability to assess both planned and existing corridors: The BRT Standard is intended to help guideplanning and design decisions prior to corridor implementation. The scoring tool is usable both forplanned and built corridors, whereas performance standards are only applicable when assessing existing
corridors.

Good data is rare and expensive: While the effect of the BRT corridor on a passenger’s door-to-door travel
time is the ideal performance appraisal metric, this data is extremely difficult, expensive, and time
consuming to collect, and nearly impossible to independently corroborate.

Other Project Appraisal Tools
The BRT Standard is intended to complement cost effectiveness measurements and system-performance
evaluations. Using only cost effectiveness appraisal tools without The BRT Standard could lead to either underspending on the capital investments that would actually increase operating costs or it could result in overspending
on measures that cannot really be justified under certain circumstances. For these reasons, The BRT Standard
should be used in tandem with cost effectiveness or cost-benefit evaluation.
Similarly, The BRT Standard may be a useful element of project appraisal as a way of testing the credibility ofclaimed speed improvements or other performance claims made as part of a more systematic “performancebased” appraisal, such as the U.S. Federal Transit Administration’s cost-effectiveness analysis or the internal rateof-return analysis required by the development banks during project appraisal.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 5

Process
The BRT Standard is reviewed and updated annually by the Technical Committee. Corridors will be evaluated bymembers of the Technical Committee over the course of the year and their scores will be submitted to The BRT
Standard Technical Committee to certify at the end of each year. Only corridors that have not previously beenscored will be eligible for scoring; those corridors previously scored may request to be re-scored. In addition, theTechnical Committee may request that a corridor be rescored if it has experienced significant design changes oroperational difficulties. When the new score is released, the justification for rescoring the corridor will also be
included.
Scores will be released in the first quarter of the following year and used as a means to compare and celebrate
those that have implemented true BRT, making the politically courageous and technically difficult decisions
necessary to get there.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee and the Institutional Endorsers look forward to making this an evenstronger tool for creating better BRT systems and encouraging better public transport that benefits cities andcitizens alike.
For any questions on the scoring process, please contact us at brtstandard@itdp.org.

Definition of a BRT Trunk Corridor
The BRT Standard is to be applied to specific BRT trunk corridors rather than to a BRT system as a whole. This isbecause the quality of BRT in cities with multiple corridors can vary significantly. For the purposes of The BRT
Standard, a BRT trunk corridor is defined as follows:“A section of a road or contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes that have dedicated lanes
with a minimum length of 3 kilometers”
The primary reason for defining the corridor in this way is that in some cities, BRT is not prioritized over automobile
traffic, an essential element in rapid transit that improves both efficiency and cost. In order to avoid rewarding
systems that don’t make this political choice, the corridor needs to be defined as including dedicated bus lanes.

The BRT Basics
The “BRT Basics” are a set of elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to defining a corridor as
BRT. The five essential elements of BRT are:Busway alignment: 8 points*
Dedicated right-of-way: 8 points*
Off-board fare collection: 8 points
Intersection treatments: 7 points
Platform-level boarding: 7 points
Of the five essential elements, a corridor must score at least four (4) on both busway alignment and dedicatedright-of-way AND must achieve a minimum of 20 points across all five categories to be identified as BRT. These fiveelements eliminate sources of delay from congestion, conflicts with other vehicles, and passenger boarding andalighting, thus increasing efficiency and lowering operating cost. They are of critical importance in differentiating
BRT from standard bus service.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 6

Dedicated Right-of-way: 8 points maximum
A dedicated right-of-way is vital to ensuring that buses can move quickly and unimpeded by congestion. Physicaldesign is critical to the self-enforcement of the right-of-way. Dedicated lanes matter the most in heavily congested
areas where it is harder to take a lane away from mixed traffic to dedicate it as a busway.
Enforcement of the dedicated lanes can be handled in different ways and can have varying degrees of permeability(e.g. delineators, electronic bollards, car traps, colorized pavement, and camera enforcement). In some designs thebus stations themselves can act as a barrier. Some permeability is generally advised as buses occasionally break
down and block the busway or otherwise need to leave the corridor.
Delineators are road markers that define the busway, and need enforcement to be effective.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors. A minimum score of 4 must be
achieved on this element to be defined as BRT.

Scoring Guidelines:
The scoring system is based on the amount of corridor that has dedicated right-of-way for BRT services, and theplacement of that dedication in relation to observed peak-hour congestion. Exceptions are permitted for
emergency vehicles.
Type of Dedicated Right-of-Way

Points

Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied
to over 90% of the busway corridor length8

Dedicated lanes and full enforcement or physical segregation applied
to over 75% of the busway corridor length7

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 75% of the busway corridor length5

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 40% of the busway corridor length3

Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 20% of the busway corridor length2

Camera-enforcement with signs only1

Busway Alignment: 8 points maximum
The busway is best located where conflicts with other traffic can be minimized, especially from turning movementsfrom mixed-traffic lanes. In most cases, the central verge of a roadway encounters fewer conflicts with turning
vehicles than those closer to the curb due to alleys, parking lots, etc. Additionally, while delivery vehicles and taxis
generally require access to the curb, the central verge of the road usually remains free of such obstructions. All of
the design configuration recommendations detailed below are related to minimizing the risk of delays caused byturning conflicts and obstructions.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors. A minimum score of 4 must be
achieved on this element to be defined as BRT.
Scoring Guidelines: This scoring is weighted using the percentage of the trunk corridor of each particularconfiguration multiplied by the points associated with that configuration and then adding those numbers together.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 7

Segments including bridges, tunnels, expressways, or non-built up areas, which don’t impede the efficiency of thesystem, are not factored into the corridor score.
Trunk Corridor Configurations

PointsTier 1 Configurations

Two-way median-aligned busways that are in the central verge of a two-way road8

Bus-only corridors where there is a fully exclusive right-of-way and no parallel mixed
traffic, such as transit malls (e.g. Bogotá, Curitiba, Quito, and Pereira), and converted
rail corridors (e.g. Cape Town and Los Angeles)

8

Busways that run adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront or park where there
are few intersections to cause conflicts

8

Busways that run two-way on the side of a one-way street

6

Tier 2 Configurations

Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but are centrally aligned in the roadway

5

Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but aligned to the curb

3

Tier 3 Configurations

Virtual busway that operates bi-directionally in a single median lane that alternates
direction by block (see Figure XX).

1

Figure XX: Virtual busways can be utilized in restricted or narrow road widths to provide dedicated right of way for

The BRT Standard 2014 | 8

BRT. A virtual busway is a single bus lane in the middle of a roadway, which is non-reversible, but is shared between
the two directions of travel. The direction of travel within the bus lane depends on the need for queue jumping within
the corridor. At the intersections, a separate public-transport vehicle phase will allow the BRT vehicles to leave thevirtual lane and access the general traffic lane, after which it will proceed in the general traffic lane until the virtuallane is once again dedicated to the BRT vehicles’ direction of travel.

Off-board Fare Collection: 8 points maximum
Off-board fare collection is one the most important factors in reducing travel time and improving the customer
experience.
There are presently two basic approaches to off-board fare collection: ”Barrier-controlled,” where passengers passthrough a gate, turnstile, or checkpoint upon entering the station where their ticket is verified or fare is deducted,
and “proof-of-payment,” where passengers pay at a kiosk and collect a paper ticket which is then checked on board
the vehicle by an inspector. Both approaches can significantly reduce delay. However, barrier-controlled is slightly
preferred because:

It is somewhat easier to accommodate multiple routes using the same BRT infrastructure;

It minimizes fare evasion, as every passenger must have his/her ticket scanned in order to enter thesystem, versus proof-of-payment which requires random checks;

Proof-of-payment can cause anxiety for passengers who may have misplaced tickets;The data collected by barrier-controlled systems upon boarding, and sometimes upon alighting, can be
useful in future system planning.

On the other hand, proof-of-payment systems on bus routes that extend beyond trunk BRT corridors extend thebenefits of time savings to those sections of the bus routes that lie beyond the BRT trunk corridor.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors.
Scoring Guidelines:
To be eligible for scoring, off-board fare collection needs to occur during all operating hours.
Off-board Fare Collection (during all operating hours)

Points100% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

8

100% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment

7

80% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

7

80% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment

6

60% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

660% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment

5

40% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

540% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment

4

20% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

3

20% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment2< 20% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection

0<20% of routes that touch the trunk corridor have proof-of-payment

The BRT Standard 2014 | 9

Intersection Treatments: 7 points maximum
There are several ways to increase bus speeds at intersections, all of which are aimed at increasing the green signal
time for the bus lane. Forbidding turns across the bus lane and minimizing the number of traffic-signal phases
where possible are the most important. Traffic-signal priority when activated by an approaching BRT vehicle isuseful in lower-frequency systems.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors.
Intersection Treatments

PointsAll turns prohibited across the busway

7

Most turns prohibited across the busway

6

Approximately half of the turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority

5

Some turns prohibited across the busway and signal priority at most intersections

4

Some turns prohibited across the busway and some signal priority

3

No turns prohibited across the busway but signal priority at mostintersections

2

No turns prohibited across the busway but some intersections have signal priority

1

No intersection treatments

0

Platform-level Boarding: 7 points maximum
Having the bus-station platform level with the bus floor is one of the most important ways of reducing boarding
and alighting times per passenger. Passengers climbing steps, even relatively minor steps, can mean significant
delay, particularly for the elderly, disabled, or people with suitcases or strollers. The reduction or elimination of thevehicle-to-platform gap is also key to customer safety and comfort. There is a range of measures to achieve gaps ofless than 5 cm (2 in.), including guided busways at stations, alignment markers, Kassel curbs, and boarding bridges.
This does not take into account which technique is chosen, just so long as the gap is minimized.
BRT Basics: This is an element of BRT deemed as essential to true BRT corridors.

Scoring Guidelines:
Station platforms should be at the same height as bus floors, regardless of the height chosen.
Percentage of Buses with At-Level Boarding

Points100% of buses are platform level; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place

7

80% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place

6

60% of buses; system-wide measures for reducing the gap in place5

100% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place

4

40% of buses

3

20% of buses

2

50% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place2

10% of buses

1

No platform-level boarding

0

The BRT Standard 2014 | 10

SERVICE PLANNING
Multiple Routes: 4 points maximum
Having multiple routes operate on a single corridor is a good proxy for reduced door-to-door travel times byreducing transfer penalties.
This can include:

Routes that operate over multiple corridors, as exists with TransMilenio in Bogotá or Metrobús in Mexico
City;



Multiple routes operating in a single corridor that go to different destinations once they leave the trunk
line, as exists with the Guangzhou, Cali, and Johannesburg BRT systems.

This flexibility of bus-based systems is one of the primary advantages of BRT that is frequently not well used orunderstood.
Multiple Routes

PointsTwo or more routes exist on the corridor, servicing at least two stations

4

No mulitple routes

0

Express, Limited, and Local Services: 3 points maximum
One of the most important ways that mass transit systems increase operating speeds, and reduce passenger travel
times, is by providing limited and express services. While local services stop at every station, limited services skip
lower-demand stations and stop only at major stations that have higher passenger demand. Express services often
collect passengers at stops at one end of the corridor, travel along much of the corridor without stopping, and drop
passengers off at the other end.
Infrastructure necessary for the inclusion of express, limited, and local BRT services is captured in other scoring
metrics.
Service Types

PointsLocal services and multiple types of limited and/or express services

3

At least one local and one limited or express service option2

No limited or express services

0

Control Center: 3 points maximumControl centers for BRT systems are increasingly becoming a requirement for a host of service improvements, suchas avoiding bus bunching, monitoring bus operations, identifying problems, and rapidly responding to them.
A full-service control center monitors the locations of all buses with GPS or similar technology and can:Respond to incidents in real-timeControl the spacing of buses

Determine and respond to the maintenance status of all buses in the fleet

Record passenger boardings and alightings for future service adjustments.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 11

Use Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for bus tracking and performancemonitoring.

A full-service center should be integrated with a public transport system’s existing control center, if it exists, as wellas the traffic signal system.
Control Center

PointsFull-service control center3

Control center with most services

2

Control center with some services

1

No control center0

Located In Top Ten Corridors: 2 points maximum
If the BRT corridor is located along one of the top ten corridors, in terms of aggregate bus ridership, this will help
ensure a significant proportion of passengers benefit from the improvements. Points are awarded to systems thathave made a good choice for the BRT corridor, regardless of the level of total demand.
Scoring Guidelines: If all top ten demand corridors have already benefited from public transport infrastructure
improvements and the corridor, thus, lies outside the top ten, all points are awarded.
Corridor Location

PointsCorridor is one of top ten demand corridors2

Corridor is outside top ten demand corridors0

Demand Profile: 3 points maximum
Building highest quality BRT infrastructure in the highest-demand segments of a road ensures that the greatest
number of passengers benefit from the improvements. This is most significant when the decision is made whether
or not to build a corridor through a downtown; however, it can also be an issue outside of a downtown on a roadsegment that has a variable demand profile.
Scoring Guidelines: The BRT corridor must include the road segment with the highest demand within a 2 kilometer
distance from either end of the corridor. This segment should also have the highest quality of busway alignment inthat section and the score thus relates to that. The trunk corridor configurations defined in the Busway Alignment
Section are used here to score the demand profile.

Demand Profile

PointsCorridor includes highest demand segment,3
which has a Tier 1 Trunk Corridor configuration
2
Corridor includes highest demand segment,
which has a Tier 2 Trunk Corridor configuration
1
Corridor includes highest demand segment,
which has a Tier 3 Trunk Corridor configuration

Corridor does not include highest demand
segment

0[ADD VISUAL DIAGRAMS TO HELP EXPLAIN THIS SECTION]

The BRT Standard 2014 | 12

Hours of Operations: 2 points maximum
A viable transit service must be available to passengers for as many hours throughout the day and week aspossible. Otherwise, passengers could end up stranded or may simply seek another mode.
Scoring Guidelines: Late-night service refers to service until midnight and weekend service refers to both weekend
days.
Operating Hours

PointsBoth late-night and weekend service2

Late-night service, no weekends OR weekend service, no late-nights

1

No late-night or weekend service

0

Multi-corridor Network: 2 points maximum
Ideally, BRT should include multiple corridors that intersect and form a network, as this expands travel options forpassengers and makes the system more viable as a whole. When designing a new system, some anticipation of
future corridors is useful to ensure the designs will be compatible with later developments. For this reason, a longterm plan is recognized, with an emphasis on near-term connectivity either through BRT services or infrastructure.
Multi-corridor Network

Points

BRT connects to an existing BRT corridor or to the next corridor planned in the
network2

BRT connects to a planned corridor in the BRT network1

No connected BRT network planned or built

0

INFRASTRUCTURE

Passing Lanes at Stations: 4 points maximum
Passing lanes at station stops are critical to allow both express and local services. They also allow stations toaccommodate a high volume of buses without getting congested with buses backed up waiting to enter. While
more difficult to justify in low-demand systems, passing lanes are a good investment, yielding considerable
passenger travel time savings and allowing for flexibility as the system grows.

Passing Lanes

PointsPhysical, dedicated passing lanes

4

Buses overtake in on-coming dedicated lanes2

No passing lanes

0

Minimizing Bus Emissions: 3 points maximum
Bus tailpipe emissions are typically a large source of urban air pollution. Especially at risk are bus passengers and people living
or working near roadsides. In general, the pollutant emissions of highest concern from urban buses are particulate matter (PM)and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Minimizing these emissions is critical to the health of both passengers and the general urban

The BRT Standard 2014 | 13

population.
The primary determinant of tailpipe emission levels is the stringency of governments’ emissions’ standards. While some fuels,
like natural gas, tend to produce lower emissions, new emission controls have enabled even diesel buses to meet extremely
clean standards. Moreover, “clean” fuels do not guarantee low emissions of all pollutants. As a result, our scoring is based on
certified emissions standards rather than fuel type.
Over the last two decades, the European Union and the United States have adopted a series of progressively tighter emissions
standards that are being used for this scoring system. Buses must be in compliance with Euro VI and U.S. 2010 emission
standards to receive 3 points. These standards result in extremely low emissions of both PM and NOx. For diesel vehicles, thesestandards require the use of PM traps, ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, and selective catalytic reduction. To receive two points, buses
need to be certified to Euro IV or V with PM traps (note: 50 ppm sulfur diesel fuel or lower is required for PM traps to function
effectively).
Vehicles certified to the Euro IV and V standards that do not require traps emit twice as much PM as vehicles meeting more
recent standards. Therefore, these vehicles are awarded one point. Ideally, buses will include contractually stipulated
requirements in the purchase order to control real-world NOx emissions from buses in use, because the actual NOx emissions
from urban buses certified to Euro IV and V have been tested at levels substantially higher than certified levels. Because that is
hard to verify, it is included as a recommendation, but not as a requirement, for receiving the one point.
Zero points are awarded for U.S. 2004 and Euro III standards and less stringent standards, because these standards allow ten
times as much PM emissions as the U.S. 2010 and Euro VI standards.
Buses also generate greenhouse gas emissions. Since no clear regulatory framework exists that requires bus manufacturers tomeet specific greenhouse gas emission targets or fuel efficiency standards, there is no obvious way to identify a fuel-efficientbus by vehicle type. For CO2 impacts, we recommend the use of the TEEMP model which incorporates the BRT Standard into a
broader assessment of project-specific CO2 impacts.
Emissions Standards

Points3Euro VI or US 2010
2
Euro IV or V with PM traps or US 2007
1
Euro IV or V or Euro III CNG or using verified PM trap retrofit
0
Below Euro IV or V

Stations Set Back from Intersections: 3 points maximum
Stations should be located at minimum 26 meters, but ideally 40, meters from intersections to avoid delays. Whenstations are located just beyond the intersection, delays can be caused when passengers take a long time to board
or alight and the docked bus blocks others from pulling through the intersection. If stations are located just before
an intersection, the traffic signal can delay buses from moving from the station and thus not allow other buses topull in. The risk of conflict remains acute, particularly as frequency increases. Separating the stations from theintersections is critical to mitigating these problems.
Scoring Guidelines:
The distance from the intersection is defined for the near side of the intersection as the stop line at the intersection
to the front of a bus at the forward-most docking bay and for the far-side of the intersection from the far edge ofthe crosswalk to the back of the bus at the rear-most docking bay.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 14Station Location

Points75% of trunk stations are set back at least 40 m (120 ft.) from intersection or meet at least
one of the following exemptions: Fully exclusive busways with no intersections
 Stations located near intersections due to block length (such as downtowns where
blocks are relatively short)
75% of trunk stations are set back 26m (85 ft) from intersections or meet above exemptions

3

25% of trunk stations are set back 26m (85 ft) from intersections or meet above exemptions

1< 25% of trunk stations are set back 26m (85 ft) from intersections or meet above exemptions

0

2

Center Stations: 2 points maximum
Having a single station serving both directions of the BRT system makes transfers between the two directions easierand more convenient—something that becomes more important as the BRT network expands. It also tends toreduce construction costs and minimize the necessary right-of-way. In some cases, stations may be centrallyaligned but split into two—called split stations—in which each station houses a particular direction of the BRT
system. If a connection between the two directions is not provided, fewer points are awarded.
Bi-lateral stations (those that, while in the central verge, are curb aligned) get no points.
Center Stations

Points

80% and above of trunk stations have center platforms serving both directions of service2

50% of trunk stations

1< 20% of trunk stations

0

Pavement Quality: 2 points maximum
Good-quality pavement ensures better service and operations for a longer period by minimizing the need formaintenance on the busway. Roadways with poor-quality pavement will need to be shut down more frequently forrepairs. Buses will also have to slow down to drive carefully over damaged pavement.
No matter what type of pavement, a 30 year lifespan is recommended. There are several options for the pavement
structure to achieve that with advantages and disadvantages for each. Three examples are described here:
1) Asphalt: Properly designed and constructed, asphalt pavement can last 30+ years with surface replacement
every 10 -12 years. This can be done without interrupting service, resulting in a smooth quiet ride. For stations,rigid pavement is important to use to resist the potential pavement damage due to braking;2) Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP): This type of pavement design can have a 30+ year life. To ensure this life
the pavement must have round dowel bars at the transverse joints, tied lanes by the use of reinforcing steel, andadequate thickness; and
3) Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCR): Continuous slab reinforcement can add additional
pavement strength and might be considered under certain design conditions. It is the most expensive option.
Pavement Materials

PointsPavement structure designed for 30 year life over entire corridor

2

Pavement structure designed for 30 year life only at stations

1

The BRT Standard 2014 | 15

Pavement design life less than 30 years

0

STATION DESIGN AND STATION-BUS INTERFACE
Distances Between Stations: 2 points maximum
In a consistently built-up area, the distance between station stops optimizes at around 450 meters (1,476 ft.)
between stations. Beyond this, more time is imposed on customers walking to stations than is saved by higher bus
speeds. Below this distance, bus speeds will be reduced by more than the time saved with shorter walking
distances. Thus, in keeping reasonably consistent with optimal station spacing, average distances between stations
should not exceed 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), and should not be below 0.3 km (0.2 mi.).
Scoring Guidelines: 2 points should be awarded if stations are spaced, on average, less than 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) andmore than 0.3 km (0.2 mi.).
Distance Between Stations

PointsStations are spaced, on average, between 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) and 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) apart2

Safe and Comfortable Stations: 3 points maximum
One of the main distinguishing features of a BRT system as opposed to standard bus service is a safe andcomfortable station environment. Stations should have an internal width of at least 3 meters. Stations should be
weather protected, including from wind, rain, snow, heat and/or cold, as appropriate to the conditions in a specificlocation. Safe stations that are well-lit, transparent and have security – whether through security guards or cameras– are essential to maintaining ridership. A clear intention to create attractive stations is also important to the imageof the system.

Scoring Guidelines:

Stations should have at least 3.0 m (10.5 ft.) of internal width. This is the definition for “wide” in thescoring chart below.
Stations

PointsAll trunk corridor stations are wide, attractive, weather-protected

3

Most trunk corridor stations are wide, attractive, weather-protected2Some trunk corridor stations are wide, attractive, weather-protected

1

No trunk corridor stations are wide, attractive, weather-protected

0

Number of Doors on Bus: 3 points maximum
The speed of boarding and alighting is partially a function of the number of bus doors. Much like a subway inwhich a car has multiple wide doors, buses need the same in order to let higher volumes people on and off thebuses. One door or narrow doorways become bottlenecks that delay the bus.
Scoring Guidelines:
Buses need to have 3 or more doors on the station side of the bus for articulated buses or two wide doors on thestation side of the bus for regular (non-articulated) buses and allow boarding through all doors to qualify for the
below points.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 16

Percentage of Buses with 3+ doors or 2 Wide Doors on the station side and alldoor boarding

Points

100%

3

65%

2

35%

1

< 35%

0

Docking Bays and Sub-stops: 1 point maximum
Multiple docking bays and sub-stops not only increase the capacity of a station, they help stations provide multiple
services at the station as well.
A station is composed of sub-stops that can connect to one another, but should be separated by a walkway longenough to allow buses to pass one sub-stop to dock at another. This reduces the risk of congestion by allowing abus to pass a full sub-stop where buses can let passengers on and off. They are usually adjacent to each other andallow a second bus to pull up behind another bus already at the station. A station may be composed of only one
sub-stop.
At minimum, a station needs one sub-stop and two docking bays. It is usually recommended that one sub-stop nothave more than two docking bays, but at that point another sub-stop should be added. Multiple docking bays andsub-stops are important regardless of the level of ridership.
Docking Bays and Sub-stops

PointsAt least two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest demand stations

1

Less than two sub-stops or docking bays at the highest demand stations

0

Sliding Doors in BRT Stations: 1 point maximum
Sliding doors where passengers get on and off the buses inside the stations improve the quality of the station
environment, reduce the risk of accidents, and prevent pedestrians from entering the station in unauthorized
locations.
Sliding Doors

PointsAll stations have sliding doors

1

Otherwise0

QUALITY OF SERVICE AND PASSENGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Branding: 3 points maximum
BRT promises a high quality of service, which is reinforced by having a unique brand and identity.

Branding

PointsAll buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand of entire BRT
system3

All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, but different
from rest of the system

2Some buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, regardless

1

The BRT Standard 2014 | 17

of rest of the system
No corridor brand0

Passenger Information: 2 points maximum
Numerous studies have shown that passenger satisfaction is linked to knowing when the next bus will arrive.
Giving passengers information is critical to a positive overall experience.
Real-time passenger information includes electronic panels, digital audio messaging (“Next bus” at stations, “Nextstop” on buses), and/or dynamic information on handheld devices. Static passenger information refers to stationand vehicle signage, including network maps, route maps, local area maps, emergency indications, and other user
information.
Passenger Information (at stations and on vehicles)

PointsFunctioning real-time and up-to-date static passenger information corridor-wide2

Up-to-date static passenger information

1

Very poor or no passenger information0

INTEGRATION AND ACCESS

Universal Access: 3 points maximum
A BRT system should be accessible to all special-needs customers, including those who are physically-, visually-,
and/or hearing-impaired, as well as those with temporary disabilities, the elderly, children, parents with strollers,and other load-carrying passengers.
Scoring Guidelines:
Full accessibility means that all trunk stations, vehicles, and fare gates are universally accessible for wheelchairs.
System includes drop curbs at all immediate intersections, Braille readers at all stations, and Tactile Ground Surface
Indicators leading to all stations.
Universal Accessibility

PointsFull accessibility at all stations and vehicles

3

Partial accessibility at all stations and vehicles

2

Full or partial accessibility at some stations and vehicles

1

Corridor not universally accessible

0

Integration with Other Public Transport: 3 points maximum
Often, when a BRT system is built in a city, a functioning public transport network already exists, be it rail, bus, orminibus. The BRT system should integrate into the rest of the public transport network. There are two components
to BRT integration:
Physical transfer points: Physical transfer points should minimize walking between modes, be wellsized, and not require passengers to exit one system and enter another; Fare payment: The fare system should be integrated so that one fare card may be used for all modes.
Information integration is also important and should undergird all other forms of integration.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 18

Scoring Guidelines:
The BRT corridor should integrate physically with other public transport modes where lines cross. If no lines cross,points may still be awarded for physical integration. If no other formal public transport modes exist in the city, fullpoints may be awarded for all aspects of integration.
Integration with other public transport

PointsIntegration of both physical design and fare payment

3

Integration of physical design or fare payment only2

No integration0

Pedestrian Access: 3 points maximum
A BRT system could be extremely well-designed and functioning but if passengers cannot access it safely, it cannot
achieve its goals. Good pedestrian access is imperative in BRT system design. Additionally, as a new BRT system is agood opportunity for street and public-space redesign, existing pedestrian environments along the corridor shouldbe improved.
Good pedestrian access is defined as:At-grade pedestrian crossings where pedestrians cross a maximum of two lanes of traffic before reaching apedestrian refuge (sidewalk, median);

If crossing more than two lanes at once, a signalized crosswalk is provided;Well-lit crosswalks where the footpath remains level and continuous;

While at-grade crossings are preferred, pedestrian bridges or underpasses with working escalators orelevators can also be considered;Sidewalks along corridor are at least 3 meters wide.

Pedestrian Access

PointsGood, safe pedestrian access at every station and for a 500-meter catchment area surrounding the corridor

3

Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and many improvements along corridor

2

Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and modest improvements along corridor

1

Not every station has good, safe pedestrian access and little improvement along corridor

0

Secure Bicycle Parking: 2 points maximum
The provision of bicycle parking at stations is necessary for passengers who wish to use bicycles as feeders to the
BRT system. Formal bicycle parking facilities that are secure (either by an attendant or observed by security
camera) and weather protected are more likely to be used by passengers.
Bicycle Parking

PointsSecure bicycle parking at least in terminal stations
and standard bicycle racks elsewhere

2Standard bicycle racks in most stations

1

Little or no bicycle parking

0

The BRT Standard 2014 | 19

Bicycle Lanes: 2 points maximum
Bicycle-lane networks integrated with the BRT corridor improve customer access, provide a full set of sustainable
travel options, and enhance road safety.
Bicycle lanes should ideally connect major residential areas, commercial centers, schools, and business centers to
nearby BRT stations in order to provide the widest access. All such major destinations within at least two
kilometers of a trunk corridor should be connected by a formal cycle way.
Moreover, in most cities, the best BRT corridors are also the most desirable bicycle routes, as they are often theroutes with the greatest travel demand. Yet there is a shortage of safe cycling infrastructure on those same
corridors. If some accommodation for cyclists is not made, it is possible that cyclists may use the busway. If thebusway has not been designed for dual bike and bus use, it is a safety risk for cyclists. Bicycle lanes should be built
either within the same corridor or on a nearby parallel street and are at least 2m, for each direction, of unimpeded
width.
Bicycle Lanes

PointsBicycle lanes on or parallel to entire corridor

2

Bicycle lanes do not span entire corridor

1

No bicycle infrastructure0

Bicycle-sharing Integration: 1 point maximum
Having the option to make short trips from the BRT corridor by a shared bicycle is important to providing
connectivity to some destinations. Operating costs of providing bus service to the last mile (i.e., feeder buses) areoften the highest cost of maintaining a BRT network, thus providing a low-cost bicycle-sharing alternative tofeeders is generally seen as best practice.
Bicycle-Sharing Integration

PointsBicycle-sharing at 50% of trunk stations minimum

1

Bicycle-sharing at less than 50% of trunk stations

0

Point deductions
Point deductions are only relevant to systems already in operation. They have been introduced as a way of
mitigating the risk of recognizing a system as high quality that has made significant design errors or has significant
management and performance weaknesses not readily observable during the design phase. The penalties from
improperly sizing the infrastructure and operations or from poor system management are as follows:

Commercial Speeds: -10 points maximum
Most of the design features included in the scoring system will always result in higher speeds. However, there is an
exception: higher demand systems in which too many buses carrying too many passengers have been concentrated
into a single lane. In this case, bus speeds could be lower than in mixed traffic conditions. To mitigate the risk ofrewarding such a system with a quality standard, this penalty was imposed
Scoring Guidelines: The minimum average commercial speed refers to the system-wide average speed and not the
average speed at the slowest link. Where commercial speed is not readily available, the full penalty should be
imposed if buses are backing up at many BRT stations or junctions.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 20

Commercial Speeds

PointsMinimum average commercial speed is 20 kph and above0

Minimum average commercial speed is 16 kph – 19 kph-3Minimum average commercial speed is 14 kph – 16 kph-6Minimum average commercial speed is 14 kph and below-10

Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd) Below 1,000: -5 points
BRT systems with ridership levels below 1,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) during the peak hour are
carrying fewer passengers than a normal mixed-traffic lane. Very low ridership can be an indication that other bus
services continue to operate in the corridor along side, and competing with, the BRT system. Alternatively, it
indicates that a corridor was poorly selected.
Almost all cities have corridors carrying at least 1,000 pphpd during the peak hour. Many cities, however, havecorridors where transit demand is very low, even below this level. While many Gold-Standard BRT features would
still bring benefits in these conditions, it is unlikely that such levels would justify the cost and dedicated right-ofway intrinsic to BRT. This penalty has been created to penalize systems which have done a poor job of service
planning or corridor selection, while not overly penalizing smaller, car-oriented cities with low transit demand.
Scoring Guidelines: All five points should be deducted if the ridership on the link in the corridor with maximum
peak-hour ridership is under 1,000 pphpd in the peak hour. Otherwise, no deduction is necessary.
Passengers per Hour per Direction (PPHPD) in Peak Hour

Points

PPHPD below 1,000 in peak hour-5Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way: -5 points maximum
A BRT system may have a good alignment and physical separation, but if the right-of-way is not enforced, bus
speeds will decline. This penalty addresses systems that do not adequately enforce the busway to prevent
encroachment from other vehicles. There are multiple and somewhat context specific means of enforcing theexclusive right-of-way. The committee generally recommends on-board camera enforcement and regular policing at
points of frequent encroachment, coupled with high fines for violators, to minimize invasions of the lanes by nonauthorized vehicles. Camera enforcement at high-risk locations is somewhat less effective, however, the selectionof appropriate enforcement is left to local conditions.
Lack of Enforcement

PointsRegular encroachment on BRT right-of-way-5

Some encroachment on BRT right-of-way-3

Occasional encroachment on BRT right-of-way-1

Significant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform: -5 points maximum
Even systems that have been designed to accommodate platform-level boarding could have gaps if the buses do
not dock properly. A significant gap between the platform and the bus floor undermines the time-savings benefitsof platform-level boarding and introduces a significant safety risk for passengers. Such gaps could occur for avariety of reasons, from poor basic design to poor driver training. Technical opinion varies on the best way to

The BRT Standard 2014 | 21

minimize the gap. Most experts feel that optical guidance systems are more expensive and less effective than
measures such as the use of simple painted alignment markers and special curbs at station platforms where thedrivers are able to feel the wheel touching the curb, yet the curb does not damage the wheel. Boarding bridges areused successfully in many systems and would tend to eliminate gap problems.
Note: If a system does not have platform-level boarding by design, no penalty points should be given.
Gap Minimization

Points

Large gaps everywhere or kneeling buses required to minimize gaps

-5

Slight gap remaining at some stations, large gap at remaining stations-4

Slight gap at most stations-3

No gap at some stations, slight gap at remaining stations-2

No gap at most stations, slight gap at remaining stations-1

No gap at all stations0

Overcrowding: -5 points maximumThis was included because many systems which are generally well-designed are so overcrowded that they become
alienating to passengers. While average “passenger standing density” is a reasonable indicator, getting thisinformation is not easy so we have allowed a more subjective measure to be used in cases of obvious
overcrowding.
Scoring Guidelines: The full penalty should be imposed if the average passenger density during the peak hour isgreater than five passengers per square meter (0.46 per square ft.) on more than 25% of buses in the predominantdirection, or the average passenger density during the peak hour is greater than three passengers per square meter(0.28 per square ft) at stations.
If this metric is not easily calculated, then clearly visible signs of overcrowding on buses or in stations should be
used, such as doors on the buses regularly being unable to close, stations overcrowded with passengers because
they are unable to board full buses, etc.
Overcrowding

Points

Passenger density during peak hour on more than 25% of buses in peak direction is > 5 m 2,
OR

-5

Passenger density during the peak hour at one or more stations is > 3 m2, OR
Passengers unable to board buses or enter stations

Poorly maintained busway, buses, stations, and technology systems: -10 points maximum
Even a BRT system that is well built and attractive can fall into disrepair. It is important that the busway, buses,
stations and technology systems be regularly maintained. A corridor can be penalized for each type of poor
maintenance listed below for a total of -10 points.
Maintenance of Buses and Stations

PointsBusway has significant wear, including potholes, warping, trash, debris, snow

-4

Buses have graffiti, litter, seats in disrepair-2

Stations have graffiti, litter, occupancy by vagrants or vendors, or have structural damage-2

The BRT Standard 2014 | 22

Technology systems, including fare collection machines, are not functional-2

Low Peak Frequency: -3 points maximum
How often the bus comes during peak travel times such as rush hour is a good proxy for quality of service. In orderfor BRT to be truly competitive with alternative modes, like the private automobile, passengers need to be
confident that their wait times will be short and the next bus will arrive soon.
Scoring Guidelines:
Peak frequency is measured by the number of buses observed per hour for each route that passes the highestdemand segment on the corridor during the peak period. The peak frequency deduction is then allocated based on
the percentage of routes that have a frequency of at least eight buses per hour in the peak period. If observations
are not able to be made, frequencies may be obtained through route schedules.
% routes with at least 8 buses per hour

Points100% have at least 8 buses per hour

075% have at least 8 buses per hour-150% have at least 8 buses per hour-2

< 50% have at least 8 buses per hour-3

Low Off-peak Frequency: -2 points maximum
As with peak frequency, how often the bus comes during off-peak travel times is a good proxy for quality of service.
Scoring Guidelines:
Off-peak frequency is measured by the buses per hour of each route passing through the highest-demand segmenton the corridor during the off-peak (mid-day) period. The off-peak frequency score is then determined based on
the percentage of all routes that have a frequency of at least four buses per hour during the off-peak period.

% routes with at least 4 buses per hour

Points100% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour

060% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour-1

< 60% of all routes have at least 4 buses per hour-2

Using the BRT Standard to Evaluate Rail Transit Corridors
The BRT Standard was specifically designed by BRT experts to be applied to BRT corridors. However, almost all of
the elements in the BRT Standard could easily be applied to rail transit corridors (including streetcar, tram, light rail,
and metro) with minimal modification. Using the BRT Standard to evaluate rail transit corridors would allow users
to assess the general quality of rail transit services and compare them to other transit corridors, including BRT. It
could also provide a more standard definition of rapid transit and determine which rail transit corridors meet thatdefinition. The following section briefly describes a preliminary concept of how the BRT Standard might be applied
to rail transit corridors.
BRT Basics

The BRT Standard 2014 | 23

The BRT Standard defines the BRT Basics as a set of elements essential to a service being called BRT. Theseelements all aim to minimize vehicle delay, thus ensuring the “rapid” component of a bus rapid transit system.
These same criteria can be applied without modification to rail transit corridors to assess whether they meet amore general definition of rapid transit as well.
Terminology
The BRT Standard often refers to the busway, BRT, and buses. When using the BRT Standard to assess rail transit
corridors, these should be substituted with transitways, Rapid Transit, and transit vehicles throughout the text. The
definitions of a trunk corridor would also need to be modified to account for rail.
Pavement quality
The BRT Standard metric of pavement quality should be modified to evaluate rail quality. ITDP is engaging with railtransit experts, who understand how rail is designed for more guidance on this section. In the mean time, theevaluation of the railbed and tracks can be scored based on whether they are designed to a 30 year lifespan or not.
Signaling
The distance between rail vehicles is largely governed by the type of signal system that is used. Better signals canallow for increased headways and improved service. Since BRT systems are not limited by signal systems, this is nota part of the BRT Standard. To evaluate rail transit corridors, ideally, a separate section would be added to addresssignal systems, with BRTs automatically scoring maximum points. ITDP is consulting rail experts as to how thissection might be developed. Until that work is completed, signaling considerations could simply be ignored, as theeffects of low-quality signal systems (overcrowding) are likely captured by some of the point deductions for
operations.
Elements Specific to BRT
Some elements of the BRT Standard are more exclusive to BRT systems. For example, very few metro and light railsystems offer express, limited, and local services or multiple routes operating on the same corridor. There are,however, prominent rail examples of both, such as the New York City Subway or the Lyon Tramway. These elements
provide a higher quality of transit service and should be retained even if they seldom result in points for railsystems.
Grade Separated Systems
Fully grade separated electric rail transit systems, such as metro, will likely receive maximum points in a number ofcategories, including Transitway Alignment, Off-board fare collection, Intersection treatments, Minimizing
emissions, stations set back from intersections, and Platform-level boarding. This is logical, as grade separation
removes many of the sources of delay that a transit system might encounter, making them more likely to achievegold standard.

The BRT Standard 2014 | 24