View source for Bus rapid transit

{{short description|Public transport system}}
{{redirect|Transitway|the network in Ottawa|Transitway (Ottawa)|other BRT systems|List of bus rapid transit systems}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2019}}
[[File:Transjakarta MYS 18116 at Gambir.jpg|thumb|right|[[TransJakarta]] in [[Jakarta]], Indonesia, the longest BRT system in the world (264.6&nbsp;km)<ref name="TJ-Koridor"/>]]
[[File:Mercedes Citaro G 5394 RATP, ligne TVM, Créteil.jpg|thumb|Mercedes Citaro RATP, [[Trans-Val-de-Marne|ligne TVM]], [[Créteil]] Paris]]
[[File:Transmetro en Ciudad de Guatemala.jpg|thumb|30 meter long [[Transmetro]] in [[Guatemala City]], Guatemala, for 300 passengers<ref name=":3" />]]
'''Bus rapid transit''' ('''BRT'''), also referred to as a '''busway''' or '''transitway''', is a [[trolleybus]], [[electric bus]] and [[public transport bus service]] system designed to have much more [[Route capacity|capacity]], [[On-time performance|reliability]], and other quality features than a conventional [[bus]] system.<ref name="itdp20140724">{{Cite web|url=https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/what-is-brt/|title=What is BRT?|date=24 July 2014 |publisher=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy}}</ref> Typically, a BRT system includes [[Bus lane|roadways that are dedicated to buses]], and gives [[Bus priority|priority to buses]] at [[Intersection (road)|intersections]] where buses may interact with other traffic; alongside design features to reduce [[Terminal dwell time|delays]] caused by passengers boarding or leaving buses, or paying [[fare]]s. BRT aims to combine the capacity and speed of a [[Light rail|light rail transit]] (LRT) or [[Rapid transit|mass rapid transit]] (MRT) system with the flexibility, lower cost and simplicity of a bus system.
The world's first BRT system was the [[Runcorn Busway]] in [[Runcorn]] New Town, England, which entered service in 1971.<ref name="Runcorn Busway JSTOR">{{cite journal| last = Lesley| first = Lewis| date = 1983| title = Runcorn - A Rapid Transit New Town? | jstor = 23286723| journal = Built Environment| volume = 9| issue = 3/4| page = 234}}</ref><ref name="RUDI 7.3 Transport">{{cite web |url=http://www.rudi.net/books/3346 |title=Runcorn New Town - 7.3 Transport |website=rudi.net |access-date=24 July 2020 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018012240/http://www.rudi.net/books/3346 |archive-date=18 October 2014}}</ref> {{As of|2018|03}}, a total of 166 cities in six continents have implemented BRT systems, accounting for {{Convert|4906|km|abbr=on}} of BRT lanes<ref name="BRTdata" /> and about 32.2&nbsp;million passengers every day.
The majority of these are in [[Latin America]], where about 19.6&nbsp;million passengers ride daily, and which has the most cities with BRT systems, with 54, led by Brazil with 21 cities.<ref name="BRTdata">{{cite web|url=http://www.brtdata.org/|title=Global BRT Data&nbsp;— Worldwide and Key indicators per region|author=EMBARQ – The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport|publisher=BRTdata.org|date=November 2016|access-date=27 November 2016|archive-date=8 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140208053814/http://brtdata.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Latin American countries with the most daily ridership are Brazil (10.7 million), Colombia (3.0 million), and Mexico (2.5 million).
In the other regions, China (4.3 million) and Iran (2.1 million) stand out.<ref name="BRTdata" /> Currently, [[TransJakarta]] is the largest BRT network in the world, with about {{convert|251.2|km||abbr=}} of corridors connecting the [[Jakarta|Indonesian capital city]].<ref name="TJ-Koridor">{{cite web | title = Koridor | work = Transjakarta | url = http://transjakarta.co.id/produk-dan-layanan/infrastruktur/koridor/}}</ref>
== Terminology ==
Bus rapid transit is a mode of [[rapid transit|mass rapid transit]] (MRT)<ref name=":4">[https://www.itdp.org/2003/12/01/sustainable-transport-a-sourcebook-for-developing-cities/#Module-3a-Mass-Transit-Options By Lloyd Wright and Karl Fjellstrom], Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Retrieved 2022-10-10, impact of vertical alignment on cost see chapter 4.1 table 5</ref> and describes a high-capacity urban public-transit system with its own [[right-of-way (transportation)|right of way]], vehicles at short [[headway]]s, platform-level boarding, and preticketing.<ref name="itdp20140724"/>
The expression "BRT" is mainly used in the Americas and China; in India, it is called "BRTS" (BRT System); in Europe it is often called a "busway" or a "BHLS" (stands for ''Bus with a High Level of Service'').<ref>{{cite web |title=Buses with a High Level of Service |url=https://www.uitp.org/projects/bhls/ |website=UITP}}</ref> The term [[transitway]] was originated in 1981 with the opening of the [[OC Transpo]] [[Transitway (Ottawa)|transitway]] in [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]], Canada.
Critics{{who|date=November 2021}} have charged that the term "bus rapid transit" has sometimes been misapplied to systems that lack most or all the essential features which differentiate it from conventional bus services. The term "[[bus rapid transit creep]]" has been used to describe severely degraded levels of bus service which fall far short of the [[BRT Standard]] promoted by the [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) and other organizations.
== Reasons for use ==
Compared to other common transit modes such as [[light rail transit]] (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT) [[Public transport bus service|service]] is attractive to transit authorities because it does not cost as much to establish and operate: no [[Track (rail transport)|track]] needs to be laid, bus drivers typically require less training and less pay than rail operators, and bus maintenance is less complex than rail maintenance.{{citation needed|date=December 2021}}
Moreover, buses are more flexible than rail vehicles, because a bus route can be altered, either temporarily or permanently, to meet changing demand or contend with adverse road conditions with comparatively little investment of resources.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fjellstrom |first1=Karl |title=Mass Transit Options, 4.4:Flexibility |website=www.gtz.de |url=https://sutp.org/download/8100/?tmstv=1676136996 |publisher=Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit |access-date=24 February 2023}}</ref>
== History ==
[[File:Elevated busway at Runcorn Shopping City.jpg|thumb|Elevated busway at [[Runcorn Shopping City]]]]
The first use of a protected [[Bus lane|busway]] was the [[East Side Trolley Tunnel]] in [[Providence, Rhode Island|Providence]], [[Rhode Island]]. It was converted from trolley to bus use in 1948.<ref name="mineta">{{cite web |last1=Agrawal |first1=Asha Weinstein |last2=Goldman |first2=Todd |last3=Hannaford |first3=Nancy |title=Shared-Use Bus Priority Lanes on City Streets: Case Studies in Design and Management |url=https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/shared_use_bus_priority_lanes_on_city_streets_agrawal.pdf |publisher=Mineta Transportation Institute |access-date=3 November 2021 |date=April 2012}}</ref><ref name="report143">{{cite report |last1=Levinson |first1=Herbert S. |last2=Hoey |first2=William F. |last3=Sanders |first3=David B. |last4=Wyn |first4=F. Houston |date=1973 |title=Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art |url=https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_143.pdf |publisher=Highway Research Board |work=National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 143 |access-date = 4 November 2021}}</ref> However, the first BRT system in the world was the [[Runcorn Busway]] in [[Runcorn]], England.<ref name="Runcorn Busway JSTOR" /> First conceived in the Runcorn New Town Masterplan in 1966, it opened for services in October 1971 and all {{convert|22|km|mi}} were operational by 1980.<ref name="RUDI 7.3 Transport"/> The central station is at [[Runcorn Shopping City]] where buses arrive on dedicated raised busways to two enclosed stations.<ref name="Tale of Two Centres">{{cite journal| last1 = Couch| first1 = Chris| last2 = Fowles| first2 = Steven| date = 2006| title = Britain: Runcorn — A Tale of Two Centres| jstor = 23289488| journal = Built Environment| volume = 32| issue = 1| pages = 88–102| doi = 10.2148/benv.32.1.88}}</ref> [[Arthur Ling]], Runcorn Development Corporation's Master Planner, said that he had invented the concept while sketching on the back of an envelope.<ref name="Arthur Ling">{{cite web| last = Crabtree| first = Gordon| date = 6 August 1971| title = Runcorn Busway creates worldwide interest| publisher=Commercial Motor | url=http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/6th-august-1971/32/runcorn-busway-creates-worldwide-interest| access-date=25 July 2020}}</ref> The town was designed around the transport system, with most residents no more than five minutes walking distance, or {{convert|500|yard|m}}, from the Busway.<ref name="New Town Masterplan">{{cite book | last = Ling |first = Arthur |url= http://www4.halton.gov.uk/Pages/planning/policyguidance/pdf/evidencebase/Area%2520Specific%2520Evidence/RuncornNewTown/Runcorn_New_Town_Masterplan_(1967).pdf | publication-date=1967 | title=Runcorn New Town Master Plan| publisher=Runcorn Development Corporation |access-date=25 July 2020 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180621015846/http://www4.halton.gov.uk/Pages/planning/policyguidance/pdf/evidencebase/Area%20Specific%20Evidence/RuncornNewTown/Runcorn_New_Town_Masterplan_(1967).pdf |archive-date=21 June 2018}}</ref>
[[File:Curitiba 04 2006 06 RIT.jpg|thumb|The [[Rede Integrada de Transporte]] in [[Curitiba]], Brazil, was opened in 1974. The RIT was inspired by the National Urban Transport Company of [[Peru]].]]
The second BRT system in the world was the [[Rede Integrada de Transporte]] (RIT, ''integrated transportation network''), implemented in [[Curitiba]], Brazil, in 1974. The Rede Integrada de Transporte was inspired by the previous transport system of the National Urban Transport Company of Peru (In Spanish: [[ENATRU]]), which only had quick access on [[Lima|Lima downtown]], but it would not be considered{{by whom|date=December 2021}} BRT itself.<ref name="BRTdata" /> Many of the elements that have become associated with BRT were innovations first suggested by Carlos Ceneviva, within the team of [[Curitiba]] [[Mayor]] [[Jaime Lerner]].<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.wricities.org/our-work/project-city/brtdataorg-global-database-bus-rapid-transit|title = Bus Rapid Transit|publisher = EMBARQ|access-date = 24 February 2014 |url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150825001337/http://www.wricities.org/our-work/project-city/brtdataorg-global-database-bus-rapid-transit|archive-date = 25 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://congresosibrt.org/en/news/142/architect-of-possible-dreams |title=Architect of possible dreams |publisher=Congresosibrt.org |date=8 May 2013 |access-date=24 February 2014 |archive-date=11 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111074449/http://congresosibrt.org/en/news/142/architect-of-possible-dreams |url-status=dead }}</ref> Initially just dedicated bus lanes in the center of major arterial roads, in 1980 the Curitiba system added a feeder bus network and inter-zone connections, and in 1992 introduced off-board fare collection, enclosed stations, and platform-level boarding. Other systems made further innovations, including platooning (three buses entering and leaving bus stops and traffic signals at once) in [[Porto Alegre]], and passing lanes and express service in [[São Paulo]].<ref>[http://www.gobrt.org/Latin_American_Experience_with_Bus_Rapid_Transit.pdf Latin American Experience With Bus Rapid Transit] Gerhard Menckhoff, World Bank. August 2005. Retrieved 08–15–13.</ref>
In the United States, BRT began in 1977, with Pittsburgh's [[South Busway]],<ref name="Lotshaw_Streetsblog_2011">{{cite web
| url            = http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/06/20/profiles-in-american-brt-pittsburghs-south-busway-and-east-busway/
| title          = Profiles of American BRT: Pittsburgh's South Busway and East Busway
| last1          = Lotshaw
| first1         = Stephanie
| date           = 20 June 2011
| website        = Streetsblog USA
| archive-url    = https://web.archive.org/web/20150203115628/http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/06/20/profiles-in-american-brt-pittsburghs-south-busway-and-east-busway/
| archive-date=3 February 2015| access-date    = 1 September 2015
| quote          = Pittsburgh's leadership on the urban sustainability front is not a recent phenomenon – in fact, it was the first city in the United States to implement elements of bus rapid transit, and it paved the way for more robust U.S. BRT systems. In 1977, only three years after Curitiba, Brazil implemented the world's first BRT system, Pittsburgh opened the South Busway, 4.3 miles of exclusive bus lanes, running through previously underserved areas of the city, from the western suburbs to the downtown. The city was concerned about worsening traffic congestion, and, lacking the funds to rehabilitate the city's streetcar lines, took inspiration from Curitiba and created the South Busway. Funding for the system came from the [[Pennsylvania Department of Transportation]], the state of Pennsylvania and Allegheny County. The Port Authority of Allegheny County, a county-owned, state-funded agency, operates the system. The success of the South Busway helped the city leverage funding for the expansion of the network, and in 1983, the Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway opened. The East Busway began as a 6.8-mile network, with an additional 2.3 miles added in 2003, connecting the eastern suburbs with downtown. Fifteen bus routes run along its corridor. Its current weekday ridership is 25,600, with annual ridership close to 7 million. The East Busway built on the success of its predecessor and offered fundamental BRT features including a dedicated busway, service as frequent as every two minutes during peak period, signal prioritization, and direct service operations (more on that soon). However, there is no off-board fare collection. Instead, passengers pay upon entrance for in-bound trips and upon exit for outbound trips, which helps reduce delays in service because of fare collection.
}}</ref> operating on {{convert|4.3|mi|km}} of exclusive lanes. Its success led to the [[Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway]] in 1983, a fuller BRT deployment including a dedicated busway of {{convert|9.1|mile}}, [[traffic signal preemption]], and peak service headway as low as two minutes. After the opening of the [[West Busway]], {{convert|5.1|mile}} in length in 2000, Pittsburgh's Busway system is today over 18.5 miles long.
The [[OC Transpo]] BRT system in [[Ottawa]], Canada, was introduced in 1983.<ref name="trb">{{Cite web|url=http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Ottawa.pdf|title=Ottawa, Ontario: BRT Case Study|website=Transportation Research Board|access-date=April 16, 2020}}</ref> The first element of its BRT system was dedicated bus lanes through the city centre, with platformed stops. The introduction of exclusive separate busways (termed 'Transitway') occurred in 1983. By 1996, all of the originally envisioned 31&nbsp;km Transitway system was in operation; further expansions were opened in 2009, 2011, and 2014.  As of 2019, the central part of the Transitway has been converted to [[light rail transit]], due to the downtown section being operated beyond its designed capacity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.octranspo.com/about-octranspo/history_looking_back |title=History (Looking Back) |website=OC Transpo |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160818135732/http://www.octranspo.com/about-octranspo/history_looking_back |archive-date=18 August 2016}}</ref>
In 1995, [[Quito]], Ecuador, opened [[MetrobusQ]] its first BRT [[trolleybuses in Quito]], using articulated trolleybuses.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://latamobility.com/en/quito-to-acquire-50-trolleybuses-to-improve-transportation-system/|title=Quito to Acquire 50 Trolleybuses to Improve Transportation System|website=latamobility|date=12 January 2024 |archiveurl=https://latamobility.com/en/|archive-date=12 July 2024}}</ref>
[[File:Quito Trole 08 2011 3343.jpg|thumb|Trolleybus in [[Quito]], Ecuador]]
The [[TransMilenio]] in [[Bogotá]], Colombia, opening in 2000, was the first BRT system to combine the best elements of Curitiba's BRT with other BRT advances, and achieved the highest capacity and highest speed BRT system in the world.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bogota.gov.co/en/international/tips-using-transmilenio-system-your-first-visit-bogota|title=Tips for using the TransMilenio system on your first visit to Bogotá|website=Bogotá|archive-url=https://bogota.gov.co/en/|archive-date= 10 May 2022}}</ref>
In January 2004 the first BRT in Southeast Asia, [[TransJakarta]], opened in [[Jakarta]], Indonesia. {{As of|2015}}, at {{convert|210|km}}, it is the longest BRT system in the world.<ref name="JP-1">{{cite news | title = Train service has moved forward, can Transjakarta follow? | author = Bambang Nurbianto | date = 12 September 2015 | newspaper = The Jakarta Post | url = http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/09/12/train-service-has-moved-forward-can-transjakarta-follow.html}}</ref>
[[File:Mercedes-Benz O 305 on guided busway in Adelaide.jpg|thumb|A [[Mercedes-Benz O305]] travelling on the [[O-Bahn Busway|O-Bahn]] in [[Adelaide]], Australia]]
Africa's first BRT system was opened in [[Lagos]], Nigeria, in March 2008 but is considered a light BRT system by many people.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kaenzig|first1=Robin|last2=Mobereola|first2=Dayo|last3=Brader|first3=Colin|date=4 February 2011|title=Africa's First Bus Rapid Transit System|journal=Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board|language=en|volume=2193|pages=1–8|doi=10.3141/2193-01|s2cid=109346601}}</ref> [[Johannesburg]], South Africa, BRT [[Rea Vaya]], was the first true BRT in Africa, in August 2009, carrying 16,000 daily passengers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Adewumi|first1=Emmanuel|last2=Allopi|first2=Dhiren|date=July 2013|title=Rea Vaya: South Africa's first bus rapid transit system|journal=South African Journal of Science|volume=109 |issue=7/8|page=3 |doi=10.1590/sajs.2013/a0029|doi-access=free}}</ref> Rea Vaya and [[Masivo Integrado de Occidente|MIO]] (BRT in [[Cali]], Colombia, opened 2009) were the first two systems to combine full BRT with some services that also operated in mixed traffic, then joined the BRT trunk infrastructure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Venter|first=Christoffel|title=Assessing the potential of bus rapid transit-led network restructuring for enhancing affordable access to employment – The case of Johannesburg's Corridors of Freedom|journal=Research in Transportation Economics|volume=59|pages=441–449|doi=10.1016/j.retrec.2016.05.006|year=2016|hdl=2263/60793|hdl-access=free}}</ref>
In 2017 [[Marrakesh]], Morocco, opened its first [[BRT Marrakesh]] trolleybus system (BHNS De Marrakesh) trolleybuses Corridors of 8&nbsp;km (5.0&nbsp;mi), of which 3&nbsp;km (1.9&nbsp;mi) of overhead wiring for operation as trolleybus.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://in-motion.me/articles/2022-09-10_Marokko:-Marrakech-trolleybus-disaster|title=Marokko: Marrakech trolleybus disaster|website=in-motion.me|archive-url=https://in-motion.me/articles/2022-09-10|archive-date= 18 August 2022}}</ref>
== Main features ==
{{Main|BRT Standard}}
BRT systems normally include most of the following features:
=== Dedicated lanes and alignment ===
[[File:Transjakarta Pemuda Pramuka 2.jpg|thumb|[[TransJakarta]] buses use separate lanes to avoid [[traffic congestion|congested roads]].]]
[[File:Xiamen BRT 18m.jpg|right|thumb|Elevated BRT system in [[Xiamen]]]]
[[File:RichmondHillCentre7.jpg|thumb|A [[Viva Rapid Transit|Viva]] bus in [[York Region]], north of Toronto, Canada, demonstrates many features of BRT; elaborate stations, comfortable express buses, unique branding, and coloured 'lines' rather than route numbers.]]
Bus-only lanes make for faster travel and ensure that buses are not delayed by mixed [[traffic congestion]]. A median alignment bus-only keeps buses away from busy curb-side side conflicts, where cars and trucks are parking, standing and turning. Separate rights of way may be used such as the completely elevated [[Xiamen BRT]]. [[Transit mall]]s or 'bus streets' may also be created in city centers.
=== Off-board fare collection ===
Fare prepayment at the station, instead of on board the bus, eliminates the delay caused by passengers paying on board. Fare machines at stations also allow riders to purchase multi-ride stored-value cards and have multiple payment options. Prepayment also allows riders to board at all doors, further speeding up stops.
=== Bus priority, turning and standing restrictions ===
Prohibiting turns for traffic across the bus lane significantly reduces delays to the buses. [[Bus priority]] will often be provided at signalized intersections to reduce delays by extending the green phase or reducing the red phase in the required direction compared to the normal sequence. Prohibiting turns may be the most important measure for moving buses through intersections.
=== Platform-level boarding ===
[[File:Cultural Centre busway station February 2016.jpg|thumb|[[Cultural Centre busway station]] in [[Brisbane]], [[Australia]]]]
The station platforms for BRT systems should be level with the bus floor for quick and easy boarding, making it fully accessible for wheelchairs, disabled passengers and baby strollers, with minimal delays.
High-level platforms for high-floored buses makes it difficult to have stops outside dedicated platforms, or to have conventional buses stop at high-level platforms, so these BRT stops are distinct from street-level bus stops. Similar to rail vehicles, there is a risk of a [[platform gap|dangerous gap between bus and platform]], and is even greater due to the nature of bus operations. [[Kassel curb]]s or other methods may be used to ease quick and safe alignment of the BRT vehicle with a platform.
A popular compromise is [[low-floor bus]]es with a low step at the door, which can allow easy boarding at low-platform stops compatible with other buses. This intermediate design may be used with some low- or medium-capacity BRT systems.
The MIO system in Santiago de Cali, Colombia, pioneered in 2009 the use of dual buses, with doors on the left side of the bus that are located at the height of high-level platforms, and doors on the right side that are located at curb height. These buses can use the main line with its exclusive lanes and high level platforms, located on the center of the street and thus, boarding and leaving passengers on the left side. These buses can exit the main line and use normal lanes that share with other vehicles and stop at regular stations located on sidewalks on the right side of the street.<!-- The article doesn't speak about diminishing queues on main line stations -->
== Additional features ==
[[File:Highland ART Station Albuquerque.jpg|thumb|right|[[Albuquerque Rapid Transit|ART]] level-boarding station in the center of a public roadway with guideways on either side and a dedicated traffic signal in [[Albuquerque]], [[New Mexico]], United States]]Groups of criteria form the [[BRT Standard]] 2016, which is updated by the Technical Committee of the BRT Standard.<ref>{{cite web |date=24 July 2014 |title=The Scorecard - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/the-scorecard/}}</ref>
=== High capacity vehicles ===
[[File:Metrobús_at_Paseo_de_la_Reforma.jpg|thumb|Double decker bus at [[Mexico City]] with capacity for 130 passengers]]
[[File:Transmilenio vehicle interior.jpg|thumb|[[TransMilenio]] vehicles carry up to 270 people.]]
High-capacity vehicles such as [[Articulated bus|articulated]] or even [[bi-articulated bus]]es may be used, typically with multiple doors for fast entry and exit. [[Double-decker bus]]es{{citation needed|date=March 2013}} or [[guided bus]]es may also be used. Advanced [[Powertrain Control Module|powertrain control]] may be used for a smoother ride.
=== Quality stations ===
[[File:TransMilenio Calle 63.jpg|thumb|Ticket barriers at the entrance to a [[TransMilenio]] station in [[Bogotá]]]]
Bottleneck BRT stations typically provide loading areas for simultaneous boarding and alighting of buses through multiple doors coordinated via displays and loudspeakers.
An example of high-quality stations include those used on [[TransMilenio]] in Bogotá since December 2000,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia|title=Historia|publisher=Transmilenio|access-date=20 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919011327/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia |archive-date=19 September 2015}}</ref>{{Verify source|date=March 2018}}<!-- The article doesn't give any details about the stations --> the [[Masivo Integrado de Occidente|MIO]] in [[Cali]] since November 2008,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://historico.elpais.com.co/paisonline/calionline/notas/Noviembre152008/calimio.html|title=Cali inauguró el MÍO |newspaper=El País|access-date=20 August 2015}}</ref> [[Metrolinea]] in [[Bucaramanga]] since December 2009,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vanguardia.com/historico/48967|title=Arrancó inauguración de Metrolínea|date=22 December 2009 |publisher=Vanguardia Liberal|access-date=20 August 2015}}</ref> [[Megabús]] in [[Pereira, Colombia|Pereira]] since May 2009.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/articuloimpreso138860-pereira-se-monta-al-megabus|title=Pereira se monta al Megabús|newspaper=El Espectador|access-date=20 August 2015}}</ref> This design is also used in [[Johannesburg]]'s [[Rea Vaya]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.reavaya.org.za/|title=Home|work=reavaya.org.za}}</ref>
The term "station" is more flexibly applied in North America and ranges from enclosed waiting areas ([[Ottawa]] and [[Cleveland]]) to large open-sided shelters ([[Los Angeles]] and [[San Bernardino]]).
=== Prominent brand or identity ===
A unique and distinctive identity can contribute to BRT's attractiveness as an alternative to driving cars,<ref>[http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf Characteristics of BRT for decision making.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415111548/http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf |date=15 April 2016 }} page ES-8. Federal Transit Administration (August 2004).</ref> (such as Viva, Max, TransMilenio, Metropolitano, Metronit, Select) marking stops and stations as well as the buses.<ref>[http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/faqs.htm What is Select Bus Service?] NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority. Retrieved 12 March 2010</ref>
Large cities usually have big bus networks. A map showing all bus lines might be incomprehensible, and cause people to wait for low-frequency buses that may not even be running at the time they are needed. By identifying the main bus lines having high-frequency service, with a special brand and separate maps, it is easier to understand the entire network.{{citation needed|date=October 2014}}
Public transit apps are more convenient than a static map, featuring services like trip planning, live arrival and departure times, up-to-date line schedules, local station maps, service alerts, and advisories that may affect one's current trip. [[Transit (app)|Transit]] and [[Moovit]] are examples of apps that are available in many cities around the world. Some operators of bus rapid transit systems have developed their own apps, like Transmilenio.<ref>{{cite news|title=Conozca la 'app' que le brinda información sobre Sitp y TransMilenio (in Spanish)|url=http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-15071135|newspaper=El Tiempo|access-date=6 June 2017}}</ref> These apps even include all the schedules and live arrival times and stations for buses that feed the BRT, like the SITP (Sistema Integrado de Transporte Público or Public Transit Integrated System) in Bogotá{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}.
=== In tunnels or subterranean structures ===
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2014}}
[[File:Seattle Metro Bus Tunnel Pioneer Square Station.jpg|thumb|right|[[Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel]] in [[Seattle]], Washington – bus routes were rerouted to the surface, replaced by full light rail service in March 2019.]]
[[File:MBTA route SLW bus at Courthouse station, March 2017.JPG|thumb|right|An outbound [[Silver Line (MBTA)|Silver Line]] bus at Courthouse station in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]]]]
A special issue arises in the use of buses in [[rapid transit|metro transit]] structures. Since the areas where the demand for an exclusive bus right-of-way are apt to be in dense downtown areas where an above-ground structure may be unacceptable on historic, logistic, or environmental grounds, use of BRT in tunnels may not be avoidable.
Since buses are usually powered by [[internal combustion engine]]s, bus metros raise ventilation issues similar to those of motor vehicle tunnels. Powerful fans typically exchange air through [[ventilation shaft]]s to the surface; these are usually as remote as possible from occupied areas, to minimize the effects of noise and concentrated pollution.
A straightforward way to reduce air quality problems is to use internal combustion engines with lower emissions. The 2008 Euro V [[European emission standards]] set a limit on [[carbon monoxide]] from heavy-duty [[diesel engine]]s of 1.5 g/kWh, one third of the 1992 Euro I standard. As a result, less forced ventilation will be required in tunnels to achieve the same air quality.
Another alternative is to use electric propulsion, which [[Seattle]]'s [[Metro Bus Tunnel (Seattle)|Metro Bus Tunnel]] and [[Boston]]'s [[Silver Line (MBTA)|Silver Line]] Phase II implemented. In Seattle, [[Dual-mode bus|dual-mode]] (electric/diesel electric) buses manufactured by Breda were used until 2004, with the center axle driven by [[electric motor]]s obtaining power from [[Overhead lines|trolley wires]] through [[trolley pole]]s in the subway, and with the rear axle driven by a conventional diesel [[powertrain]] on freeways and streets. Boston is using a similar approach, after initially using trolleybuses pending delivery of the dual-mode vehicles that was completed in 2005.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://world.nycsubway.org/us/boston/silver.html|title=MBTA Silver Line|author=Duncan Allen |year=2005 |website=www.nycsubway.org |access-date=13 July 2010}}</ref>
In 2004, Seattle replaced its "Transit Tunnel" fleet with diesel-electric hybrid buses, which operate similarly to [[hybrid car]]s outside the tunnel and in a low-noise, low-emissions "hush mode" (in which the diesel engine operates but does not exceed [[idle speed]]) when underground.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/vehicles/bustech.html |title=Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and Changing Bus Technology |author=Metro Online|date=14 December 2007|publisher=King County Metro|access-date=13 July 2010}}</ref> The need to provide electric power in underground environments brings the capital and maintenance costs of such routes closer to those of light rail, and raises the question of building or eventually converting to light rail. In Seattle, the downtown transit tunnel was retrofitted for conversion to a shared hybrid-bus and light-rail facility in preparation for Seattle's Central [[Link light rail|Link Light Rail]] line, which opened in July 2009. In March 2019, expansion of the light rail in the tunnel moved busses back to surface streets.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kiro7.com/traffic/what-to-expect-when-830-daily-buses-move-into-downtown-seattle/933064842 |title=Last day for buses in Seattle's downtown transit tunnel |author=Graham Johnson |date=22 March 2019 |website=KIRO 7}}</ref>
Bi-articulated battery electric buses cause no problems in tunnels anymore but provide BRT capacity.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/solaris-bi-articulated-e-buses-tide-bus/ | title=Solaris to deliver 14 bi-articulated e-buses in Denmark. They're powered by two motors and over 700 KWH battery | date=29 October 2021 }}</ref>
== Performance ==
{{See also|BRT Standard}}
A BRT system can be measured by a number of factors. The [[BRT Standard]] was developed by the [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) to score BRT corridors, producing a [[BRT Standard#Scored BRT Corridors|list of rated BRT corridors]] meeting the minimum definition of BRT. The highest rated systems received a "gold" ranking. The latest edition of the standard was published in 2016.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) |title=The BRT Standard |date=21 June 2016 |url=https://www.itdp.org/2016/06/21/the-brt-standard/ |access-date=19 May 2019 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190411093827/https://www.itdp.org/2016/06/21/the-brt-standard/ |archive-date=11 April 2019}}<br />{{cite web |publisher=[[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) |title=The BRT Standard |date=24 July 2014 |url=https://www.itdp.org/the-brt-standard/ |access-date=19 May 2019 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150207043436/https://www.itdp.org/the-brt-standard/ |archive-date=7 February 2015}}</ref>
Other metrics used to evaluate BRT performance include:
* The vehicle headway is the average time interval between vehicles on the same line. Buses can operate at headways of 10 seconds or less, but average headways on TransMilenio at busy intersections are 13 seconds,<ref name="NBRTI report">[http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Bogota%20Report_Final%20Report_May%202006.pdf "Applicability of Bogotá's TransMilenio BRT System to the United States"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726014111/http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Bogota%20Report_Final%20Report_May%202006.pdf |date=26 July 2011 }} NBRTI (May 2006). Retrieved 15 March 2010.</ref> 14 seconds for the busiest section of the [[Metrobus (Istanbul)]], 7 seconds in Belo Horizonte,<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title= Belo Horizonte|url=https://brtdata.org/location/latin_america/brazil/belo_horizonte/ |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=brtdata.org |language=en-us}}</ref> 6 seconds in Rio de Janeiro.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |url=https://brtdata.org/location/latin_america/brazil/rio_de_janeiro/ |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=brtdata.org |language=en-us|title=Rio de Janeiro }}</ref>
* Vehicle capacity, which can range from 50 passengers for a conventional bus up to some 300 for a bi-articulated vehicle or 500.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chinese rail maker develops smart bus - Xinhua {{!}} English.news.cn |url=http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-06/02/c_136335510.htm |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=www.xinhuanet.com}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite web | url=https://masstransit.network/mass-transit-news/volvo-buses/worlds-largest-bus | title=Volvo launches the world's largest bus | date=25 November 2016 }}</ref>
* The effectiveness of the stations to handle passenger demand. High volumes of passengers on vehicles require large bus stations and more boarding areas at busy interchange points. This is the standard bottleneck of BRT (and heavy rail).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.itdp.org/2017/11/16/the-brt-planning-guide |title=The BRT Planning Guide 4th edition, pp. 25-26 of 1076 |date=16 November 2017 |access-date=2022-10-05}}</ref>
* The effectiveness of the feeder system: can these deliver people to stations at the required speed?
* Local passenger demand. Without enough local demand for travel, the capacity will not be used.
Based on this data, the minimum headway and maximum current vehicle capacities, the theoretical maximum throughput measured in [[passengers per hour per direction]] (PPHPD) for a single traffic lane is some 150,000 passengers per hour (250 passengers per vehicle, one vehicle every 6 seconds). In real world conditions BRT Rio (de Janeiro, BRS Presidente Vargas) with 65.000 PPHPD holds the record,  TransMilenio Bogotá and Metrobus Istanbul perform 49,000 – 45,000 PPHPD,  most other busy systems operating in the 15,000 to 25,000 range.<ref name=":1" /><ref name="NBRTI report" /><ref name=":2" />
{| class="wikitable sortable toccolours" style="border-collapse:collapse" cellpadding="1" border="1"
|-  style="text-align:center; background:#e0e0e0"
!Location
!System name
![[Passengers per hour per direction|Peak passengers per<br>hour per direction]]
! data-sort-type=number | Passengers per day
!Length<br>(km)
|-
| [[Dar es Salaam]] || [[Dar es Salaam bus rapid transit]] || 18,000<ref name="BRTdata peakLoad">{{cite web |url=https://brtdata.org/indicators/systems/peak_load_passengers_per_hour_per_direction |title=Peak load (passengers per hour per direction) |website=brtdata.org |date=2018| access-date=9 June 2023}}</ref>|| 180,000<ref name="BRTdata dailyDemand">{{cite web |url=https://brtdata.org/indicators/systems/daily_demand_passengers_per_day |title=Daily demand (passengers per day) |website=brtdata.org |date=2018 | access-date=9 June 2023}}</ref> (-2,500,000)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.africa-press.net/tanzania/all-news/dart-gears-up-to-serve-2-5-million-passengers-daily|title=DART gears up to serve 2.5 million passengers daily|work=Africa Press|date=January 24, 2021}}</ref>|| 21<ref>{{cite web |url=https://brtdata.org/location/africa/tanzania/dar_es_salaam |title=Dar es Salaam |website=brtdata.org |access-date=2023-09-02}}</ref>
|-
| [[Bogotá]] ||[[TransMilenio]] || 49,000<ref name="BRTdata Bogota">{{cite web |url=https://brtdata.org/location/latin_america/colombia/bogota |title=Bogotá |website=brtdata.org |date=2018 |access-date=9 June 2023}}</ref>
|| 2,154,961<ref name="BRTdata Bogota"/> ||113<ref name="BRTdata Bogota"/>
|-
|[[Ahmedabad]]
|[[Ahmedabad Bus Rapid Transit System|Janmarg (Ahmedabad BRT)]]
|
|450,000<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/ahmedabad-bus-users-down-25-in-a-decade/articleshow/64877102.cms|title=Ahmedabad bus users down 25% in a decade! |website=The Times of India |date=6 July 2018 |access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref>
|125<ref name=":0" />
|-
|[[Guangzhou]]
|[[Guangzhou Bus Rapid Transit]]
|26,900<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kuchingptc.com/download1.php|title=International Public Transport Conference 2010 – Case Study of the Guangzhou BRT|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713173303/http://www.kuchingptc.com/download1.php|archive-date=13 July 2011|url-status=dead|access-date=5 August 2010}}</ref>
|1,000,000
|22
|-
| [[Curitiba]] || [[Rede Integrada de Transporte]] ||  13,900&nbsp;– 24,100 || 508,000<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brtdata.org/#/location/latin_america/brazil/curitiba|title=BRT Data Latin America / Brazil / Curitiba|access-date=24 August 2014|archive-date=8 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140208053814/http://brtdata.org/#/location/latin_america/brazil/curitiba|url-status=dead}}</ref> (2,260,000 inc. feeder lines<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/JPT15.2Duarte.pdf |title=Intermodal Connectivity to BRT: A Comparative Analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba |journal=Journal of Public Transportation |access-date=24 March 2014}}</ref>) || 81
|-
| [[Mexico City]] || [[Mexico City Metrobus]] ||  18,500{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} || 1,800,000<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.metrobus.cdmx.gob.mx/comunicacion/nota/ampliacion-flota|title=Ampliación de flota 33 autobuses|website=Metrobús}}</ref> ||140<ref>Sum of km of all lines on [http://www.metrobus.cdmx.gob.mx/dependencia/acerca-de/fichas-tecnicas], as of 6 March 2018.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Línea 7 de Metrobús inicia pruebas con servicio gratis; esta es su ruta |language=es |trans-title=Line 7 of Metrobús starts tests with free service; this is your route |date=28 February 2018 |author=Daniela Vega |website=Uno TV |url=https://www.unotv.com/noticias/estados/distrito-federal/detalle/ya-opera-linea-7-de-metrobus-este-sera-su-recorrido-provisional-073869/ |access-date=19 May 2019}}</ref>
|-
| [[Belo Horizonte]] || [[Sistema MOVE]]||15,800 – 20,300<ref name="FHApeak">{{cite web|url=http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf|title=Characteristics of BRT for decision making |quote=Exhibit 3-22: "Maximum observed peak hour bus flows, capacities, and passenger flows at peak load points on transitways"|publisher=Federal Transit Administration|date=1 August 2004|access-date=8 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415111548/http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf|archive-date=15 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> || 1,100,000||24
|-
|[[Istanbul]]
|[[Metrobus (Istanbul)]]
|45,000<ref name="mercedes-benz-bus.com">{{Cite web |date=2018-07-23 |title=Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Istanbul, Turkey: Metrobüs |url=https://www.mercedes-benz-bus.com/content/dam/mbo/markets/common/buy/bus-rapid-transit/brt-services-online/images/content/BRT_Flyer_Istanbul_EN_23_07_18.pdf |access-date=2023-09-19 |publisher=Mercedes-Benz}}</ref>
|1,000,000<ref name="mercedes-benz-bus.com"/>
|52
|-
|[[New Jersey]] || [[Lincoln Tunnel XBL]] || 15,500<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTABrochure_v28%20FINAL.pdf |title=Public Transportation: Moving America Forward |author=[[American Public Transit Association]] (APTA) |publisher=APTA |access-date=26 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130102221405/http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTABrochure_v28%20FINAL.pdf |archive-date=2 January 2013 |url-status=dead }} ''See p. 6, based on 62,000 people in the 4-hour morning rushhour''</ref> || 62,000 (4-hour morning peak only) ||
|-
|[[Brisbane]] || [[South East Busway]] ||15,000<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_2698 |title=Lord Mayor's Mass Transit Taskforce Report 2007 |publisher=Brisbane City Council }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> || 191,800<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mulley |first1=Corinne |last2=Ma |first2=Liang |last3=Clifton |first3=Geoffrey |last4=Yen |first4=Barbara |first5=Matthew |last5=Burke |date=June 2016 |title=Residential property value impacts of proximity to transport infrastructure: An investigation of bus rapid transit and heavy rail networks in Brisbane, Australia |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692316302691 |journal=Journal of Transport Geography |volume=54 |pages=43 |doi=10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.010 |bibcode=2016JTGeo..54...41M |hdl=10072/142793 |access-date=7 January 2022|hdl-access=free }} 70 million passengers per year divided by 365</ref> ||23
|-
|[[Jakarta]] || [[Transjakarta]] || 3,600<ref>{{cite web |last1=Carrigan |first1=Aileen |last2=King |first2=Robin |last3=Velasquez |first3=Juan Miguel |last4=Raifman |first4=Matthew |last5=Duduta |first5=Nicolae |title=Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of BRT Systems |url=https://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/Social-Environmental-Economic-Impacts-BRT-Bus-Rapid-Transit-EMBARQ.pdf |website=EMBARQ |publisher=World Resources Institute |access-date=20 February 2022}}</ref> || 1,134,000<ref>{{cite web|url=https://antaranews.com/berita/3828201/ada-kenaikan-jumlah-penumpang-transjakarta-saat-konser-coldplay|title=Ada kenaikan jumlah penumpang TransJakarta saat konser|website=antaranews.com|language=id |access-date=12 December 2023}}</ref>||251.2
|-
|[[New York City|New York]]
|[[Select Bus Service]]
|
|30,195
|
|-
|[[Tehran]]
|[[Tehran Bus Rapid Transit]]
|
|1,800,000
|150
|-
|[[Lahore Metrobus]]
|[[Lahore Transport Company]]
|
|220,000
|29
|}
Research of the [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) shows a capacity ranking of MRT modes, based on reported performance of 14 light rail systems, 14 heavy rail systems (just 1-track +  3 2-track-systems "highest capacity") and 56 BRT systems.
The study concludes, that BRT-"capacity on TransMilenio exceeds all but the highest capacity heavy rail systems, and it far exceeds the highest light rail system."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-11-16 |title=The BRT Planning Guide - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://itdp.org/2017/11/16/the-brt-planning-guide/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref>
Performance data of 84 systems show
# 37,700 passengers in peak hour per direction (PPHPD) in the best BRT system
# 36,000 in the best 1-track-heavy rail system
# 13,400 in the best light rail system
More topical are these BRT data
* 45,000 PPHPD in a 1-lane-system using articulated buses (2020 in Istanbul)
* 320 busses per hour per direction in the corridor Nossa Senhora de Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro for the year 2014 meaning a bus every 11 seconds.
* 65,400 PPHPD in 600 buses in the corridor Presidente Vargas in Rio de Janeiro for the years 2012 resp. 2014, which means 10 buses per minute or a bus every 6 seconds.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Peak load, corridor (passengers per hour per direction) |url=https://brtdata.org/indicators/corridors/peak_load_corridor_passengers_per_hour_per_direction/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=brtdata.org |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Peak frequency (buses per hour) |url=https://brtdata.org/indicators/systems/peak_frequency_buses_per_hour/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=brtdata.org |language=en-us}}</ref>
=== Comparison with light rail ===
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2014}}
<ref name=":5" />After the first BRT system opened in 1971, cities were slow to adopt BRT because they believed that the capacity of BRT was limited to about 12,000 passengers per hour traveling in a given direction during peak demand. While this is a capacity rarely needed in the US (12,000 is more typical as a total daily ridership), in the developing world this capacity constraint (or rumor of a capacity constraint) was a significant argument in favor of heavy rail metro investments in some venues.
When TransMilenio opened in 2000, it changed the paradigm by giving buses a passing lane at each station stop and introducing express services within the BRT infrastructure. These innovations increased the maximum achieved capacity of a BRT system to 35,000 passengers per hour.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/More-Development-For-Your-Transit-Dollar_ITDP.pdf|title=More Development For Your Transit Dollar. An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors|page=20|first1=W. |last1=Hook |first2=S. |last2=Lotshaw |first3=A. |last3=Weinstock|publisher=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy|date=2013}}</ref> The single-lane roads of Istanbul Metrobus had been frequently blocked by Phileas buses breaking down, causing delays for all the buses in a single direction.<ref>"Happy with Metrobus, when there is no better alternative". ''Hurriyet Daily News''. 22 July 2009. Retrieved 5 November 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web|language=tr|title=Uzmanlar Uyarmıştı Ama Yanan Metrobüsün Faturası Ağır Oldu |url=https://gurmedia.nl/uzmanlar-uyarmisti-ama-yanan-metrobusun-faturasi-agir-oldu/ |website=Gurmedia Haberin Merkezi |date=25 March 2015 |access-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>{{verify source|reason=Originally cited as a web source but without a URL. Now found but need verification from a Turkish reader that it supports the text|date=August 2023}} After focusing on Mercedes-Benz buses, capacity increased to 45,000&nbsp;pph.<ref name="mercedes-benz-bus.com"/> Light rail, by comparison, has reported passenger capacities between 3,500&nbsp;pph (mainly street running) to 19,000&nbsp;pph (fully [[grade-separated]]).<ref>G. Gardner, J. C. Rutter and F. Kuhn (1994). ''The performance and potential of light rail transit in developing cities.'' Project Report No. PR69. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.</ref>
There are conditions that favor light rail over BRT, but they are fairly narrow. These conditions are a corridor with only one available lane in each direction, more than 16,000 passengers per direction per hour but less than 20,000, and a long block length, because the train cannot block intersections. These conditions are rare, but in that specific instance, light rail might have a minimal operational advantage.
The United States Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) summarized in the report "Mass Transit – Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise", the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provided funding for the construction of heavy rail and of light rail at that time, but not of BRT. The FTA funding of BRT "rather focuses on obtaining and sharing information on projects being pursued by local transit agencies".<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |title=GAO-01-984 Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-984.pdf |access-date=5 October 2023 |website=United States General Accounting Office |pages=25–33,30}}</ref> In spite of this different funding the capital costs of BRT systems were lower in many US communities than those of light rail systems and performance often similar.<ref name=":5" /> The GAO stated, BRT systems were generally more flexible compared to light rail<ref name=":5" /> and faster.<ref name=":5" /> "While transit officials noted a public bias toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference for rail over bus when service characteristics are equal."<ref name=":5" />
===Comparison with heavy rail===
Fjellstrom/Wright distributed a map of the mid-term goal to expand Bogota's BRT system, TransMilenio, so that 85% of the city's 7 million inhabitants live within 500m distance to a TransMileneo line. Such an expansion program would be unrealistic for a rail-based MRT-system, according to Bogota's mayor.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fjellstrom |first1=Karl |title=Mass Transit Options, 4.4:Flexibility |website=www.gtz.de |url=https://sutp.org/download/8100/?tmstv=1676136996 |publisher=GTZ on Behalf of Bundesminister für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung|access-date=24 February 2023}}</ref>
An additional use of BRT is the [[Rail replacement bus service|replacement of heavy rail services]], due to infrastructure damage, reduced ridership, or a combination of both where lower maintenance costs are desired while taking advantage of an existing dedicated right of way. One such system in Japan consists of portions of the [[East Japan Railway Company|JR East]] [[Kesennuma Line|Kesennuma]] and [[Ōfunato Line|Ofuanto Lines]], which were catastrophically damaged during the [[2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]], and later repaired as a bus lane over the same right of way, providing improved service with much lower restoration and maintenance costs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=気仙沼線BRT・大船渡線BRT（バス高速輸送システム）：JR東日本 |url=https://www.jreast.co.jp/railway/train/brt/ |access-date=2023-07-14 |website=JR東日本：東日本旅客鉄道株式会社 |language=ja}}</ref> Another system set to open in August 2023 is a portion of the JR Kyushu [[Hitahikosan Line]], which was damaged due to torrential rain in 2017.<ref>{{Cite web |title=日田彦山線 BRTひこぼしライン 2023年8月28日 開業予定 |url=https://www.jrkyushu.co.jp/train/hikoboshiline/ |access-date=2023-07-14 |website=日田彦山線 BRTひこぼしライン |language=ja}}</ref> In both cases, ridership had dropped considerably since the lines opened, and the higher capacity of a rail line is no longer needed or cost-effective compared to buses on the same alignments.
=== Comparison with conventional bus services ===
[[File:Chang'an avenue in Beijing.jpg|thumb|Conventional bus services being delayed by [[traffic congestion]] on [[Chang'an Avenue]] in [[Beijing]]]]
Conventional scheduled bus services use general traffic lanes, which can be slow due to [[traffic congestion]], and the speed of bus services is further reduced by long [[Dwell time (transportation)|dwell times]]. {{citation needed|date=June 2014}}
In 2013, the New York City authorities noted that buses on [[34th Street (Manhattan)|34th Street]], which carried 33,000 bus riders a day on local and express routes, traveled at {{convert|4.5|mph|km/h}}, only slightly faster than walking pace. Even despite the implementation of [[Select Bus Service]] (New York City's version of a bus rapid transit system), dedicated bus lanes, and traffic cameras on the 34th Street corridor, buses on the corridor were still found to travel at an average of 4.5&nbsp;mph.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/html/routes/34th_transit.shtml|title=34th Street Select Bus Service|quote=Bus service along 34th Street is among the slowest in the city. Buses travel at an average of {{convert|4.5|mph}}, only slightly faster than walking. Despite these slow speeds, 34th Street is a major east-west bus corridor, carrying over 33,000 bus riders a day on local and express routes.|access-date=31 March 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170623124601/http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/html/routes/34th_transit.shtml|archive-date=23 June 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>
In the 1960s, [[Reuben Smeed]] predicted that the average speed of traffic in central London would be {{convert|9|mph}} without other disincentives such as [[road pricing]], based on the theory that this was the minimum speed that people will tolerate. When the [[London congestion charge]] was introduced in 2003, the average traffic speed was indeed {{convert|14|km/h}} which was the highest speed since the 1970s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/fifth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2007-07-07.pdf|title=Impacts monitoring&nbsp;— fifty annual report|work=Transport for London}}</ref> By way of contrast, typical speeds of BRT systems range from {{convert|17|to|30|mph}}.<ref name="nbrti.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf|title=Characteristics of BRT for decision making.|page=ES-5|publisher=Federal Transit Administration|date=1 August 2004|access-date=8 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415111548/http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Characteristics_BRT_Decision-Making.pdf|archive-date=15 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
== Cost ==
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2014}}
[[File:Saichi-stn-BRT03.jpg|thumb|[[Kesennuma Line]] in Japan damaged in 2011 tsunami. JR converted sections of the line into a dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) route due to the cost of reconstructing the railway.]]
The capital cost of implementing BRT is lower than for light rail: A study by the U.S. [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) from 2000 found that the average capital cost per mile for busways was $13.5&nbsp;million while light rail average cost was $34.8&nbsp;million.<ref name="U.S. GAO">{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf|title=Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise|author=GAO|date=September 2001|publisher=GAO|access-date=16 March 2011|archive-date=30 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430210939/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><!--the US is neither a leading nation in BRT nor a leading country in passenger rail. It is also famously bad at cost control. Sources describing the situation in other countries should be added.-Reply: Thanks.  2013 in other ountries please read „In higher income countries ..." and find information about lower income countries in the source. --> The total investment varies considerably due to factors such as cost of the roadway, amount of grade separation, station structures and traffic signal systems.
In 2003, a study edited by the German GTZ compared various MRT systems all over the world and concluded ″Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) can provide high-quality, metro-like transit service at a fraction of the cost of other options″.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2003-12-01 |title=Sustainable Transport: a Sourcebook for Developing Cities - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://itdp.org/2003/12/01/sustainable-transport-a-sourcebook-for-developing-cities/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref>
In 2013, the analysis of a database of nineteen LRT projects, twenty-six HRT projects, and forty-two BRT projects specified "In higher income countries ...  an HRT alternative is likely to cost up to 40 times as much as a BRT alternative".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-11-16 |title=The BRT Planning Guide - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://itdp.org/2017/11/16/the-brt-planning-guide/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref> and a surface LRT alternative about 4 times that of a BRT alternative.
Operational cost of running a BRT system is generally lower than light rail, though the exact comparison varies, and labor costs depend heavily on wages, which vary between countries. For the same level of ridership and demand, higher labor costs in the developed world relative to developing countries will tend to encourage developed world transit operators to prefer operate services with larger but less frequent vehicles. This will allow the service to achieve the same capacity while minimizing the number of drivers. This may come as a hidden cost to passengers in lower demand routes who experience significantly lower frequencies and longer waiting times and limit gain of ridership.
In the study done by the U.S. GAO, BRT systems usually had lower cost as well based on "operating cost per vehicle hour", as on "operating cost per revenue mile", and on "operating cost per passenger trip", mainly because of lower vehicle cost and lower infrastructure cost.<ref name="U.S. GAO" />
An ambitious light rail system runs partly grade separated (e.g. underground), which gives free right-of-way and much faster traffic compared to passing the traffic signals needed in a surface level system. Underground BRT was suggested as early as 1954.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://metrotransportationlibrary.blogspot.com/2010/05/1954-plan-for-los-angeles-underground_20.html|title = Metro's Primary Resources| date=31 May 2023 }}</ref>  As long as most buses still run on diesel, air quality can become a significant concern in tunnels, but the [[Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel]] is an example of using hybrid buses, which switch to overhead electric propulsion while they are underground, eliminating diesel emissions and reducing fuel usage. Alternatives are elevated busways or - more expensive - elevated railways.<ref name=":4" />
[[File:Mettis BRT Metz.jpg|thumb|Prominent articulated "tram-like" [[Van Hool]] vehicles are used in [[Metz]], France.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vanhool.be/ENG/highlights/vanhoolpresentst.html |title=Van Hool presents the ExquiCity Design Mettis |access-date=5 June 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605074801/http://www.vanhool.be/ENG/highlights/vanhoolpresentst.html |archive-date=5 June 2013}}</ref>]]
== Criticism ==
BRT systems have been widely promoted by [[non-governmental organization]]s such as the Shell-funded EMBARQ program, [[Rockefeller Foundation]]<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ross|first1=Benjamin|title=Big Philanthropy Takes the Bus|url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/brt-bus-rapid-transit-big-philanthropy-oil-lobby|website=Dissent|access-date=30 November 2016}}</ref> and [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP), whose consultant pool includes the former mayor of Bogota ([[Colombia]]), [[Enrique Peñalosa]] (former president of ITDP).
Supported by contributions of bus-producing companies such as [[Volvo]],<ref>{{cite web | title = Peñalosa y su trancón de intereses | date = 24 January 2016 | work = Al Garete | url = https://algarete.com.co/2016/01/24/penalosa-y-su-trancon-de-intereses/ | language = es | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160501102439/https://algarete.com.co/2016/01/24/penalosa-y-su-trancon-de-intereses/ | archive-date = 1 May 2016 }}</ref> the ITDP not only established a proposed "standard" for BRT system implementation, but developed intensive lobby activities around the world to convince local governments to select BRT systems over rail-based transportation models (subways, light trains, etc.).<ref>{{cite web | title = Si Peñalosa no va a la ciudad, la ciudad va a Peñalosa | date = 7 March 2016 | work = Al Garete | url = http://algarete.com.co/2016/03/07/si-penalosa-no-va-a-la-ciudad-la-ciudad-va-a-penalosa/ | language = es | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160506024550/https://algarete.com.co/2016/03/07/si-penalosa-no-va-a-la-ciudad-la-ciudad-va-a-penalosa/ | archive-date = 6 May 2016}}</ref>
=== "Fake" BRT systems (BRT creep) ===
[[File:MTA New York City Bus S79 Select Bus Service bus.jpg|right|thumb|250px|S79 SBS bus at [[Staten Island Mall]]. The degradation of [[Select Bus Service]] (SBS) is cited as an example of BRT creep. Note the lack of ticket machines or level boarding.]]
{{Main|Bus rapid transit creep}}
'''Bus rapid transit creep''' is a phenomenon commonly defined as a bus rapid transit (BRT) system that fails to meet the requirements to be considered "true BRT". These systems are often marketed as a fully realized bus rapid transit system, but end up being described as more of an improvement to regular bus service by proponents of the "'''BRT creep'''" term. Notably, the [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (ITDP) published several guidelines in an attempt to define what constitutes the term of "true BRT", known as the [[BRT Standard]], in an attempt to avert this phenomenon.
The most extreme versions of BRT creep lead to systems that cannot even truly be recognized as "Bus Rapid Transit". For example, a rating from the ITDP determined that the [[Silver Line (MBTA)|Boston Silver Line]] was best classified as "'''Not BRT'''" after local decision makers gradually decided to do away with most BRT-specific features.<ref name="RGL">{{Cite report |url=https://go.itdp.org/display/live/Recapturing+Global+Leadership+in+Bus+Rapid+Transit:+A+Survey+of+Select+U.S.+Cities |title=Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: A Survey of Select U.S. Cities |last1=Weinstock |first1=Annie |last2=Hook |first2=Walter |publisher=[[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] |last3=Replogle |first3=Michael |last4=Cruz |first4=Ramon |access-date=23 May 2014 |date=May 2011}}</ref>{{rp|45}} The study also evaluates New York City's [[Select Bus Service]] (which is supposed to be BRT-standard) as "Not BRT".<ref name="RGL" />{{rp|47}}
=== Environmental issues ===
Unlike [[Electric multiple unit|electric-powered trains]] commonly used in rapid transit and light rail systems, bus rapid transit often uses diesel- or [[gasoline]]-fueled engines. The typical bus diesel engine causes noticeable levels of air pollution, noise and vibration.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08026.pdf |title=Average In-Use Emissions from Urban Buses and School Buses |author=Office of Transportation and Air Quality |id=EPA420-F-08-026 |date=October 2008 |publisher=EPA |access-date=19 May 2019 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130202091527/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08026.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2013}}</ref> It is noted however that BRT can still provide significant environmental benefits over private cars. In addition, BRT systems can replace an inefficient conventional bus network for more efficient, faster and less polluting BRT buses. For example, Bogotá previously used 2,700 conventional buses providing transportation to 1.6&nbsp;million passengers daily,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia|title=Historia |publisher=Transmilenio, Alcaldía de Bogotá |access-date=20 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919011327/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/historia |archive-date=19 September 2015}}</ref> while in 2013 TransMilenio transported 1.9&nbsp;million passengers using only 630 BRT buses,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_vf.pdf|title=Informe de gestión de Transmilenio |date=2013 |page=18 |publisher=Transmilenio, Alcaldía de Bogotá |access-date=20 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018092300/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/sites/default/files/informe_de_gestion_tmsa_2013_vf.pdf|archive-date=18 October 2015}}</ref> a fleet less than a quarter in size of the old fleet, that circulates at twice the speed, with a huge reduction in air pollution.
To reduce direct emissions some systems use alternative forms of traction such as electric or [[hybrid vehicles|hybrid engines]]. BRT systems can use trolleybuses to lower air pollution and noise emissions such as those in [[Beijing Bus|Beijing]] and [[Trolleybuses in Quito|Quito]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trolleycoalition.org/noise.html|title=Edmonton Trolley Coalition|work=trolleycoalition.org}}</ref> The price penalty of installing [[overhead lines]] could be offset by the environmental benefits and potential for savings from centrally generated electricity, especially in cities where electricity is less expensive than other fuel sources. Trolleybus electrical systems can be potentially reused for future light rail conversion. TransJakarta buses use cleaner [[compressed natural gas]]-fueled engines, while Bogotá started to use hybrid buses in 2012; these hybrid systems use [[regenerative braking]] to charge batteries when the bus stops and then use electric motors to propel the bus up to 40&nbsp;km/h, then automatically switching to the diesel engine for higher speeds, which allows for considerable savings in fuel consumption and pollutant dispersion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicio-operacion-de-buses-hibridos|title=Inicio de operación de buses híbridos|publisher=Alcaldía de Bogotá – Transmilenio |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018092300/http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/es/articulos/inicio-operacion-de-buses-hibridos|archive-date=18 October 2015}}</ref>
=== Overcrowding and poor quality service ===
[[File:TransMilenio-traffic-jam.jpg|thumb|upright|Traffic jam at [[TransMilenio]]'s dedicated line]]
Many BRT systems suffer from overcrowding in buses and stations as well as long wait times for buses. In [[Santiago de Chile]], the average of the system is six passengers per square meter ({{convert|6|/m2|/sqyd|0|disp=out}}) inside vehicles. Users have reported days where the buses take too long to arrive, and are too overcrowded to accept new passengers.<ref>{{Cite web|title = El pecado original que determinó el fracaso del Transantiago|url =http://radio.uchile.cl/2017/02/10/el-pecado-original-que-determino-el-fracaso-del-transantiago/|website = Diario UChile|date = 10 February 2017}}</ref> As of June 2017, the system has an approval rating of 15% among commuters, and it has lost 27% of its passengers, who have turned mostly to cars.<ref>{{Cite web|title = 10 años de Transantiago: su deterioro y su reemplazo|url =http://www.algarete.com.co/10-anos-de-transantiago-su-deterioro-y-su-reemplazo/|website = Algarete (in spanish)|date = 30 June 2017}}</ref>
In [[Bogotá]] the overcrowding was even worse; the average of [[TransMilenio]] was eight passengers per square meter ({{convert|8|/m2|/sqyd|0|disp=out}}).<ref>{{Cite web|title = ¿Por qué colapsó TransMilenio? |url =http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/transmilenio-colapso/379695-3|website = Revista Semana|date = 3 August 2014}}</ref> Only 29% felt satisfied with the system. The data also showed that 23% of the citizens agreed with building more TransMilenio lines, in contrast of the 42% who considered that a [[rapid transit]] system should be built.<ref>{{Cite web|title = El futuro de Transmilenio|url =http://www.bogotacomovamos.org/blog/el-futuro-de-transmilenio/|website = Bogota como vamos|date = 28 August 2014}}</ref> Several cases of sexual assault had been reported by female users in TransMilenio. According to a 2012 survey made by the secretary of the woman of Bogota, 64% of women said they had been victims of sexual assault in the system.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Preocupantes cifras de acoso a mujeres en Transmilenio|url =http://www.noticiasrcn.com/nacional-bogota/preocupantes-cifras-acoso-mujeres-transmilenio|website=noticias RCN|date = 21 August 2013}}</ref> The system had even been ranked as the most dangerous transport for women.<ref>{{Cite web|title = EXCLUSIVE-POLL: Latin American cities have most dangerous transport for women, NYC best|url = http://news.trust.org//item/20141028235939-edprr/|website = Thomas Reuters Foundation News|date = 29 October 2014|access-date = 25 March 2018|archive-date = 22 November 2022|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20221122104311/https://news.trust.org/item/20141028235939-edprr|url-status = dead}}</ref> The poor quality of the system had occasioned an increment in the number of cars and motorcycles in the city; citizens preferred these transport means over TransMilenio. According to official data, the number of cars increased from approximately 666,000 in 2005 to 1,586,700 in 2016. The number of motorcycles was also growing, with 660,000 sold in Bogota in 2013, two times the number of cars sold.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Los 10 problemas más graves de Bogotá |url =http://www.dw.com/es/los-10-problemas-m%C3%A1s-graves-de-bogot%C3%A1/g-36068986|website = Deutsche Welle|date = 17 October 2016}}</ref><br>At the end of 2018 Transmilenio ordered 1383 new buses as a replacement of the older ones in service. 52% were compressed natural gas (CNG) buses made by Scania with Euro 6 emission rating, 48% were diesel engine made by Volvo with Euro 5 emission rating. More (or renewed?) orders have produced an impressive result: "To improve public and environmental health, the City of Bogotá has assembled a fleet of 1,485 electric buses for its public transportation system - placing the city among the three largest e-bus fleets outside of China."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-09 |title=Bogotá Wins 2022 Sustainable Transport Award - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://itdp.org/2022/02/09/bogota-wins-2022-sustainable-transport-award/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Presentation-Mobilize.pdf Retrieved 2022-09-28</ref><br>In the year 2022 Bogotá has won the '''Sustainable Transport Award''', an award given out by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, which is partially funded by bus manufacturers. Reasons stated include the TransMilenio system and its urban cycling strategy.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-09 |title=Bogotá Wins 2022 Sustainable Transport Award - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |url=https://itdp.org/2022/02/09/bogota-wins-2022-sustainable-transport-award/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/STA-2022-Award-Ceremony-Press-Release.docx-1.pdf Retrieved 2022-09-30</ref><ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taLkKIEYotg |title=2022 STA Ceremony Celebrating Bogotá, Colombia |language=en |access-date=2024-05-08 |via=www.youtube.com}}</ref>
The system in [[Jakarta]] had been experiencing issues, with complaints of overcrowding in buses and stations and low frequency of the routes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.algarete.com.co/transjakarta-otro-caso-de-exito/|title=Transjakarta : Otro caso de "éxito"|website=algarete (in spanish)|date=25 February 2016|access-date=13 April 2018|archive-date=14 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414010424/http://www.algarete.com.co/transjakarta-otro-caso-de-exito/|url-status=dead}}</ref> There were extensive safety concerns as well; rampant sexual harassment has been reported,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jakartaglobe.id/archive/another-alleged-sexual-harassment-at-transjakarta-station/|title=Another Alleged Sexual Harassment at TransJakarta Station|newspaper=Jakarta Globe|date=5 December 2012|access-date=25 March 2018|archive-date=22 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180122075154/http://jakartaglobe.id/archive/another-alleged-sexual-harassment-at-transjakarta-station/|url-status=dead}}</ref> and the fire safety of the buses has been under scrutiny after one of the buses, a Zhongtong imported from China, suddenly and spontaneously caught on fire.<ref>{{Cite web|last=CoconutsJakarta|date=2015-03-13|title=Ahok apologizes for disrupting Transjakarta service as 30 buses are grounded {{!}} Coconuts Jakarta|url=https://coconuts.co/jakarta/news/ahok-apologizes-disrupting-transjakarta-service-30-buses-are-grounded/|access-date=2021-04-06|website=Coconuts|language=en-US}}</ref> The quality of the service was so bad that the then-governor of Jakarta, [[Basuki Tjahaja Purnama]], in March 2015 publicly apologized for the poor performance of the system.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://globalindonesianvoices.com/19617/jakarta-governor-apologizes-for-lees-than-optimal-transjakarta-busway-services/|title=Jakarta governor apoligezes for less than optimal Transjakarta busway services|website=Global indonesian voices|date=13 March 2015}}</ref>
=== Failures and reversals ===
[[File:Protest against bus rapid transit in Bogotá, 2016.jpg|thumb|upright|Protests in [[TransMilenio]] at the [[Terreros (TransMilenio)|Terreros]] station, 12 February 2016]]
The temporary unpopularity of [[Delhi]]'s BRT(2016)<ref>{{cite news |date= 18 January 2016 |title= Delhi's BRT Corridor to be demolished! |work= News Mobile |url= http://www.newsmobile.in/articles/2016/01/18/delhis-brt-corridor-to-be-demolished/ }}</ref> and the riots and spontaneous user demonstrations in Bogotá(2016)<ref>{{cite news |title= Bloqueo TransMilenio | work = El Tiempo |url= http://www.eltiempo.com/noticias/bloqueo-transmilenio |language = es}}</ref> raised doubts about the ability of BRTs to keep pace with increased ridership. On the other hand the speed of increased BRT ridership confirmed the research finding no general preference for rail over bus, see the end of chapter "[[Bus rapid transit#Comparison with light rail|Comparison with light rail]]". Bogota has regained trust and safety according to the Sustainable Transport Award 2022.
A lack of permanence of BRT has been criticized, with some arguing that BRT systems can be used as an excuse to build roads that others later try to convert for use by non-BRT vehicles. Examples of this can be found in Delhi, where a BRT system was scrapped,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lalchandani |first1=Neha|title=BRT will be scrapped, decides Arvind Kejriwal|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/BRT-will-be-scrapped-decides-Arvind-Kejriwal/articleshow/46708947.cms|website=The Times of India|date=27 March 2015 |access-date=23 May 2017}}</ref> and in [[Aspen, Colorado]], where drivers are lobbying the government to allow mixed-use traffic in former BRT lanes as of 2017, although in other US cities, such as [[Albuquerque]], [[New Mexico]], just the opposite is true.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Carroll|first1=Rick|title=Aspen candidates mull citizen's proposal to open bus lanes to all vehicles|url=http://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-candidates-mull-citizens-proposal-to-open-bus-lanes-to-all-vehicles/ |website=The Aspen Times|date=25 April 2017 |access-date=23 May 2017}}</ref> Such exuse might be a side effect of the advantages connected with the flexibility of BRT. <ref>{{cite web |last1=Fjellstrom |first1=Karl |title=Mass Transit Options, 4.4:Flexibility |website=www.gtz.de |url=https://sutp.org/download/8100/?tmstv=1676136996 |publisher=Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit |access-date=24 February 2023}}</ref>
Experts have considered a failure of BRT to land use structure.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/947211468162273111/pdf/NonAsciiFileName0.pdf|title=Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit and Land-Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development|last1=Suzuki|first1=Hiroaki|last2=Cervero|first2=Robert|publisher=The World Bank}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://theconversation.com/south-africa-needs-to-revamp-its-new-public-transport-system-84930|title=South Africa needs to revamp its new public transport system|last=Venter|first=Christo|work=The Conversation|access-date=7 September 2018|language=en}}</ref> Some cities that are sprawled and have no mixed use have insufficient ridership to make BRT economically viable.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/transport-and-tourism/2017-07-10-bus-rapid-transit-system-on-road-to-nowhere-in-gauteng/|title=Bus Rapid Transit system on road to nowhere in Gauteng|access-date=7 September 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> In Africa, the [[African Urban Institute]] criticized the viability of ongoing BRTs across the continent.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.africaurban.org/harare-ready-bus-rapid-transit-system/|title=Is Harare ready for Bus Rapid Transit System?|last=Muzenda|first=Archimedes|publisher=African Urban Institute|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180907144741/https://www.africaurban.org/harare-ready-bus-rapid-transit-system/|archive-date=7 September 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref>
== Impact ==
A 2018 study found that the introduction of a BRT network in Mexico City reduced air pollution, as measured by emissions of CO, NOX, and PM10.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=1 April 2018|title=Evaluation of the impact of Bus Rapid Transit on air pollution in Mexico City|journal=Transport Policy|language=en|volume=63|pages=209–220|doi=10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.01.001|issn=0967-070X|last1=Bel|first1=Germà|last2=Holst|first2=Maximilian|hdl=2445/119530|hdl-access=free}}</ref>
== See also ==
{{Portal|Buses}}
{{div col|colwidth=18em}}
* [[Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit]]
* [[Bus lane]]
* [[Capacitor electric vehicle]]
* [[List of bus rapid transit systems]]
* [[List of bus operating companies]]
* [[List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom]]
* [[List of trolleybus systems]]
* [[Park and ride]]
* [[Quality Bus Corridor]]
* [[Queue jump]]
* [[Sustainable transport]]
* [[Traffic engineering (transportation)]]
* [[Transit bus]]
* [[Transit Elevated Bus]]
{{div col end}}
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
== Further reading ==
*Ghadirifaraz, B., Vaziri, M., Safa, A., & Barikrou, N. (2017). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316273459_A_Statistical_Appraisal_of_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Based_on_Passengers_Satisfaction_and_Priority_Case_Study_Isfahan_City_Iran A Statistical Appraisal of Bus Rapid Transit Based on Passengers Satisfaction and Priority Case Study: Isfahan City], Iran (No. 17-05108).
* Poku-Boansi, M and Marsden, G  (2018) [http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132443/ Bus Rapid Transit Systems as a Governance Reform Project]. Journal of Transport Geography, 70. pp.&nbsp;193–202. {{ISSN|0966-6923}} DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.06.005 Bus rapid transit systems as a governance reform project]
== External links ==
{{Commons category|Bus rapid transit}}
===General information===
* [https://go.itdp.org/display/live/The+BRT+Standard The BRT Standard 2014 Edition] [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130703043300/http://www.itdp.org/microsites/bus-rapid-transit-planning-guide/brt-planning-guide-in-english/ Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (2007)] A very comprehensive 800 guide to creating a successful BRT system by the [[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]] (available in English, Spanish and Portuguese)
* [http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?ID=1698 ''Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit''] Transportation Research Board
* [http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2264 ''Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines''] Transportation Research Board
* {{cite web | last = Cervero | first = Robert | title = Bus Rapid Transit: An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport | publisher = European Automobile Manufacturers Association | year = 2013 | url = http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/20th_SAG_HR.pdf}}
* {{cite web | title = Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit | publisher = National Bus Rapid Transit Association | year = 2009 | url = http://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html | access-date = 3 March 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100218073738/http://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html | archive-date = 18 February 2010 | url-status = dead }}
* {{cite journal | last = Levinson | first = Herbert S. | title = Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview | journal = Journal of Public Transportation | volume = 5 | issue = 2 | pages = 1–30 | year = 2002 | doi = 10.5038/2375-0901.5.2.1 | doi-access = free }}
* [http://www.brt.cl/ Across Latitudes and Cultures Bus Rapid Transit] An international Centre of Excellence for BRT development
* [http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual] Transportation Research Board
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120208051942/http://www.its.umn.edu/Research/ProjectDetail.html?id=2001046 BRT Technologies: Assisting Drivers Operating Buses on Road Shoulders]. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering
===Country-specific information===
* [https://www.itdp.org/recapturing-global-leadership-in-bus-rapid-transit-a-survey-of-select-u-s-cities/ Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit – A Survey of Select U.S. Cities] (available for download in pdf) Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (May 2011)
* {{cite web|url=http://www.motorworld.com.cn/buses/brt/pdf/China-en.pdf|title=BRT in China|author=Wang Fengwu and James Wang|publisher=Public Transport International|date=April 2004|access-date=10 March 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090924203956/http://www.motorworld.com.cn/buses/brt/pdf/China-en.pdf|archive-date=24 September 2009|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal | last = Vincent | first = William | author2 = Lisa Callaghan Jerram | title = Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on Transit Oriented Development Around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Australia | publisher = Breakthrough Technologies Institute | location = Washington, DC | date = April 2008 | url = http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NBHBusway/2010/BRT-TOD-Report.pdf | access-date = 22 April 2012 | archive-date = 7 February 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140207201011/http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NBHBusway/2010/BRT-TOD-Report.pdf | url-status = dead }}
* [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430210939/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf |date=30 April 2015 }} U.S. General Accounting Office
* [http://www.nbrti.org/ The National BRT Institute] (USA)
===Databases===
* [http://brtdata.org/ Global BRT Data] Database of Bus Rapid Transit systems around the world
{{Clear}}
{{bus rapid transit}}
{{Public transport}}
{{Buses}}
[[Category:Bus rapid transit| ]]
[[Category:Bus terminology]]
[[Category:Public transport by mode]]
[[Category:Sustainable transport]]
[[Category:Transportation planning]]
[[Category:Sustainable urban planning]]
[[Category:Types of bus service]]