Bus Rapid Transit: Good Practice Guide
Bus Rapid Transit: Good Practice Guide
Bus Rapid
Transit
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
............................................................................................................
3
1
BACKGROUND
..................................................................................................................
4
1.1
PURPOSE
..............................................................................................................................
4
1.2
INTRODUCTION
......................................................................................................................
4
2
BUS
RAPID
TRANSIT
(BRT)
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
.............................................................
4
2.1
WHAT
IS
BRT?
......................................................................................................................
4
2.2
WHAT
CONSTITUTES
GOOD
BRT
SYSTEM
DESIGN?
.........................................................................
5
2.3
BENEFITS
OF
BRT
...................................................................................................................
6
3
GOOD
PRACTICE
APPROACHES
FOR
DELIVERING
A
SUCCESSFUL
BRT
..................................
8
3.1
CATEGORIES
OF
BEST
PRACTICE
.................................................................................................
8
3.2
ADOPT
HOLISTIC
PLANNING
FOR
A
HIGH-‐CAPACITY
BRT
CORRIDOR
....................................................
9
Case
study:
Rio
de
Janeiro
-‐
TransOeste
BRT
.............................................................................
9
Case
study:
Guangzhou
-‐
BRT
Corridor
....................................................................................
10
3.3
DEVELOP
BENCHMARKING
AND
MEASURE
THE
IMPACTS
OF
BRT
.....................................................
11
Case
study:
Istanbul
-‐
Metrobüs
system
..................................................................................
12
3.4
FOCUS
ON
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
AND
COMMUNICATIONS
....................................................
12
Case
study:
Buenos
Aires
-‐
Stakeholder
management
for
BRT
Corridors
................................
13
Case
study:
Tshwane
–
Stakeholder
engagement
in
“A
Re
Yeng”
...........................................
13
3.5
INTEGRATE
BRT
WITH
OTHER
MEANS
OF
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
AND
URBAN
PLANNING
...........................
14
Case
study:
Curitiba
-‐
Bus
Rapid
Transit
Modernisation
..........................................................
14
3.6
UTILISE
INNOVATIVE
FINANCING
MECHANISMS
............................................................................
15
Case
study:
Johannesburg
-‐
Green
Bond
.................................................................................
16
4
FURTHER
READING
..........................................................................................................
16
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Transportation
plays
a
crucial
role
in
cities
as
it
significantly
impacts
the
quality
of
people’s
lives
and
is
often
the
key
means
of
accessing
education,
employment
and
essential
services.
At
the
same
time,
transportation
is
the
sector
where
global
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
are
rising
most
quickly.
In
2010,
the
transport
sector
accounted
for
27%
of
final
energy
use,
and
CO2
emissions
from
the
sector
could
almost
double
by
2050
if
steps
are
not
taken
to
counter
this
trend.i
As
emissions
from
private
motor
vehicle
use
rise,
adopting
measures
to
shift
these
trips
to
public
transit
is
critical.
As
one
of
the
main
components
of
a
comprehensive
public
transportation
system
that
may
include
motorised
and
non-‐motorised
elements,
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(BRT)
delivers
significant
benefits
to
cities,
while
requiring
significantly
less
time
and
resources
to
build
and
begin
operation
than
other
comparable
alternatives.ii
A
BRT
is
a
high-‐quality
bus-‐based
transit
system
that
delivers
fast,
comfortable,
and
cost-‐effective
services
at
metro-‐level
capacities
at
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
It
can
be
expanded
in
phases
as
funding
becomes
available
–
allowing
costs
to
be
dealt
with
over
time
-‐
and
is
faster
to
implement
than
other
rapid
transit
services
(metro,
light
rail,
etc.).
These
projects,
programmes
and
policies
not
only
reduce
emissions
but
also
save
travel
time,
reduce
local
air
pollution,
improve
traffic
safety
and
encourage
physical
activity.
This
Good
Practice
Guide
focuses
on
the
key
elements
to
successfully
develop
a
high-‐quality
BRT
system,
leading
to
better
economic,
social,
and
environmental
outcomes
for
cities.
These
good
practice
approaches
include:
The
C40
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(BRT)
Network
was
established
to
support
C40
cities’
efforts
to
develop
successful
BRT
programs,
incorporating
infrastructure,
technology,
scheduling,
and
financing
solutions.
The
C40
BRT
network
currently
has
16
participating
cities
and
is
led
by
Buenos
Aires
and
Johannesburg.
The
purpose
of
this
Good
Practice
Guide
is
to
summarise
the
key
elements
of
BRT
good
practice
for
global
dissemination,
highlighting
the
success
of
C40
cities
in
planning
and
delivering
a
high-‐
quality
public
transit
systems.
3
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 Purpose
The
C40
Cities
Climate
Leadership
Group
has
developed
a
series
of
Good
Practice
Guides
in
areas
critical
for
reducing
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
and
climate
risk.
The
C40
Good
Practice
Guides
provide
an
overview
of
the
key
benefits
of
a
particular
climate
action
and
outline
successful
approaches
and
strategies
cities
can
employ
to
effectively
scale
up
these
actions.
These
Guides
are
based
on
the
experience
and
lessons
learned
from
C40
cities,
and
on
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
leading
organisations
and
research
institutions
engaged
in
these
areas.
The
following
Good
Practice
Guide
focuses
on
the
key
elements
necessary
to
successfully
develop
a
good
BRT
system,
leading
to
better
economic,
social,
and
environmental
outcomes
for
cities.
These
approaches
are
relevant
for
cities
engaged
in
C40’s
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(BRT)
Network
as
well
as
for
other
cities
around
the
world.
1.2 Introduction
Transportation
plays
a
crucial
role
in
cities
as
it
significantly
impacts
the
quality
of
people’s
lives
and
is
often
the
key
means
of
accessing
education,
employment
and
essential
services.
At
the
same
time,
global
GHG
emissions
are
rising
most
quickly
in
the
transportation
sector,
which
accounted
for
27%
of
final
energy
use
in
2010.
Baseline
CO2
emissions
from
the
sector
could
almost
double
by
2050
if
steps
are
not
taken
to
counter
this
trend.iii
C40
cities
alone
emit
around
336mn
tonnes/year
from
transport
(2011).iv
Fortunately,
this
sector
also
presents
many
opportunities
to
reduce
emissions.
Transport
is
a
key
action
area
for
C40
member
cities,
with
mayors
exercising
strong
powers
over
the
sector.
In
fact,
approximately
90%
of
C40
cities
are
taking
action
on
transport.v
Bus
Rapid
Transit
(BRT)
is
a
high-‐quality
bus-‐based
transit
system
that
delivers
fast,
comfortable,
and
cost-‐effective
services
at
metro-‐level
capacities.
It
does
this
through
the
provision
of
dedicated
lanes,
with
bus-‐ways
and
iconic
stations
ideally
aligned
to
the
centre
of
the
road,
off-‐board
fare
collection,
and
fast
and
frequent
operations.
Because
BRT
contains
similar
features
to
a
light
rail
or
metro
system,
it
is
much
more
reliable,
convenient
and
faster
than
regular
bus
services.
With
the
right
design,
BRT
is
able
to
avoid
most
of
the
causes
of
delay
that
typically
slow
down
regular
bus
services,
like
being
stuck
in
traffic
or
4
queuing
to
pay
on
board.
As
a
safer,
cleaner,
and
more
efficient
mode
of
transport
that
gives
people
more
time
for
their
personal
lives,
BRT
is
a
smart
solution
to
cities’
urban
transport
challenges.
As
a
growing
transport
solution
in
both
developed
and
developing
countries,
BRT
and
improved
bus-‐way
systems
already
have
a
combined
daily
ridership
of
more
than
32
million
people
in
200
cities
around
the
world.vi
C40’s
own
research
for
Climate
Action
in
Megacities
3.0vii
revealed
that,
following
the
lead
of
Latin
American
cities
like
Curitiba
and
Bogotá,
42
C40
cities
now
have
or
are
planning
to
develop
BRT
systems;
over
half
of
these
are
in
the
northern
hemisphere.
This
analysis
supports
the
scaling
up
of
BRT
systems
across
the
globe,
in
addition
to
offering
recommendations
for
policymakers,
technical
experts,
and
financing
bodies
to
maximize
the
benefits
of
BRT.
The
Institute
for
Transportation
&
Development
Policy
(ITDP) viii ,
a
key
C40
partner,
has
identified
a
number
of
crucial
design
elements
that
are
associated
with
high-‐performing
BRT
systems.
As
such,
when
cities
wish
to
implement
BRT
systems,
these
elements
should
be
assessed
and
included
in
order
to
deliver
systems
that
maximize
the
benefits
of
Bus
Rapid
Transit.
The
ITDP
standards
can
be
found
at:
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-‐and-‐guides/the-‐bus-‐rapid-‐transit-‐standard/the-‐
scorecard/
A
basic
set
of
general
principles
to
follow
in
order
to
develop
a
good
BRT
system
and
reduce
GHG
emissions
has
also
been
identified
within
the
C40
BRT
Network:
• Develop
a
greater
degree
of
integration
between
spatial
and
transport
planning
to
encourage
compact
development
patterns,
to
reduce
car
use
and
promote
more
sustainable
travel
patterns;
• Ensure
improved
alternatives
to
the
use
of
private
car
are
provided,
including
more
sustainable,
higher
occupancy
modes
of
transport
(e.g.
mass
transit/public
transport
and
non-‐motorised
transport
modes);
and
• Establish
better
management
of
road
space
and
the
transport
demand
(e.g.
via
parking
policy,
congestion
pricing,
incentives,
raising
awareness
of
sustainable
forms
of
travel).
In
accordance
with
the
ITDP
standards
and
accepted
best
practices,
the
BRT
system
should
include
the
following
key
basic
elements,
to
be
considered
early
in
the
planning
process:
Dedicated
right-‐of-‐way:
A
dedicated
right-‐of-‐way
is
vital
to
ensuring
that
buses
can
move
quickly,
and
are
unimpeded
by
congestion.
Physical
design
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
ensure
buses
provide
a
strong
alternative
to
private
cars.
In
these
areas,
it
becomes
even
more
important
to
take
a
lane
away
from
mixed
traffic
to
dedicate
it
as
a
busway.
5
Busway
alignment:
The
busway
is
best
located
where
conflicts
with
other
traffic
can
be
minimized,
especially
from
turning
movements
from
mixed-‐traffic
lanes.
In
most
cases,
a
busway
in
the
central
verge
of
a
roadway
encounters
fewer
conflicts
with
turning
vehicles
than
those
closer
to
the
curb,
due
to
alleys,
parking
lots,
etc.
Off-‐board
fare
collection:
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:
“turnstile-‐controlled”,
where
passengers
pass
through
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
that
is
then
checked
on
board
the
vehicle
by
an
inspector.
Intersection
treatments:
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
are
the
most
important.
Platform-‐level
boarding:
Having
the
bus-‐station
platform
level
with
the
bus
floor
facilitates
universal
access,
and
is
one
of
the
most
important
ways
of
reducing
boarding
and
alighting
times
per
passenger.
Passengers
climbing
even
relatively
minor
steps
can
mean
significant
delay,
particularly
for
the
elderly,
disabled,
or
people
with
suitcases
or
strollers.
Other
elements
to
consider:
Operating
multiple
routes
along
a
corridor;
operating
express
BRT
services
along
with
local
services;
operating
a
central
control
centre;
introducing
passing
lanes
at
stations;
switching
to
low
emission
vehicles;
setting
stations
back
from
junctions
to
avoid
delays;
building
safe
and
comfortable
stations
with
a
minimum
width
of
3m;
having
multiple
doors
on
buses;
using
unique
BRT
branding;
providing
access
for
those
with
mobility
needs;
integrating
the
BRT
with
other
forms
of
public
transport;
and
ensuring
a
good
pedestrian
access
to
and
from
the
BRT.
Whilst
cities
should
aspire
to
delivering
a
gold
standard
BRT
scheme,
it
is
accepted
that
local
conditions
may
prevent
the
integration
of
all
the
elements
listed
above.
However,
the
more
these
elements
are
included
within
a
BRT
scheme,
the
more
likely
the
BRT
is
to
deliver
the
wide
assortment
of
benefits
listed
below.
Research
from
EMBARQ,
Social,
Environmental
and
Economic
Impacts
of
Bus
Rapid
Transit
Systems
(2013),ix
examined
global
evidence
as
well
as
four
in-‐depth
case
studies
of
BRT
systems
in
Bogotá,
Colombia;
Mexico
City,
Mexico;
Johannesburg,
South
Africa;
and
Istanbul,
Turkey.
It
concluded
that
BRT
improves
quality
of
urban
life
in
at
least
four
key
ways,
to
which
a
fifth
one
has
been
added:
6
Travel-‐time
savings:
Dedicated
bus
lanes
that
separate
BRT
buses
from
mixed
traffic,
pre-‐paid
boarding
and
level
platforms
speed
up
passenger
boarding,
whilst
traffic
signal
management
prioritizes
BRT
buses.
High-‐frequency
bus
service
also
minimizes
waiting
times
to
help
save
travel
time
for
passengers.
These
features
have
a
significant
positive
impact
in
cities
where
BRT
systems
operate.
In
Johannesburg,
BRT
users
save
an
average
of
13
minutes
each
way
during
their
daily
commutes.
In
Istanbul,
the
savings
are
even
greater
–
the
typical
Metrobüs
passenger
saves
52
minutes
per
day.
The
TransOeste
BRT
corridor
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
has
reduced
inner
city
trips
from
one
hour
and
40
minutes
to
45
minutesx.
With
the
‘9
de
Julio’
corridor
in
Buenos
Aires,
travel
time
was
reduced
from
55
minutes
to
less
than
20.xi
Mexico
City
stands
to
save
US$141
million
in
regained
economic
productivity
as
a
result
of
travel
time
reductions
from
Metrobús
Line
3.
GHG
and
local
air
pollutant
emissions
reductions:
BRT
reduces
the
overall
amount
of
vehicle
kilometres
travelled
(VKT)
in
a
city
by
shifting
commuters
to
high-‐capacity
buses
that
can
carry
up
to
160
passengers
at
a
time.
Setting
up
a
new
BRT
system
also
provides
cities
with
an
opportunity
to
scrap
older,
more
polluting
traditional
vehicles.
The
incorporation
of
modern
fuel
efficiency
technologies
into
BRT
buses
and
better
driver
training
contributes
to
lower
fuel
consumption
and
emissions.
Introducing
a
new
BRT
corridor
therefore
has
major
implications
not
just
for
GHG
emissions,
but
also
for
air
pollution.
Around
the
world,
urban
buses
account
for
25%
of
black
carbon
emissions
from
all
passenger
and
commercial
goods
transport
vehicles
in
2015. xii
Cleaner
vehicle
technologies
and
fuels
lower
the
concentration
of
ambient
air
pollution
and
reduce
the
time
passengers
are
exposed
to
air
pollution
at
stations
or
inside
the
buses.
For
example,
Metrobús
Line
3
in
Mexico
City
is
poised
to
eliminate
more
than
2,000
days
of
lost
work
due
to
illness,
four
new
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis,
and
two
deaths
per
year,
saving
the
city
an
estimated
US$
4.5
million.
In
Buenos
Aires,
the
target
is
to
have
four
additional
BRT
corridors
in
2015,
reaching
1.2
million
passengers
every
day
over
a
distance
of
56
kilometres,
with
a
reduction
of
49,000
tons
of
CO2e
per
year.
In
Johannesburg,
the
city
aims
to
move
200,000
passengers
per
average
weekday
on
the
Rea
Vaya
BRT
system
by
2018
and
is
working
to
ensure
that
the
BRT
buses
will
be
low
carbon
emitters,
reducing
carbon
emissions
by
1.6
million
tons
by
2020.
Traffic
safety
improvements:
Implementing
BRT
systems
contributes
to
reductions
in
traffic
accidents
and
fatalities
in
several
key
ways.
First,
an
overall
reduction
in
VKT
results
in
fewer
drivers
on
the
road
and
a
safer
transport
environment
for
drivers,
pedestrians,
and
cyclists
alike.
Second,
dedicated
bus
lanes
reduce
interaction
between
buses
and
other
vehicles,
minimizing
the
risk
of
accidents.
Finally,
BRT
can
change
bus
drivers’
behaviour
by
reducing
on-‐
the-‐road
competition
with
other
vehicles
and
providing
opportunities
to
improve
driver
training.
7
The
case
of
Latin
America
showcases
BRT’s
safety
benefits:
streets
with
BRT
systems
experienced
a
40%
reduction
in
fatalities
and
injuries
on
average.
Further
evidence
suggests
that
BRT
and
other
forms
of
sustainable
transport
are
under-‐acknowledged
components
of
traffic
safety
planning,
with
an
enormous
potential
to
reduce
traffic
crashes
and
save
lives.
Increased
physical
activity:
BRT
systems
also
increase
physical
activity
for
passengers,
thanks
to
the
spacing
of
BRT
terminals,
which
tend
to
require
longer
walking
distances
than
private
vehicles
and
other
motorized
modes
of
transport.
Despite
the
distance,
shorter
overall
travel
times
make
BRT
worth
the
walk,
with
passengers
across
the
world
consistently
moving
through
the
city
faster,
even
with
more
time
spent
getting
to
the
bus
terminals.
Mexico
City’s
Metrobús
passengers
walk
an
average
of
2.75
minutes
more
per
day
than
before
the
city
implemented
its
BRT
system.
Users
of
Beijing’s
BRT
system
have
added
8.5
minutes
of
daily
walking
as
a
result
of
the
BRT.
Meeting
other
social
aims:
BRT
projects
often
have
a
strong
social
component,
and
can
enable
a
city
to
deliver
on
its
social
justice
and
empowerment
objective.
For
example,
Johannesburg
is
working
to
empower
marginalised
groups,
and
the
BRT
is
supporting
this
objective
–
as
the
largest
proportion
of
BRT
users
in
Johannesburg
are
low
and
middle-‐income
groups.
By
2020,
the
city
aims
to
set
up
at
least
three
bus
operating
companies
that
are
majority-‐owned
by
previously
disadvantaged
public
transport
operators.
These
findings
are
supported
by
multiple
case
studies
and
examples
emerging
from
across
C40
cities,
referenced
in
Section
3
below.
Within
the
BRT
Network,
there
are
a
number
of
different
strategies
that
cities
are
pursuing
to
achieve
their
desired
outcomes.
Which
type
of
approach
a
city
chooses
to
deploy
to
reach
its
goal
depends
on:
• Powers
that
the
city
Mayor
has
over
transport
versus
the
state
or
national
governments
• The
legislative
context
at
a
regional
and
national
level
• The
asset
ownership
structure,
i.e.
who
owns
buses,
stations
and
other
infrastructure
• Relationships
with
bus
operators
and
other
agencies
• Citizen
engagement
and
buy-‐in
• Availability
of
project
financing
8
In
order
to
address
these
issues,
and
deliver
a
strong
BRT
system,
a
few
key
best
practice
approaches
that
C40
cities
have
highlighted
include:
• Adopt
holistic
planning
for
a
high-‐capacity
BRT
corridor
• Develop
benchmarking
and
measure
the
impacts
of
BRT
• Focus
on
strong
stakeholder
engagement
and
communications
• Integrate
BRT
with
other
means
of
public
transport
and
urban
planning
• Utilise
innovative
financing
mechanisms
We
have
identified
the
following
case
studies,
which
sit
in
each
of
these
categories
and
demonstrate
best
practice
for
cities
in
the
C40
BRT
Network.
Holistic
planning
for
a
BRT
corridor
aims
to
ensure
that
two
main
characteristics
of
a
successful
BRT
are
achieved.
First,
the
corridor
is
well-‐designed,
and
that
elements
such
as
dedicated
right-‐of-‐way,
busway
alignment,
off-‐board
fare
collection,
intersection
treatments,
and
platform-‐level
boarding
are
collectively
considered
and
built
into
the
design
of
a
new
system
or
corridor.
Second,
the
corridor
is
well
integrated,
and
is
ideally
linked
to
high-‐density
areas,
promotes
seamless
transfers
between
modes,
provides
pedestrian
access,
secure
bicycle
parking,
bicycle
lanes
and
bicycle-‐sharing
integration,
allowing
it
to
attract
and
retain
a
variety
of
transport
users
and
expand
the
catchment
area
of
the
BRT.
Holistic
planning
ensures
that
a
BRT
system
is
both
well
designed
and
well
connected,
and
is
able
to
function
as
the
centre-‐piece
of
a
multi-‐modal
transport
network.
This
is
crucial
to
deliver
a
system
that
is
high
capacity
and
is
convenient
for
people
to
use,
enabling
the
maximum
shift
out
of
private
vehicles,
thus
reducing
carbon
emissions
and
ultimately
benefiting
the
highest
number
of
people
in
a
city.
Summary:
The
first
BRT
corridor,
the
TransOeste
located
in
the
west
side
of
the
city,
was
launched
in
June
2012.
It
began
with
40
kilometres
of
exclusive,
segregated
corridors,
36
stations,
and
new
articulated
and
standard
buses.
After
only
one
year
in
operation
the
TransOeste
BRT
line
grew
to
56
kilometres
of
exclusive
lanes
and
58
stations,
transporting
120,000
passengers
per
day
(and
now
up
to
185,000
per
day).
xiv
The
example
of
TransOeste
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
shows
how
a
BRT
corridor
(and
ultimately
a
whole
system)
can
provide
a
high-‐
capacity
transit
solution
for
a
city,
enabling
municipal
authorities
to
increase
liveability,
mobility,
and
sustainability.
Furthermore,
while
BRT
is
often
compared
to
metro
lines
in
terms
of
service
and
operations,
they
can
cost
ten
to
hundred
times
less
and
be
delivered
much
more
quickly
as
Rio
de
Janeiro
has
demonstrated.xv
9
The
TransOeste
corridor
has
reduced
an
inner
city
trip
from
1
hour
and
40
minutes
to
45
minutes.
By
the
time
four
BRT
lines
will
have
been
opened
in
2016,
the
share
of
trips
made
by
public
transport
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
is
expected
to
increase
from
18%
to
63%,
with
more
than
150
kilometres
of
exclusive
BRT
corridors
expected
to
carry
two
million
passengers
each
day.xvi
Results:
The
TransOeste
BRT
drastically
improved
mobility
in
the
city,
reduced
emissions
and
increased
comfort
for
those
using
the
corridor,
delivering
a
better
experience
for
users
(travel
time
savings,
increased
comfort
through
new
buses,
etc.,
which
attracted
people
to
the
services).xvii
The
BRT
line
is
expected
to
save
an
estimated
107,000
tons
of
CO2e
per
year
over
a
20-‐year
period,
thanks
to
fuel-‐efficient
buses
and
rationalized
bus
routes.
The
buses
being
used
in
the
corridor
are
Euro
V,
to
help
reduce
emissions.
The
value
of
time
saved
on
the
total
of
trips
on
the
TransOeste
BRT
corridor
averages
$23
million
a
year.xviii
The
development
of
the
BRT
has
also
related
co-‐benefits,
such
as
reduced
air
pollution,
construction
of
new
bike
lanes
along
the
corridor,
and
expansion
of
sidewalks
and
green
space.
Reasons
for
success:
TransOeste
has
proved
so
successful
because
it
was
part
of
Rio’s
holistic
planning
exercise
for
the
corridor
and
a
strong
overarching
transport
improvement
plan
for
the
city.
Moreover,
the
feeder
bus
routes
were
identified
and
optimised/rationalised
as
needed;
implementation
was
done
gradually
in
several
phases;
surveys
were
undertaken
with
users
before
and
during
implementation,
as
well
as
after,
to
get
feedback
on
the
BRT
system
and
improve
future
plans.
Moreover,
Rio
de
Janeiro
seized
the
opportunity
brought
by
the
recent
and
upcoming
global
events
(FIFA
2014;
2016
Olympic
Games)
and
plans
to
complete
their
network
of
BRT
corridors,
to
serve
almost
2
million
people
every
day.
The
new
intermodal
station
locations
were
chosen
strategically,
for
high
demand
and
visibility,
mostly
adjacent
to
the
2016
Olympic
sites.
The
city
is
now
adding
7
more
kilometres
to
TransOeste
and
connecting
it
to
the
subway
system
(also
under
construction),
as
well
as
adding
another
bus
terminal
integrated
with
the
subway,
with
7
more
BRT
stations
to
this
corridor.
These
are
likely
to
be
launched
by
June
2016.
Summary:
Guangzhou’s
innovative
22.5-‐km
long
BRT
corridor
opened
in
February
2010
and
is
an
example
of
holistic
planning,
with
the
BRT
at
the
centre
of
a
multimodal
transport
network
that
integrates
other
urban
design
elements.
The
corridor’s
success
was
also
recognised
by
the
Institute
for
Transportation
and
Development
Policy’s
Sustainable
Transport
Award
in
2011xx.
Among
the
key
features
of
the
system,
which
was
developed
in
cooperation
with
ITDP
China,
are
the
following:
fully
segregated
BRT
lanes
with
world’s
highest
BRT
bus
volumes
(350
buses
per
hour
in
a
single
direction,
approximately
one
bus
every
10
seconds,
transporting
more
than
800,000
passengers
per
day);xxi
system
location
in
a
high-‐density
area
and
station
size
based
on
passenger
demand;
flat-‐rate
subsidized
bus
fares
and
discounted
smart
cards;
direct
access
to
metro
or
rail
stations;
bridges
from
bus
stations
connecting
directly
to
adjacent
buildings;
bike
10
parking
and
public
bike
sharing
available
at
or
near
BRT
stations
(more
than
5,000
bikes);
and
a
“greenway”
combining
bike
lanes,
walkways,
parks
and
playgrounds
on
either
side
of
the
BRT
corridor.xxii
Results:
As
the
ITDP
report
suggests, xxiii
the
Guangzhou
BRT
system
has
reduced
traffic
congestion
and
increased
speed
of
buses
and
mixed
traffic
by
29%
and
20%
respectively,
saving
52
million
commute
hours
in
2010,
with
an
estimated
annual
value
of
US$
24
million.
It
also
improved
efficiency
of
the
city’s
overall
bus
system,
increased
use
of
public
transport
and
reduced
bus
overcrowding
(bus
service
satisfaction
increased
from
29%
to
65%).
The
BRT
system
contributed
to
an
estimated
average
annual
CO2
emissions
reduction
of
86,000
metric
tons
during
its
first
10
years
through
car-‐use
reduction
and
biking
promotion,
and
particulate
emissions
reduction
of
at
least
4
tons
per
year,
further
increasing
the
efficiency
of
Guangzhou
buses
already
running
on
LPG.
At
the
same
time,
the
BRT
reportedly
resulted
in
annual
operating
cost
savings
of
US$14
million
since
the
system
began
operating,
securing
a
competitive
return
on
investment
(despite
subsidized
bus
fares)
expected
at
79%
within
10
years
(131%
if
all
local
and
global
benefits,
excluding
health
impacts,
are
taken
into
account).
Reasons
for
success:
Guangzhou’s
BRT
system
is
particularly
successful
because
of
the
holistic
and
detailed
planning
process.
The
city
considered
very
carefully
how
the
new
BRT
corridor
would
fit
in
with
people’s
expectations
and
needs,
as
well
as
with
existing
modes
of
transit
e.g.
existing
bus
routes,
walking
and
cycling
options
in
the
city,
etc.
When/why
a
city
might
adopt
an
approach
like
this:
Cities
seeking
to
develop
BRT
solutions
for
long-‐term
sustainability
benefits
should
look
to
the
above
examples
for
holistic
implementation.
Guangzhou
has
considered
both
design
and
integration
features
to
ensure
economic
and
social
factors
(demand,
population
distribution,
fare
structure,
station
accessibility,
existing
community
sites
and
landmarks),
physical
and
geographic
factors
(width
of
roadways
and
necessary
expansion,
elevation,
existing
infrastructure),
and
technological
factors
(vehicles,
real-‐time
monitoring,
signals,
fare
integration)
are
taken
all
into
account
in
the
design
and
implementation
phases
of
its
BRT
system.
Benchmarking
and
measuring
impacts
of
BRT
is
a
key
area
of
best
practice,
as
it
enables
cities
to
assess,
and
then
demonstrate
the
value
from
its
BRT
system
to
other
stakeholders.
These
assessments
vary
depending
on
the
local
conditions
and
objectives
of
the
city
government,
but
should
include
elements
like
time
saving,
emissions
reduction,
air
pollution
improvements
and
subsequent
health
impacts.
Other
factors
like
retail
and
economic
impacts,
and
other
aspects
of
social
evaluation
can
also
be
considered
by
cities.
This
measurement
can
enable
a
city
to
use
the
data
in
a
variety
of
ways
–
to
demonstrate
the
success
of
a
corridor,
the
sustainability
of
the
system,
or
showing
how
social
aims
e.g.
reducing
inequality,
have
been
met.
This
benchmarking
can
form
the
basis
of
communicating
to
11
stakeholders
and/or
politicians
to
meet
the
city’s
broader
transport
and
social
objectives.
If
data
are
available
from
other
cities,
comparing
delivery
across
two
or
more
cities
is
another
effective
way
to
identify
future
improvements
that
are
needed
in
the
system.
Summary:
Istanbul’s
Metrobüs
system
was
designed
to
provide
low
cost,
rapid
service
to
the
city’s
inhabitants
traveling
east
to
west
and
vice
versa.
It
is
the
first
bus
rapid
transit
system
in
Turkey
and
has
the
distinction
of
being
the
first
transcontinental
BRT
in
the
world.
Metrobüs
was
designed
to
operate
at
near
highway
speeds
and
as
a
result,
provides
substantial
travel
time
saving
benefits
to
its
users
compared
to
alternative
modes
of
transport.
EMBARQ
has
completed
a
detailed
analysis
of
social,
environmental
and
economic
benefits
from
the
Metrobüs
system
in
Istanbul.xxiv
The
analysis
highlights
various
elements
of
BRT
performance
in
Istanbul,
including
passengers
carried,
capital
cost
per
kilometre,
reduction
in
travel
time,
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
and
local
air
pollutants,
as
well
as
improved
road
safety
and
physical
activity.
It
also
identifies
the
socio-‐economic
groups
benefiting
the
most
from
the
Metrobüs
system.
This
analysis
forms
a
good
model
for
other
cities
to
benchmark
their
systems
and
assess
which
groups
are
benefiting
the
most
and
why,
as
well
as
to
undertake
a
comprehensive
cost-‐benefit
analysis
to
guide
future
improvements
or
expansions
of
their
BRT
systems.
Results:
The
Metrobüs
system
serves
an
estimated
600,000
passenger
trips
every
day
over
a
length
of
51.3km,
with
a
maximum
load
of
30,000
trips
per
hour
per
direction.
By
reorganizing
and
consolidating
informal
transit
and
conventional
buses,
Istanbul’s
Metrobüs
BRT
system
is
estimated
to
reduce
CO2
emissions
by
167
tons/day
and
cut
daily
fuel
consumption
by
more
than
240
ton-‐litres
–
this
equates
to
60,955
tonnes
per
year.
Reasons
for
success:
The
city
undertakes
comprehensive
surveys
through
the
IETT
(the
Istanbul
Electricity,
Tramway
and
Tunnel
Survey)
annual
rider
assessments.
This
enables
the
city
to
continuously
assess
the
quality
of
service
being
provided
and
improve
it,
which
in
turn
ensures
the
BRT
remains
an
attractive
mode
of
transport
for
people
to
use.
When/why
a
city
might
adopt
an
approach
like
this:
High-‐quality
bus
rapid
transit
systems
can
impact
the
quality
of
life,
productivity,
health,
and
safety
of
people
living
in
cities.
Examining
these
impacts
in
depth
can
help
a
city
assess
the
net
positive
benefits
to
society
of
a
BRT
project,
an
important
criteria
when
deciding
to
build
or
expand
a
BRT
system.
Stakeholder
engagement
is
a
crucial
component
of
getting
a
BRT
project
off
the
ground,
as
projects
often
face
a
number
of
preconceptions
from
decision-‐makers,
stakeholders,
press
and
citizens.
These
can
include
concerns
about
taking
already
congested
road
space
away
from
12
other
users,
as
well
as
concerns
about
the
performance
of
BRT
systems
versus
rail.
Until
a
system
is
in
place
and
delivering
benefits
for
them,
people
can
be
opposed
to
the
idea
of
a
BRT
system
due
to
fear
of
the
unknown.
A
strong
and
well
thought-‐out
stakeholder
engagement
campaign
is
crucial
to
ensure
buy-‐in
and
commitment
to
the
project,
as
well
as
to
encourage
ridership
for
the
system.
Elements
of
a
good
campaign
will
include
identification
of
all
groups
likely
to
be
affected
by
the
project,
and
then
tailoring
appropriate
communications
to
them
through
advertising,
community
meetings,
leaflet
drops,
surveys,
regular
consultations
on
plans
etc.
Case study: Buenos Airesxxv -‐ Stakeholder management for BRT Corridors
Summary:
Like
other
growing
cities,
Buenos
Aires
faced
significant
problems
with
traffic
congestion
and
transport
related
air
pollution.
As
a
result,
the
city
developed
a
Plan
for
Sustainable
Mobility
to
tackle
these
problems,
with
the
BRT
system
forming
a
key
element
of
this
Plan.
Stakeholder
engagement
has
been
crucial
for
the
city’s
successful
BRT
delivery,
enabling
it
to
overcome
initial
negative
publicity
-‐
to
eventually
deliver
a
BRT
system
with
an
extremely
positive
reaction
from
the
media
and
citizens
alike.
This
is
in
part
due
to
the
strong
stakeholder
management
and
time
spent
working
with
affected
groups
to
overcome
initial
concerns.
The
BRT
system
now
consistently
rates
among
the
best
initiatives
launched
by
the
city
administration,
with
positive
impacts
on
everyday
life.
Results:
By
2015,
the
BRT
corridors
in
Buenos
Aires
carried
1.2m
people
across
the
city
and
resulted
in
49,000
tonnes
of
CO2
emissions
reduction
per
year.
So
far,
the
introduction
of
BRT
lines
on
key
routes
has
cut
travel
times
by
20
-‐
40%
on
average,
although
in
some
cases
it
has
been
by
50%
or
more.
By
the
end
of
2015
there
will
be
56km
of
Metrobus
corridors
connecting
the
main
transport
hubs
in
the
city
and
1.2m
people
will
benefit
everyday.
Adopting
articulated
buses
on
some
routes
has
also
led
to
a
further
reduction
in
carbon
emissions.
All
of
these
benefits
have
been
made
possible
by
the
city’s
strong
work
on
engagement
and
the
support
generated
across
the
full
range
of
stakeholders.
Reasons
for
success:
The
city’s
strategy
was
to
phase
in
implementation
of
the
BRT.
The
experience
and
positive
results
from
the
first
route
encouraged
the
city
to
proceed
with
the
delivery
of
more
corridors,
accompanied
by
active
opinion
polling,
awareness
campaigns
and
the
launch
of
a
dedicated
educational
website.
In
subsequent
stakeholder
surveys,
over
90%
of
commuters
gave
positive
feedback
for
Metrobus.
Summary:
Tshwane’s
BRT
system
(A
Re
Yeng
or
“Let’s
Go”),
approved
in
2011,
forms
part
of
the
City
of
Tshwane’s
2055
Growth
and
Development
Strategyxxvi
and
aims
to
provide
an
alternative
to
private
cars
and
minibuses
in
the
city,
offering
a
faster,
regular,
more
equitable
and
reliable
transport
option
for
getting
into
the
city
centre.
Aware
of
the
economic
losses
this
may
cause
13
for
minibus
and
taxi
operators
along
the
corridor,
Tshwane
involved
the
affected
stakeholders
in
the
negotiations
from
the
beginning
of
the
project
and
provided
for
their
integration
in
the
BRT
system,
thus
building
a
unique
relationship
between
the
city
and
the
transport
industry.
Those
affected
by
the
transport
system
change
received
financial
compensation,
were
offered
shareholder
position
in
the
new
Bus
Operating
Company
(BOC)
or
were
directly
incorporated
in
the
BRT
system
operation
(as
bus
drivers
or
other
employees).
The
pilot
corridor
for
Tshwane’s
BRT
is
now
in
place,
and
expansion
of
the
system
is
continuing.
Results:
The
project
hopes
to
carry
100,000
passengers
a
day
when
the
almost
70
km
BRT
corridor
is
fully
operational
in
2020.
Around
209,000
tons
of
CO2
will
be
reduced
annually
if
Tshwane
achieves
its
goal
of
shifting
10%
of
journeys
to
BRT.
With
more
commuters
shifting
from
private
to
public
transport,
the
city
also
expects
fewer
traffic
accidents.xxvii
The
Tshwane
BRT
bus
fleet
will
also
run
on
low-‐emission
diesel
engines
and
compressed
natural
gas,
and
will
emit
on
average
34%
less
CO2
and
24%
less
NOx
than
a
standard
diesel
counterpartxxviii.
Reasons
for
success:
Early,
strong
and
continuous
engagement
with
stakeholders
to
ensure
they
are
on
board
with
the
plans
as
much
as
possible,
and
are
not
fearful
of/
in
opposition
to
the
new
system
being
introduced,
were
key
to
successfully
implementing
the
BRT
system.
When/why
a
city
might
adopt
an
approach
like
this:
Many
cities
around
the
world
have
existing
minibus
or
taxi
industries
in
place,
whose
livelihoods
may
be
perceived
to
be
at
risk
from
the
introduction
of
a
new
BRT
system.
Tshwane’s
approach
is
a
great
example
of
including
the
industry
and
other
stakeholders
early
in
the
planning
phase,
and
finding
roles
for
them
in
the
BRT
system
that
is
being
developed.
3.5 Integrate BRT with other means of public transport and urban planning
As
cities
contend
with
resource
constraints
and
environmental
pressures,
increasing
public
transport
availability
through
the
introduction
of
a
BRT
system
is
a
very
effective
way
of
meeting
transit
demand.
But
introducing
a
BRT
in
isolation
is
not
enough,
and
more
connected
transit-‐oriented
urban
policies
are
key
to
improving
the
long-‐term
sustainability
of
cities.
More
holistic,
transit-‐oriented
urban
policies
would
reduce
CO2
emission
growth
by
30%
in
Chinese
and
Latin
American
cities
and
40%
in
Indian
cities,
when
compared
to
their
baseline
scenarios.xxix
This
is
also
better
and
more
efficient
for
cities
where
compact,
transit-‐oriented
development
can
have
a
massive
economic
benefit.
For
example,
Copenhagen
only
spends
4%
GDP
on
transport
while
sprawling,
car-‐focused
Houston
spends
14%.xxx
Summary:
Curitiba
was
the
first
city
to
develop
Bus
Rapid
Transit
in
1974
and
today
the
city
continues
to
be
a
transit
innovator,
having
recently
launched
a
program
to
implement
hybrid
and
electric
buses.
Curitiba’s
BRT
system
was
developed
as
an
integral
part
of
an
overall
Masterplan
(1966), xxxii
its
main
objectives
included
radial
expansion
of
the
city
along
five
14
corridors,
integrating
land
use
and
transport,
and
creating
a
dedicated
planning
institute
IPPUC. xxxiii
The
Masterplan
is
revised
every
10
years,
and
the
latest
revision
includes
a
comprehensive
urban
sustainable
development
plan
for
the
next
50
years.
In
the
1990s,
after
creating
the
BRT
system
thanks
to
a
partnership
between
the
municipality
and
bus
operators
(which
made
the
first
BRT
lanes
cost
50
times
less
than
subwayxxxiv),
Curitiba
tackled
the
integration
of
all
bus
lines
into
the
Rede
Integrada
de
Transporte,
with
a
hierarchy
of
bus
service
types
and
common
terminals,
allowing
passengers
to
use
one
ticket
for
as
many
bus
lines
as
necessary.xxxv
In
2011,
BRT
expanded
its
carrying
capacity
with
the
implementation
of
the
Direct
Line
–
a
bus
stopping
at
fewer
stops,
reducing
substantially
longer-‐distance
travel
time.
In
2012,
the
city
also
initiated
the
integration
with
a
bicycle
network,
expanded
through
the
2012
Bicycle
Masterplan. xxxvi
Curitiba
also
continues
innovation
in
other
parts
of
its
transport
sector:
since
2014,
they
have
been
promoting
100%
electric
buses.
Results:
Today,
80%
of
travellers
use
the
BRT
system
and
it
carries
around
2
million
passengers
per
day.xxxvii
The
BRT
has
30
hybrid
buses,
reducing
overall
fuel
needs
by
35%
and
limiting
pollutant
emissions
(NOx,
particles).
Curitiba’s
BRT
system
model
has
already
been
replicated
in
more
than
150
cities
worldwide.
Reasons
for
success:
The
success
of
the
BRT
system
is
related
to
its
integration
in
Curitiba’s
masterplanning
and
support
from
different
stakeholders.
On
the
micro
level,
some
employers
subsidise
their
employees
who
use
the
BRT
system.
On
the
macro
level,
urban
planning
is
integrated
with
the
BRT
system,
with
urban
growth
being
restricted
to
corridors
of
growth
–
along
key
transport
routes
–
using
a
combination
of
control
and
incentives,
such
as
extended
permitting
for
developers
that
wish
to
construct
taller
buildings
close
to
the
transit
corridors.
When/why
a
city
might
adopt
an
approach
like
this:
Cities
developing
or
updating
urban
development
plans,
planning
for
upgrade
of
their
transport
system
or
looking
into
implementing
a
BRT
system,
can
all
use
this
approach
to
ensure
that
different
transport
modes
are
well
integrated
and
constitute
the
most
efficient
system
possible.
BRT
projects
have
typically
been
financed
in
a
range
of
ways.
To
date
this
has
included:
government
grants
(national
or
municipal);
loans;
revenues
from
fuel
tariffs,
fares,
advertising;
local
commercial
bank
financing
to
operators,
etc.
In
addition,
cities
are
now
starting
to
explore
more
innovative
means
of
financing
new
BRT
systems
or
expanding
existing
ones,
such
as
through
Green
Bonds,
as
discussed
in
the
Johannesburg
example
below.
Carbon
credits
are
also
an
emerging
area
of
interest
for
C40
BRT
Network
member
cities
and
are
currently
being
explored
in
more
detail.
15
Summary:
The
city
of
Johannesburg
has
pioneered
a
municipal
“Green
Bond”
in
South
Africa
to
raise
funds
to
help
respond
comprehensively
to
climate
change
and
to
ensure
the
sustainable
management
of
resources.
The
Green
Bond
issued
by
the
city
in
June
2014
is
worth
ZAR1.5bn
(approx.
US$143m)
and
is
funding
projects
across
a
range
of
sectors
including
150
new
dual
fuel
buses
and
converting
30
buses
to
biogas.
Results:
The
Green
Bond
allows
the
city
to
show
its
commitment
to
environmental
stewardship,
while
receiving
a
market-‐related
financial
return.
The
Green
Bond
has
provided
the
City
with
a
new
funding
source
to
improve
and
expedite
the
implementation
of
its
climate
change
mitigation
strategy
and
move
Johannesburg
towards
low
carbon
infrastructure.
Reasons
for
success:
Johannesburg
had
political
leadership
that
was
supportive
of
exploring
innovative
mechanisms
to
finance
upcoming
“green”
projects.
In
addition,
the
city’s
investment-‐grade
credit
rating
helped
them
take
the
bond
to
market
and
for
it
to
receive
a
very
positive
response.
In
addition,
the
city
also
benefited
from
international
guidance,
such
as
from
the
Green
City
Bonds
Coalition,
which
–
in
cooperation
with
C40
-‐
recently
released
the
specialist
Green
Muni
Bonds
Playbook.xxxix
When/why
a
city
might
adopt
an
approach
like
this:
The
use
of
Green
Bonds
to
finance
low
carbon
buses
(and
green
projects
more
broadly)
offers
the
opportunity
for
creditworthy
cities
to
access
large-‐scale,
debt
finance
to
introduce
clean
buses
into
their
BRT
(and
other
city)
fleets.
The
cost
of
finance
will
depend
on
the
structure
of
the
bond
and
the
creditworthiness
of
the
project
or
the
issuer,
but
is
generally
a
competitively
priced
source
of
long-‐term
finance.
It
also
offers
cities
the
opportunity
to
grow
and
diversify
their
investor
base,
increase
collaboration
between
city
environment
and
finance
departments,
and
publicly
highlight
a
city’s
long-‐term
commitment
to
sustainable
development.
4 FURTHER
READING
A
number
of
external
organisations,
including
C40
partners,
have
published
best
practice
guidance
in
different
BRT-‐related
areas
including:
• The
2014
BRT
Standard
from
ITDP,
available
at
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-‐
and-‐guides/the-‐bus-‐rapid-‐transit-‐standard/
• The
BRT
Planning
Guide
from
ITDP,
available
at
https://www.itdp.org/the-‐brt-‐planning-‐guide/
• EMBARQ’s
report
on
Measuring
the
Social,
Environmental
and
Economic
impacts
of
BRT
systems
is
also
an
excellent
resource
and
is
referenced
heavily
in
the
Istanbul
case
16
17
London
North West Entrance, City-Gate House
39-45 Finsbury Square, Level 7
London EC2A 1PX
United Kingdom
New York
120 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Rio de Janeiro
R. São Clemente, 360 - Morro Santa Marta
Botafogo, 22260-000
Rio de Janeiro - RJ
Brazil
www.c40.org
[email protected]