Bus Rapid Transit is a public transportation system that provides faster, more efficient service than an ordinary bus line. Often this is achieved
by making improvements to existing infrastructure, vehicles and scheduling. The goal is to approach the service quality of rail transit while still
enjoying the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality bus based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable and cost effective urban mobility through [1] :
A BRT system can use existing road systems or be built with dedicated pathways and station systems depending on the resources available for the project.
Key features of BRT systems include [2]:
BRT offers cost effective, environmentally beneficial and high performance mass transit where population density often does not justify the construction of costly fixed rail systems and the need for greater flexibility in route mapping is better served by wheel-to-road transport systems.
BRT Systems in Australia
There are BRT systems in operation throughout capital cities in Australia including the Brisbane Busways System, the Adelaide Busway and the Sydney to Liverpool Transitway and the Melbourne Smart Bus System.
The Cairns Transit Network, to begin construction in 2013, is the first BRT system to be implemented in a non-capital city.
The network will improve public transport by giving buses priority by either providing separate transit lanes or dedicated bus-only roads.
The ACT Government has announced a Busway system for the south of Canberra to begin construction in 2013 and is considering BRT for the Northbourne Avenue precinct rapid transit system.
Figure 1: A comparison of BRT Systems in operation in Australia[3]
How much does BRT cost?
A BRT system will typically cost 4 to 20 times less than an equivalent Light Rail system and up to 100 times less than an equivalent metro rail system. [4]
There are a number of ways in which BRT can save on cost:
Figure 2: Capital costs per mile of Light Rail versus BRT systems[6]
What are the Benefits of BRT?
In corridors where it has been implemented Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has delivered well documented modal shift travel time savings and operational benefits. (See table 1)
There has been less documentation of the secondary and co-benefits of BRT in relation to pre-existing bus systems and in comparison with alternative modes such as light rail.
Secondary benefits flowing from the implementation of BRT include [8]:
Figure 1: Suggested Theoretical Model of Secondary Transit Priority Impacts[9]
This model is of course predicted on significant time travel impacts being achieved by the implementation of BRT. The following table on page 3 documents the significant time travel impacts of BRT systems including the Adelaide North East Busway, the Brisbane South East Busway and the Euclid Avenue Busway in Cleveland which features on the proposed BRT Study Tour from the BIC.
Table 1: Documentation of Transit Priority Mode Shift Impact Evidence[10] (Currie and Sarvi, 2011)
Positive land use impacts related to BRT development are outlined in the following table.
Table 2: Land Development Impacts Related to BRT[11]
Analysis of the Beijing Southern Axis BRT line demonstrates locations near BRT projects have increased development, particularly in high-density residential construction.
The BRT line has significantly improved public transport accessibility for communities along its route and this accessibility has been capitalised into higher real estate prices.
This increase in the attractiveness of residence along the BRT corridor has, in addition to land use improvements through transit oriented development and land value increases has increased employment opportunities in BRT station areas. [12]
Figure 2 provides a comparison of property prices which fell into the catchment areas for the Beijing Southern Axis BRT line against control areas not serviced by the BRT. While both areas grew rapidly the growth in property prices in the BRT catchment area was higher. Of note, also, was the growth in property prices in the catchment area began at construction phase.
Figure 2: Comparison of Property Prices in Catchment and Control Areas.[13]
From 2003 to 2009, the average price of apartments adjacent to a BRT station gained a relatively faster increase (4.61% annually) than those not served by the BRT system: an annual increase of 59.04% in catchment areas and 54.43% in control areas. The asking prices of apartments in BRT catchment areas (500 metres radius of a BRT station) was 1.67%, 0.96% and 10.27% higher than those in control areas in 2003 (planning phase), 2004 (construction phase) and 2009 (5 years after the BRT operation) respectively.
The asking price of properties (single-family and units in multi-family apartments) in the catchment area was between 13% and 14% higher than that in the control area, using price changes of residential properties between 2001 and 2006.
This result is comparable with the finding by Rodríguez and Mojica (2009), examining the property value uplift resulting from Bogotá`s BRT system extension.
Quantitative modelling for the US urban environment indicates that a property 1,000 feet away from a BRT station is valued approximately $9,745 less than a property 100 feet away, all else constant (this figure is determined by summing the marginal effects for each foot of distance), a relatively high figure in comparison to light rail systems.[14]
Analysis of the Transmilenio system in Bogota also demonstrates the access benefits of transport investment, in this case investment into BRT, is capitalised into increased property values and that this capitalisation of accessibility benefits stimulates growth by making land parcels more attractive. [15]
This has flow on benefits in making land not previously considered for development attractive and making attracting redevelopment. This is the basis for transit oriented development along these corridors. [16]
Figure 3: Flow chart of transport investment and property development.[17]
Transit oriented development (TOD) relating to BRT corridors is well documented and Currie (2006) examined the strengths and challenges of BRT in TOD relative to rail. BRT TODs can provide an important complementary function in supporting both rail TOD and BRT-based TOD programs by expanding the benefits of TOD on a more comprehensive scale. [18]
In measuring land use impacts of BRT the employment generation benefits of BRT has been investigated, in a limited capacity.
The predominant focus of research into the employment impacts of BRT is in spatial planning for employment dispersion and the maintenance of low density housing in city areas.
In Ottawa, Ontario, decision makers and planners have developed a multi-centered regional structure for the area.
Ottawa, the dominant center, is surrounded by primary and secondary employment centers. Under the Official Plan, downtown Ottawa is to remain the dominant employment center for the region. (Today, the downtown accounts for 28 percent of regional employment.) Nine primary employment centers will incorporate 5,000 or more jobs; each of these employment centers must be within 400 m of existing or future transitway stations.
Secondary employment centers will provide 2,000 to 5,000 jobs. These centers can be off the transitway but must have access to efficient transit services. The cornerstone for achieving this vision is Ottawa's exclusive busway system—the most extensive in North America—which captures 70 percent of CBD work-related trips. [19]
The most comprehensive examination of the employment generation impacts of BRT presents an analysis of construction phase and operational phase of systems and the quality of employment stemming from the project.
A new BRT system will likely represent a dramatic transformation of the proposed corridors. As with any project of this magnitude, the system will generate a considerable amount of employment through the construction process. [20]
Due to the emphasis on high-quality infrastructure and services, BRT employment can range from artisan work on stations to the direct labour applied to road work. A BRT system also generally brings with it significant improvements in the quality of the employment as well. The improved efficiency and lower operating costs in the new system will improve overall profitability. A primary difference between the BRT and non-BRT scenario in congested corridors would be that for the non-BRT scenario, after a certain number of years, population and employment growth in the corridor would stop, whereas in the BRT corridor it would continue at historical growth rates. [21]
How does BRT Perform as Mass Transit
Figure 4: Market data for existing Australian BRT Systems[22]
Figure 5: The capacity capability of various modes of mass transit[23]
Figure 6: Passengers per hour in one direction of BRT systems[24]
The Environmental Performance of BRT
Figure 7: Comparative analysis of the environmental performance of LRT and BRT systems with different fuel technologies[25]
[1] Wright, L. and Hook, W (eds). 2007, Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
[2] Ibid.,
[3] Currie, G. 2006, Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures, Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 Special Edition.
[4] Wright, L. and Hook, W (eds). 2007, Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
[5] Currie, G. 2006, Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures, Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 Special Edition
[6] Ibid.,
[7] Hensher, D. 2008, Frequency and Connectivity: the Key Drivers of Reform in Urban Public Transport Provision, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney.
[8] Currie, G., and M. Sarvi. 2012. A New Model for the Secondary Benefits of Transit Priority, Paper Number 12-0720, submitted for publication and presentation, Transport Research Record.
[9] Ibid.,
[10] Currie, G., and M. Sarvi. 2012. A New Model for the Secondary Benefits of Transit Priority, Paper Number 12-0720, submitted for publication and presentation, Transport Research Record.
[11] Deng, T, and J.Nelson. 2010. The Impact of Bus Rapid Transit on Land Development: A Case Study of Beijing, China. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 66.
[12] Ibid.,
[13] Deng, T., and J.Nelson. 2010. The Impact of Bus Rapid Transit on Land Development: A Case Study of Beijing, China. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 66.
[14] US Department of Transportation. 2009. Land Use Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: Effects of BRT Station Proximity on Property Values along the Martin Luther King, Jr East Busway. Federal Transit Administration.
[15] Rodriguez, A.D., and C.H. Mojica. 2008. Land Value Impacts of Bus: the Case of Bogota’s Transmilenio, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
[16] Rodriguez, A.D., and C.H. Mojica. 2008. Land Value Impacts of Bus: the Case of Bogota’s Transmilenio, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
[17] Ibid.,
[18] Currie, G. 2006. Bus Transit Oriented Development: Strengths and Challenges Related to Rail. Monash University.
[19] Transportation Research Board. 1996. Transit and Urban Form, Part IV: Public Policy and Transit Oriented Development, Six Case Studies. National Research Council.
[20] Wright, L. and Hook, W (eds). 2007, Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
[21] Ibid.,
[22] Currie, G. 2006, Bus Rapid Transit in Australasia: Performance, Lessons Learned and Futures, Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 Special Edition
[23] Hensher, D. 2008, Frequency and Connectivity: the Key Drivers of Reform in Urban Public Transport Provision, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney.
[24] Hensher, D. 2008, Frequency and Connectivity: the Key Drivers of Reform in Urban Public Transport Provision, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney.
[25] Vincent, W., and Jerram, L.C., 2006, The Potential for Bus Rapid Transit to Reduce Transportation Related CO2 Emissions, Journal of Public Transportation, 2006 Special Edition