Session of our webinar “Highlights of the new BRT Planning Guide – Comparison between modes and new approaches to Service Planning” by Dr. Walter Hook

1. What’s new in the BRT
Planning Guide, 2nd
Edi i ?Edition?
Projected release date: Fall, 2015j ,
Dr.Walter Hook, President,
BRT Pl i I l LLCBRT Planning, Intl. LLC
whook@brtplan.com
(former CEO, ITDP)
BRTPlanning International, LLC

2. Main ChangesMain Changes
• Chapter 2: Why BRT? (Comparing transit modes) p y ( p g )
revised with up to date data, better related to
TCQSM 3rd Edition
• Entirely new Service Planning Chapter (6) the• Entirely new Service Planning Chapter (6): the
black box explained
• Best practice in Institutional Structures andBest practice in Institutional Structures and
Business Planning defined
• More guidance on transit industry transition
h d l imethodologies
• Entirely new Infrastructure Design chapter with
construction details more station design detailconstruction details, more station design detail

3. Better correlated to the BRT StandardBetter correlated to the BRT Standard

4. Ch t 2 R i iChapter 2 Revisions:
Looking for additional data!
Feedback welcome!
Comparative Cost Data from about 100 systems:
Developing Developed Country
Average Cost per Kilometer by Mode
p g p y
Mode Cost/Km (US 2013) Cost/Km (US 2013)
Bus Rapid Transit 9,770,287$ 9,183,885$
Light Rail Transit n a 40 425 978$Light Rail Transit n.a. 40,425,978$
Heavy Rail Transit 92,106,918$ 384,891,792$

5. Country City Project
Project Total
Cost (2013 USD)
Length
(km)
Cost/Km
Quality (BRT
Classification)
Brazil Curitiba BRT "Linha Verde" 241,542,000$ 33.8 7,146,213$ Gold
Brazil Rio de Janeiro TransOeste 838 258 000$ 54 9 15 268 816$ Gold
Developing Countries
Bus Rapid Transit Projects
Capital Cost data
compiled from
43 BRT systems. Brazil Rio de Janeiro TransOeste 838,258,000$ 54.9 15,268,816$ Gold
Brazil Rio de Janeiro TransCarioca 573,942,000$ 39 14,716,462$ Gold
Brazil Belo Horizonte Antônio Carlos-Pedro 1 361,870,000$ 14.7 24,617,007$ [likely Gold]
Brazil Belo Horizonte Cristiano Machado 28,284,000$ 7 4,040,571$ Gold
Brazil Average 13,157,814$ Gold
China Beijing BRT Line 1 84,058,342$ 79 1,064,030$ Bronze
China Lanzhou Lanzhou BRT 38,340,000$ 9 4,260,000$ Silver
China Changzhou Changzhou BRT line 1 46,123,522$ 24.5 1,882,593$ Bronze
China Guangzhou Guangzhou BRT 110,270,200$ 22.9 4,815,293$ Gold
China Average 3,005,479$ Silver
Colombia Bogotá TransMilenio Phase 1 761,560,732$ 41 18,574,652$ Gold
y
Conclusions:
No cost g
Colombia Bogotá TransMilenio Phase 2 1,387,547,763$ 42 33,036,852$ Gold
Colombia Bogotá TransMilenio Phase 3 909,542,468$ 37 24,582,229$ Gold
Colombia Barranquilla Transmetro 270,135,988$ 14 19,295,428$ Silver
Colombia Cali Mio 835,293,533$ 49 17,046,807$ Silver
Colombia Cartagena Transcaribe 551,884,038$ 13 42,452,618$
Colombia Pereira Megabús 143,811,800$ 27 5,326,363$ Silver
Colombia Bucaramanga Metrolínea 345,876,940$ 50 6,917,539$
Colombia Average 20,904,061$ Gold
India Indore Indore iBus BRT 54,125,347$ 11 4,920,486$ [likely Bronze]
India Ahmedabad Janmarg BRT Phase 1 + 2 264,313,320$ 88 3,003,560$ Silver
I di D lhi D lhi Hi h C it B S t (HCBS) 23 458 613$ 5 8 4 044 588$ B i BRT
No cost
difference
between
developed and India Delhi Delhi High Capacity Bus System (HCBS) 23,458,613$ 5.8 4,044,588$ Basic BRT
India Surat Surat BRTS 137,081,466$ 11 12,461,951$ Bronze
India Pimpri Chinchwad Primpri Chinchwad BRTS 246,719,614$ 44.775 5,510,209$ [likely Bronze]
India Average 5,988,159$ Bronze
Indonesia Jakarta Transjakarta - Line 12 34,310,346$ 23.8 1,441,611$ Basic BRT
Indonesia Jakarta Transjakarta - Line 11 37,028,244$ 11.4 3,248,092$ Basic BRT
Indonesia Jakarta Transjakarta - Line 2 & 3 81,378,081$ 14 5,812,720$ Bronze
Indonesia Avg 3,500,808$ Basic
Mexico Monterrey Ecovía Line 1 128,230,227$ 30 4,274,341$ Silver
Mexico Puebla RUTA, Line 1 123,998,824$ 19 6,526,254$ Bronze
Mexico Puebla RUTA Line 2 248 665 446$ 20 12 433 272$
developing
countries.
No cost Mexico Puebla RUTA, Line 2 248,665,446$ 20 12,433,272$
Mexico Chihuahua Vivebús 77,138,153$ 20 3,856,908$ [likely Silver]
Mexico Estado de Mexico Mexíbus Línea 1 - Cd Azteca - Tecamac 125,791,216$ 16.3 7,717,253$ Silver
Mexico Estado de Mexico Mexíbus Línea 3 Chimalhuacán - Pantitlá 134,024,021$ 14.75 9,086,374$ Silver
Mexico Mexico City Metrobús Líneas 1-4 578,173,869$ 93 6,216,923$ Silver
Mexico Mexico City Metrobús Línea 5 63,523,884$ 10 6,352,388$ Silver
Mexico León Optibús Etapa 1 66,957,736$ 25 2,678,309$ [likey Silver]
Mexico Average 6,571,335.86$ Silver
South Africa Johannesburg Rea Vaya 1a 311,634,023$ 30 10,387,801$ Silver (IA)
South Africa Johannesburg Rea Vaya Phase 1b 234,725,000$ 18 13,040,278$ Bronze (IB)
South Africa Tshwane A Re YengPhase IA 96,840,800$ 7 13,834,400$ Unknown
No cost
difference
between Bronze
and Silver
South Africa Cape Town MyCiTiPhase IA as of 2010 404,514,085$ 17 23,794,946$ Bronze
South Africa Average 15,264,356$ Bronze
France Paris TVM Rungis - Croix de Berny RER 107,767,000$ 22 4,898,500$ Silver
France Rouen TEOR (Phase 1) 205,592,000$ 38 5,410,316$ Silver
France Average 5,154,408$ Silver
USA Cleveland HealthLine 207,680,000$ 11 18,880,000$ Silver
USA Eugene Franklin Corridor (Green Line) 26,567,460$ 6 4,427,910$ Bronze
USA Los Angeles Orange Line (Original) 375,640,000$ 23 16,332,174$ Bronze
USA Average 13,213,361$ Bronze
9 770 287$
Developed Country
Standard.
Gold Standard
Cost is double
Developing Country Avg 9,770,287$
Developed Country Avg 9,183,885$
Global Average 10,654,383$
Gold Average 16,310,899$ Gold
Silver Average 8,725,432$ Silver
Bronze Average 8,706,686$ Bronze

6. LRT Data from 13 LRT systems, all in y ,
developing world,
Country City Project
Project Total
Cost (2013 USD)
Length
(km)
Cost/km
Quality(BRT
Classification)
Light Rail Transit Projects
y y j
Cost (2013 USD) (km) Classification)
England London Docklands $1,731,600,000 39 $44,400,000
France Besançon Line 1 Tramway 289,175,000$ 15 19,278,333$
France Dijon Line 1+2 Tramway 506,060,000$ 19 26,634,737$
France Le Havre Line 1+2 Tramway 541,490,000$ 13 41,653,077$
France Reims Line 1 Tramway 486,070,000$ 11 44,188,182$y , ,$ , ,$
France Lyon Line 4 Tramway 310,360,000$ 16 19,397,500$
European Average 32,591,971$
USA Charlotte LYNX Blue Line 503,130,000$ 16 31,445,625$ Silver
USA Minneapolis METRO Blue Line 902,914,600$ 20 45,145,730$
USA Denver Denver Central Valley Corridor 171,413,006$ 5.3 32,342,077$ Bronze
USA Denver Denver - South West Corridor 225,019,591$ 8.7 25,864,321$ Bronze
USA Portland Portland Blue 1,764,113,368$ 33 53,457,981$ Silver
USA Phoenix Phoenix 1,417,894,781$ 20 70,894,739$ Bronze
USA Pittsburgh Pittsburgh LRT 1,001,978,081$ 26.2 38,243,438$ Bronze
USA Average 42,484,844$
Average 40,425,977.76$

7. Heavy Rail Transit from 27 systems:Heavy Rail Transit from 27 systems:
Country City Project
Project Total
Cost (2013 USD)
Length
(km)
Cost/km
Heavy Rail Transit Projects
Brazil Rio de Janeiro Metro Line 4 3,824,000,000$ 16 $ 239,000,000
Brazil Sao Paulo (Line 4) Heavy Rail Transit 2,842,000,000.00$ 14 $ 203,000,000
China Lanzhou Lanzhou Metro Line 1 3,168,000,000$ 34 93,176,471$
China Guangzhou Guangzhou Metro Line 1 1,623,000,000$ 18.5 87,729,730$
China Shenzhen Shenzhen Metro Line3 1,855,408,197$ 33 56,224,491$
China Guangzhou Guangzhou Metro Line 2 1,449,180,328$ 18.284 79,259,480$
China Guangzhou Guangzhou Metro Line 3 2,458,403,066$ 36 68,288,974$
China Shanghai Metro Line 2 1,540,983,607$ 19 81,104,400$
Developing Country
HRT cost on
average 4 times
more in the g
China Beijing Metro Line 4 2,573,770,492$ 29 88,750,707$
Colombia Medellín Tranvía de ayacucho 324,599,000$ 4 81,149,750$
Colombia Bogotá Metro de Bogotá 3,450,000,000$ 35 98,571,429$
India Delhi Delhi Metro Phase 1 + 2 7,310,987,706$ 167.3 43,699,867$
India Mumbai Mumbai Metro Line 1 811,107,286$ 11.4 71,149,762$
India Hyderabad Hyderabad Metro Phase I 3,900,000,000$ 72 54,166,667$
India Bangalore Bangalore Namma Metro Phase 1 4,427,089,468$ 42.3 104,659,325$
India Kochi Kochi Metro Phase 1 934,630,895$ 25.612 36,491,914$
Indonesia Jakarta MRT 1,539,009,855$ 14 109,929,275$
$ $
more in the
developed world
Mexico Mexico City Metro Línea 12 Extension 621,687,640$ 4 155,421,910$
Mexico Mexico City Línea 12 Metro Ciudad de México 2,167,883,661$ 25 86,715,346$
Mexico Zona Metropolitana/Valle d Suburban Rail Line 1 2,109,555,525$ 27 78,131,686$
Mexico Monterrey Línea 3 Tren subterráneo de Monterrey 438,554,217$ 7.5 58,473,896$
South Africa Johannesburg Gautrain 4,100,568,824$ 80 51,257,110$
France Paris Grand Paris Metro expansion $29,500,000,000 200 $147,500,000
UK London Jubilee Line Extension $5,476,800,000 16 $342,300,000
USA Washington, DC Silver Line 3,140,700,000$ 19 $ 165,300,000
USA L A l R d/P l Li 7 167 500 000$ 25 $ 286 700 000
Developed Country
USA Los Angeles Red/Purple Lines 7,167,500,000$ 25 $ 286,700,000
USA New York 2nd Avenue Subway 17,000,000,000$ 17.3 982,658,960$
Average 126,307,609$
Developing Country Avg 92,106,918$
Developed Country Avg 384,891,792$

8. ConclusionsConclusions
• Main difference between BRT & LRT is cost ofMain difference between BRT & LRT is cost of
the rails and electric catenary, cost of the
vehicles and cost of a depot near the tracksvehicles, and cost of a depot near the tracks.
• Need better comparative data on operating
costs hard to collectcosts, hard to collect.

9. Main drivers of capacity differencesMain drivers of capacity differences
• Single lane BRT and LRT have very similar capacity. g y p y
• LRT has bigger vehicles with more doors where
passengers can board simultaneously (minimizing
i bl d ll ti ) BUTvariable dwell time) BUT…
• LRT has lower maximum frequency.
• Bottleneck for LRT is Usually block length (sets vehicle• Bottleneck for LRT is Usually block length (sets vehicle
length, usually under 61 meters) and headways set by
traffic signals, usually >90 sec. (can only handle 1 train
per signal phase, and in real world 1 train per 2 signal
phase)
• Bottleneck for BRT is the station• Bottleneck for BRT is the station

10. IF BRT has passing lanes and express
services…
• BRT can handle much higher frequencies
• BRT can simulate the long LRT vehicles by having many
buses boarding and alighting at multiple sub‐stations.
• BRT has no constraint at the traffic signal as many• BRT has no constraint at the traffic signal, as many
buses can pass through a single signal phase.
• Saturation of the critical station can be reduced by
h i id d d d b li it d thaving some corridor demand served by limited stop
services that bypass saturated stations.
• These possibilities can be measured (formulas Chapter p ( p
7) in the BRT Planning Guide, but are not
acknowledged by TCQSM 3rd Edition: The major
distinction

11. Boarding time per door is virtually
d l f didentical for BRT, LRT, and HRT
Variable Dwell Times
Mode Seconds per door
HRT& LRTAlighting at level 1 39‐ 2 0HRT & LRT Alighting at level 1.39 2.0
HRT & LRT Alighting with Steps 3.36 ‐ 3.97
HRT& LRTBoarding at level 1 11 2 61HRT & LRT Boarding at level 1.11 ‐ 2.61
HRT & LRT Boarding with Steps 2.91 ‐ 4.21
BRTB di T Mil i 1 2BRT Boarding TransMilenio 1.2
Standard at ‐ level BRT boarding 1.6

12. Theoretical and Observed CapacityTheoretical and Observed Capacity
V hi l it L d F t F C it
Theoretical capacities of different rapid transit alternatives
Vehicle capacity Load Factor Frequency Capacity
HRT 8 car single track, best imaginable
signaling system 1408 0.85 30 35904
HRT 8 car double track 1408 0.85 60 71808
LRT 8 module module, no turning
restrictions, 2 minute signal 632 0.85 15 8058
LRT 8 module, no turns allowed, 90 second
signal* 632 0.85 20 10744
LRT 8 module double track 632 0.85 40 21488
BRT Largest Bi‐articulated 220 0.85 60 11220
BRT w/ Passing Lanes 220 0.85 193 36000
BRT w/ Passing lanes & limiteds bypassing
bottleneck station 220 0.85 241 45000
*TCQSM 3rd Edition p 8‐87 provides 20 as the number of trains that can be processed at grade with a 90 second signal. They
reach a capacity of 12,000 pphpd by assuming trains with larger capacity than is commercially available or operable in most
on‐street contexts.

13. Observed Capacities:
no street level LRT with capacity higher than 6000
P h k di i b d BRT LRT HRT P h k di i b d BRT LRT HRT
Corridor Type PPHPD Level Tracks/ Lanes Source
Bogota BRT 37,700 Surface 2 #
Guangzhou BRT 27,400 Surface 2 #
Istanbul BRT 18,900 Highway 1 #
Lima BRT 13,950 Highway 2 #
C li BRT 11 100 S f 2 #
Passengers per hour per peak direction observed: BRT, LRT, HRT
BRT
Corridor Type PPHPD Level Tracks/ Lanes Source
Tunis‐ LRT LRT 13,400 Underground
Junctions 1 ?
Calgary LRT 5,900 Surface 1 +
Portland MAX Blue Line LRT LRT 4,741 Surface 1 *
Denver Central Corridor LRT LRT 4 484 Surface 1 *
LRT
Passengers per hour per peak direction observed: BRT, LRT, HRT
Cali BRT 11,100 Surface 2 #
Ottawa West Transitway BRT 11,100 Surface 1 &
Curitiba‐ Eixo Sul BRT 10,640 Surface 1 &
Xiamen BRT 8,360 Elevated 1 #
Brisbane BRT 7,700 Surface 2 #
Mexico City BRT 7,550 Surface 1 #
Zhengzhou BRT 7,230 Surface 1 #
Urumqi BRT 6,230 Surface 1 #
Denver Central Corridor LRT LRT 4,484 Surface 1 *
Edmonton LRT 3,800 Surface 1 +
Phoenix Metro LRT LRT 2,985 Surface 1 *
Pittsburgh "The T" LRT LRT 2,017 Surface 1 *
Toronto Spadina LRT 2,000 Surface 1 +
Newark LRT 1,800 Surface 1 +
Sacramento LRT 1,500 Surface 1 +
Charlotte Lynx LRT LRT 1,000 Surface 1 *
Denver Southwest Corridor LRT LRT 1 268 Surface 1 *
Chengdu BRT 6,650 Elevated 1 #
Lanzhou BRT 6,550 Surface 2 #
Dalian BRT 6,430 Surface 1 #
Hangzhou BRT 6,300 Surface 1 #
Quito BRT 6,000 Surface 1.5 #
Johannesburg BRT 4,510 Surface 2 #
Hefei BRT 3,600 Surface 1 #
Yinchuan BRT 3,600 Surface 1 #
Denver Southwest Corridor LRT LRT 1,268 Surface 1 *
Seattle South Lake Union (SLU) Streetcar LRT 214 Surface 1 *
Portland Streetcar LRT 814 Surface 1 *
Hong Kong‐ Subway HRT 84,000 Underground 2 ?
São Paulo‐ Line 1 HRT 60,000 Underground 2 ?
NYC Green Lines Combined HRT 56,100 Underground 2 +
Santiago‐ La Moneda HRT 36,000 Underground 1 ?
HRT
Jakarta BRT 3,400 Surface 1 #
Beijing BRT 2,750 Surface 1 #
Changzhou BRT 2,650 Surface 1 #
Los Angeles Orange Line BRT 2,357 Surface 2 *
Jinan BRT 2,050 Surface 1 #
Leon, MX BRT 1,950 Surface 1 #
Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway BRT 1,714 Surface 2 *
Lianyungang BRT 1,650 Surface 1 #
NYC 4,5, express trains HRT 30,200 Underground 1 +
Toronto Spadina HRT 26,200 Underground 1 +
Manila‐ MRT‐3 HRT 26,000 Elevated 1 ?
NYC 6 train HRT 25,900 Underground 1 +
London‐ Victoria Line HRT 25,000 Underground 1 ?
Montreal HRT 24,400 Underground 1 +
Bangkok‐ SkyTrain HRT 22,000 Elevated 1 ?
Buenos Aires‐ Line D HRT 20,000 Underground 1 ?
Lianyungang BRT 1,650 Surface 1 #
Zaozhuang BRT 1,400 Surface 1 #
Yancheng BRT 1,300 Surface 1 #
Ahmedabad BRT 1,200 Surface 1 #
Bangkok BRT 1,200 Surface 1 #
Nantes BRT 1,200 Surface 1 #
Las Vegas Strip & Downtown Express (SDX) BRT BRT 1,199 Surface 1 *
Cleveland HealthLine BRT BRT 1,129 Surface 1 *
Eugene Emerald Express Green Line (EmX) BRT BRT 714 Surface 1 *
Newark Path HRT 17,800 Underground 1 +
Washington DC Red HRT 12,700 Underground 1 +
Chicago Red HRT 11,900 Elevated 1 +
San Fran BART HRT 6,200 Underground 1 +
Atlanta HRT 5,100 Underground 1 +
Sources:
* Extrapolated from daily demand collected by ITDP for "More Development " https://www itdp org/more developmen
+ Taken from TCQSM 2nd Ed, Annex. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp100/part%205.pdf, p. 5 ‐ 123
Eugene Emerald Express Green Line (EmX) BRT BRT 714 Surface 1 *
Pittsburgh South Busway BRT BRT 662 Surface 1 *
Pittsburgh West Busway BRT BRT 601 Surface 1 *
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) BRT 529 Surface 1 *
? BRT Planning Guide, 2007 (cant find original source)
& Taken frm TCQSM 2nd Ed. Part 2: Transit in North America, p. 2‐13
# Counted by ITDP China staff, from: http://www.chinabrt.org/en/cities/param‐quan.aspx?param=2
* Extrapolated from daily demand collected by ITDP for More Development… , https://www.itdp.org/more‐developmen
for‐your‐transit‐dollar‐an‐analysis‐of‐21‐north‐american‐transit‐corridors/ using a ratio of 1/14 derived from TCQSM 2nd
Ed data

14. BRT systems with express
Corridor Type Speed (km/hr) Source
Pittsburgh West Busway Pennsylvania, BRT 54 [ii]
Comparative Observed Speeds, BRT, LRT, HRT
BRT
services (passing lanes)
had higher speeds than
LRT
Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway BRT 54 [x]
Pittsburgh South Busway, Pennsylvania, BRT 54 [iii]
Ottawa Transitway, Canada BRT 52 [i]
Orange Line, Los Angeles BRT 32 [v]
Bogotá, Colombia, TransMilenio BRT 27 [x]
Curitiba, Brazil, Linha Verde BRT 25 [x]
Beijing (Lines 1, 2, 3, 4) BRT 24 [iv]
Ahmedabad, India, Janmarg BRT 24 [x]
Otherwise speed
explained by stop
distances and BRT
Ahmedabad, India, Janmarg BRT 24 [x]
Guangzhou, China, GBRT BRT 23 [x]
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) BRT 22 [x]
Curitiba, Brazil, RIT corridors BRT 18 [x]
Los Angeles OrangeLine BRT 18 [x]
Cleveland HealthLine BRT 18 [x]
Mexico City, Mexico, Insurgentes BRT 17 [x]
Eugene Emerald Express Green Line (EmX) BRT 17 [x]
LRTdistances, and BRT
Standard elements
(dedicated ROW, at level
boarding, off board fare
Sound Transit Central Link, Seattle, Washington, USA LRT 40 [vi]
Ottawa O-Train LRT 40 [x]
LYNX Blue Line, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA LRT 37 [vi]
Portland MAX Blue Line LRT LRT 30 [x]
Denver Central Corridor LRT LRT 23 [x]
Denver Southwest Corridor LRT LRT 23 [x]
Phoenix Metro LRT LRT 19 [x]
LRT
boarding, off board fare
collection, etc.)
Phoenix Metro LRT LRT 19 [x]
Budapest, Hungary, Grand Boulevard LRT LRT 18 [x]
Portland Streetcar LRT 16 [x]
Seattle South Lake Union (SLU) Streetcar LRT 8 [x]
Manila MRT 3 (Metrostar Express), Philippines HRT 48 [viii]
Expo/Millennium Lines, Vancouver, Canada HRT 43.5 [vii]
Tren Urbano San Juan Puerto Rico HRT 33 2 [ix]
HRT
Tren Urbano, San Juan, Puerto Rico HRT 33.2 [ix]
Sources:
[ii]
US Department of Transportation. Evaluation of Port A uthority of A llegheny County's West Busway Bus Rapid Transit Project . Washington DC,
2003. Report No. FTA-PA-26-7010-03.1 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Pittsburgh_West_Busway_BRT_Evaluation-April_2003.pdf
[iii]
"Pittsburgh, Pensylvania South, East, and West Busways." Transportation Research Board.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Pittsburgh.pdf
[iv] National BRT Institute. "Perspectives on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Developments in China." Presentation. National BRT Institute. May 1, 2006.
http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Darido_China BRT_051106_presentation.pdf.
Transportation Research Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation Vol 0004 Washington DC: Federal Transit Administration 2011
[i]Ottawa Ontario BRT Case Study." Transportation Research Board. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Ottawa.pdf.
Transportation Research. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation . Vol. 0004. Washington DC: Federal Transit Administration, 2011.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Research_Report_0004_FINAL_2.pdf
[vi] Speeds for Charlotte Lynx, Central Link, and WMATA Silver line calculated from posted schedules.
[vii] "Vancouver SkyTrain—A Proven Success Story." Japan Railway & Transport Review, no. 16 (1998): 44‐45.
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr16/pdf/f44_vancouver.pdf.
[viii] Antiporda, Jefferson. "DOTC Promises Better MRT Service next Year." Manila Times, August 15, 2014. http://www.manilatimes.net/dotc‐promises‐
better‐mrt‐service‐next‐year/119302/.
[ix] "Subways of Puerto Rico." My Transit Guide. http://mapa‐metro.com/en/Puerto Rico/San Juan/San Juan‐Tren‐Urbano‐map.htm.
[x] "More Development for your transit dollar", 2013 ITDP. https://www.itdp.org/more‐development‐for‐your‐transit‐dollar‐an‐analysis‐of‐21‐north‐
american‐transit‐corridors/, derived from interviews with transit authority staff.

15. Big emphasis on service planningBig emphasis on service planning
• Service plans determine new system’sService plans determine new system s
demand, the fleet size needed, the existing
routes affected the speed and capacity of theroutes affected, the speed and capacity of the
system, the needed sizing of the system
• Yet most BRT design is done without• Yet…most BRT design is done without
reference to a service plan, and service plan
has to accommodate whatever infrastructurehas to accommodate whatever infrastructure
was designed .

16. Intermediate
Terminals
transfer stations
Trunk‐feeder services
Direct services

17. When there was less experience on BRT…
Mexico City

18. Good but expensive
connection tunnels ($40
million+) 1km

19. TransJakarta did not consider routes going from Blok M (south) to Pulogadung
(East), or other options. As a result, a huge transfer bottleneck occurred at
HarmonyHarmony
Kota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota StationKota Station
HarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoniHarmoni
MonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonasMonas
Kalideras
Pulogadung
Bunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan SenayanBunderan Senayan
Blok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok MBlok M

20. Harmoni Station, Jakarta

21. But over time, methods evolve

22. Harmoni bottleneck partially resolved by adding second sub‐stop
d i l b t di till j bland passing lane but crowding still a major problem.

23. Rea Vaya BRT,
Johannesburgg
A hybrid of trunk/feeder and direct
(complementary) services

24. 560
Route using corridor /route length more than 30％296
210
Route using corridor /route length more than 30％
561
242
Flexible Operation Turning buses just leave busway and enter
general traffic. Openings in the physical barrier

25. BRT routes at Shidajida ‐ Guangzhou

26. New Service planning questions
danswered
• How many and which existing routes toHow many and which existing routes to
incorporate into a BRT system service plan?
• When to split a direct service into a trunk• When to split a direct service into a trunk
route and a feeder route?
Li i d i• Limited stop services
– When should stops be eliminated,
– When should limited stop services be introduced
– With what stopping pattern?

27. What existing routes to include in a
lnew BRT Service Plan?
• All of them, except…
• Services with so little overlap with the BRT trunk
infrastructure the cost of a new bus cannot beinfrastructure the cost of a new bus cannot be
recouped with the time savings benefit
• Services outside the administrative authority of y
the regulator of the BRT infrastructure
– Intercity buses, charter buses, informal minibuses
with bus types incompatible with BRT trunkwith bus types incompatible with BRT trunk
infrastructure
• Services most likely to saturate the BRT trunk
idcorridor

28. Rank routes based on
“maximum passengers on a route that passes station ‘I’ for the
least amount of total dwell time that route uses at the
bottleneck station ‘i’.
Keep adding routes until the addition of the last route slows the
total passengers inside the busway down more than the value of
the benefit to the new passengers using the busway.
Priority = Pax(i)/Td(i) y ( ) ( )
Where:Where:
Pax (i) is the Load on the buses of a specific bus route passing
the bottleneck station ‘I’.
To(i) is the total dwell time in seconds per bus on that route.

29. Advantages of Direct
S i
Advantages from Trunk
d dServices
• Less fleet needed as a • Optimizes bus size and
and Feeder Services
Less fleet needed as a
result of peak effect.
• Avoids very significant
Optimizes bus size and
type
• Can reduce station y g
transfer delays and
costs
platform saturation
• May improve regularity y p g y
of service on trunk

30. Trunk and Feeder system requires more total fleet than Direct Service Option
Fleet size is set by the maximum peak load for a specific cycle time.
In normal operating conditions, the fleet needed to serve two 1‐hour cycle time
routes (one trunk and one feeder) is more than the fleet needed to serve one
Original Formula:
routes (one trunk and one feeder) is more than the fleet needed to serve one
two hour cycle time:
Fleet = (Lmhour * TC) / Cbhour b
Revised formula:Revised formula:
Fleet = Loadmax cycle time/Cb

31. Load max(TC=1) = 63+69+67+66 = 265
Loadmax(TC=2) =Loadmax(TC 2)
51+63+69+67+66+53+45+34 = 448
15 Minute Accumulated
Peak Period Critical Link Demand Profile
Time Loads load Lm(TC=1) Lm(TC=2)
6:00 15 15 118 383
6:15 21 36 166 421
6:30 31 67 214 4456:30 31 67 214 445
6:45 51 118 250 448
7:00 63 181 265 429
7:15 69 250 255 387
7:30 67 317 231 3397:30 67 317 231 339
7:45 66 383 198 293
8:00 53 436 164 248
8:15 45 481 132 216
8:30 34 515 108 1928:30 34 515 108 192
8:45 32 547 95 179
9:00 21 568 84 168

32. Lm(Trunk) (TC=1) = 265
Fleet = 265/60 = 4.417 Lm(TC=2) = 448
Fleet: Direct Service Option Fleet: Trunk and Feeder Option
/
Lm(Feeder) (TC=1) = 265
Fleet = 265/60 = 4.417
Total Fleet: 8.84
600
( )
Fleet = 448/60 = 7.468
500
600
400
15 Minute Loads
Lm(TC=2) = 448
Fleet = 448/60 = 7.468
200
300 Accumulated load
Lm(TC=1)
Lm(TC=2)
Lm(TC=1) = 265
100
Lm(TC 1) 265
Fleet = 265/60 = 4.417
0
6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00

33. Original Services on BRT Corridor
Trunk and Feeder Alternative for BRT
C idCorridor

34. Potential Benefit from
Bus size optimization
Higher Potential Benefit from Trunk – Feeder Service
Bus size optimization
g
Less Potential Benefit from Trunk – Feeder Service
Two conditions where Trunk Feeder benefits:
1 A high % of the total route operates along the trunk route so most of the passengers1. A high % of the total route operates along the trunk route so most of the passengers
benefit from the efficiencies of larger bus size
2. The total demand in the corridor is divided up among a large number of routes, each
with relatively low frequency so long waiting times.
In these conditions, Trunk and Feeder functions like small businesses joining a cooperative
to reach returns to scale. Trunk feeder becomes like a ‘black hole’, the more that join, the
more the benefits.

35. Include which routes in Trunk Feeder operation to optimize bus size?
Sort by fewest “Places” brought by each route to the Trunk
(Pl = Lm(TC)max= Lm(hour) * TC)( ( ) ( ) )
The low demand routes have more to gain by joining a ‘co‐op’ for the trunk portion
of the route (they can use bigger buses for more of the route).
As more routes join the trunk, bus size on trunk increases as does frequency.
Scenario feeder
original
route Lm Pl Trunk
bus
size frequency
Trunk
Cost Feeders
Direct
Routes total
trunk accumulated costscosts (COF+Cw)
trunk 0 0 0 11346 11346
C 529 680 100 130 18.2 5 427 529 10666 11622
B 443 749 300 390 31.6 9 739 972 9917 11629
F 335 917 700 910 48 3 15 1129 1307 9000 11437F 335 917 700 910 48.3 15 1129 1307 9000 11437
A 529 1005 1100 1430 60.5 18 1416 1837 7995 11248
D 648 1154 1600 2080 73.0 22 1708 2485 6841 11034
E 670 1381 2400 3120 89.4 27 2091 3155 5461 10707
G 1059 1606 3200 4160 103.2 31 2415 4214 3855 10484
H 3349 3855 5200 6760 131.6 40 3078 7563 0 10641
total 7563 11346

36. With very high Trunk Route cycle times as a share of the total route bus costsWith very high Trunk Route cycle times as a share of the total route, bus costs
continue to fall as more routes are converted to Trunk and Feeder.

37. With a very short Trunk Route cycle time, bus costs continue to rise
as more routes are converted to Trunk and Feeder

38. With l ti l h t t k t f ll ft t i iti l f tWith a relatively short trunk, costs fall after a certain critical mass of routes
have been converted to Trunk and Feeder, but the cost reductions never drop
below the cost of the original direct service.

39. With long Trunk Route cycle times, and high demand on the two routes
continuing far beyond the end of the corridor, costs fall as all but the
two highest demand and longest routes are added
8200
8300
d)
trunk feeder system‐ coverage and total cost
7800
7900
8000
8100
ng +vehicle fixe
7400
7500
7600
7700
costs (waiti
none B C F A D E G H
sucessive routes entering the trunk feeder system

40. Costs of the new transfer: Indirectness
fof route
• Delay #1:
Walking and waiting related
to the new transfer.
Internal terminal design
should minimize this delayshould minimize this delay.
• Delay #2
The transfer terminal is
unlikely to be in a locationunlikely to be in a location
optimal to all routes.
Some routes will be forced
off their original route.

41. Delay #3.
T i l l lik l t b l t d di tlTerminal also unlikely to be located directly
on the trunk corridor due to lack of land
availability.

42. ExamplesExamples
terminal

43. 500 m
s
500 m
terminal
feeders

44. Empirical data on these delays. Benefits of Bus size
optimization will rarely be greater than these additional p y g
costs + additional fleet requirements
T i l R f Additi l T i l D l
Description minimum average maximum
Typical Ranges of Additional Terminal Delays
bus & passenger delay
i
Rerouting to Terminals 0 4 10
Bad Terminal Location 0 6 15
l d l l
minutes
Internal and External Circulation 2 4 6
Additional Boarding & Alighting Delay 1 3 5
Passenger Delay Only
Walking inside terminal 0 2 6
Additional waiting due to transfer 2 4 6
Total time/ passenger: minutes 5 23 48
Equivalent time/passenger: minutes 7 31 66

45. Station platform saturation may be the
f k d dmajor cause of Trunk and Feeder use
• Direct services leave
passengers waiting on the
station platform longer
(frequency per route is lower
lso passengers accumulate on
the platform.
• If the platform width is
il blunavailable, some routes may
be converted to trunk and
feeder routes to relocate the
necessary platform space to anecessary platform space to a
transfer terminal where land
is more readily available.

46. Stop removal
Optimal distance between station:
l b id 450normal urban corridor 450 meters
30
35
15
20
25
me(minutes)
0
5
10
Tim
In-vehicle time
Walking time
Total travel time
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Distance (metres)

47. Remove stops
with low
code location boarding alighting code location boarding alighting
14182 Western & Berwyn Terminal 3 0 0 6648 Western & Ogden 49 40 2
14529 Western & Berwyn 1013 1 0 8245 Western & 14th Street 11 21 1
1717 W t & F t 390 14 0 14531 W t & 16th St t 41 32 0
bus stop daily demand elimination
code
bus stop daily demand elimination
code
with low
demand, or if
1717 Western & Foster 390 14 0 14531 Western & 16th Street 41 32 0
1718 Western & Carmen 51 0 1 8249 Western & 18th Street 27 40 1
1719 Western & Winnemac 66 4 0 8250 Western & 19th Street 28 38 2
1720 Western & Ainslie 73 12 2 15059 Western Pink Line Station 278 221 0
14591 Western & Lawrence 513 73 0 14555 Western & Cermak 350 393 0
8184 Western & Leland (Brown Line) 419 206 0 17058 Western & 23rd street 38 57 1
8185 Western & Wilson 83 16 2 8255 Western & 24th Street 88 56 0
8186 Western & Sunnyside 36 17 1 8256 Western & 25th Street 19 14 1
8187 Western & Montrose 326 133 0 8257 Western & 26th Street 190 184 0
8188 Western & Cullom 29 22 2 8258 Western & 27th Street 24 24 1
8190 Western & Belle Plaine 20 46 1 8259 Western & 28th Street 60 30 2
14964 Western & Irving Park 341 133 0 8260 Western & 31st Street 17 11 0
stops simply too
close together
8192 Western & Byron 14 5 1 8262 Western & 33rd Street 4 27 1
8193 Western & Grace 70 49 2 8263 Western & 34th Street 10 26 0
8195 Western & Addison 512 358 0 8264 Western & 35th Street 78 131 0
8196 Western & Cornelia 68 128 1 8265 Western & 36th Street 11 31 1
8197 Western & Roscoe 157 101 0 16085 Western & Archer 171 268 0
8198 Western & School 91 33 1 14575 Western & Pershing 36 36 1
8199 Western & Belmont 391 233 0 8268 Western & 40th Street 18 29 0
8200 Western & Barry 37 10 1 8269 4102 S Western 16 14 1
8202 Western & George 31 51 2 8270 Western & 42nd Street 32 54 0
14585 Western & Elston/Diversey 323 260 0 8271 Western & 43rd Street 92 95 1
8204 Western & Schubert 99 111 1 8272 Western & 44th Street 21 53 0
8205 Western & Logan/Jones 283 68 0 15743 Western & 45th Street 33 52 1
close together,
if there is
h
8206 Western & Altgeld 352 259 0 8274 Western & 46th Street 27 61 2
8207 Western & Fullerton 86 42 2 8275 Western & 47th Street 315 445 0
8208 Western & Belden 68 35 1 8276 Western & 48th Street 12 13 1
8210 Western & Palmer 49 54 2 14132 Western Orange Line Station 860 439 0
8211 Western & Charleston 126 215 0 8278 Western & 50th Street 4 19 2
8212 Western & Armitage 184 244 1 8279 Western & 51st Street 92 155 0
8213 Western & Milwaukee 431 271 0 8280 Western & 52nd Street 5 34 1
8214 Western & Cortland (Blue Line) 389 219 0 8281 Western & 53rd Street 75 99 0
8215 Western & St. Paul 26 19 1 8282 Western & 54th Street 55 77 1
8216 Western & Wabansia 57 98 2 8283 Western & 55th Street/Garfield 274 282 0
14581 Western & North Avenue 344 288 0 8284 Western & 56th Street 65 66 1
17343 Western & Le Moyne 70 126 2 15143 Western & 57th Street 56 70 0
another station
in a reasonable
y
8219 Western & Hirsch 87 118 0 8286 Western & 58th Street 27 89 1
8220 Western & Potomac 42 93 1 14578 Western & 59th Street 135 165 0
8221 Western & Division 407 598 0 8288 Western & 60th Street 24 54 1
8222 Western & Thomas 46 106 1 8289 Western & 61st Street 76 106 0
8223 Western & Augusta 90 212 0 8290 Western & 62nd Street 62 179 0
8224 Western & Iowa 34 109 1 14576 Western & 63rd Street 476 441 0
8225 Western & Chicago 374 491 0 8292 Western & 64th Street 38 65 1
8226 Western & Huron 14 17 1 14857 Western & 65th Street 80 124 0
8227 Western & Ohio 23 36 0 8294 Western & 66th Street 35 116 1
8228 Western & Grand 125 104 1 14823 Western & Marquette Rd 99 200 0
15344 Western & Hubbard 95 66 2 8296 Western & 68th Street 15 93 1
8230 Western & Fulton 31 81 1 10117 Western & 69th Street 147 394 0
distance
8230 Western & Fulton 31 81 1 10117 Western & 69th Street 147 394 0
8231 Western & Lake 56 91 0 8298 Western & 70th Street 17 61 1
8233 Western & Warren 95 131 1 8299 Western & 71st Street 154 336 0
14546 Western & Madison 364 241 0 8300 Western & 72nd Street 35 92 1
8236 Western & Adams 96 68 1 15783 Western & 73rd Street 27 98 0
8237 Western & Jackson 92 147 0 8302 Western & Columbus 48 74 2
8239 Western Blue Line Station 499 282 0 8303 7521 S Western 5 12 1
14769 Western & Harrison 110 116 0 8304 Western & 76th Street 5 13 0
17312 Western & Polk 59 111 2 8305 Western & 77th Street 1 17 1
15345 Western & Taylor 79 143 0 8306 Western & 78th Street 0 626 0

48. When to add express routesWhen to add express routes
• When the removal of fixed dwell time (perWhen the removal of fixed dwell time (per
stop) benefits more riders than the additional
delay caused by lower frequency of servicedelay caused by lower frequency of service
• When adding a service reduces the irregularity
of boarding and alighting delayof boarding and alighting delay.
– Boarding and alighting delay becomes irregular
and causes bunching at frequencies of greaterand causes bunching at frequencies of greater
than 30 per hour, with 22 per hour optimal.

49. Two conditions where adding limited
bstop or express services is obvious
• When demand is so high on a single route thatWhen demand is so high on a single route that
the frequency is greater than 30 buses/hour.
In this case the addition of a limited stopIn this case, the addition of a limited stop
service will yield benefits in almost all cases.
• When demand is highly concentrated in a• When demand is highly concentrated in a
limited number of station stops.

50. If demand is relatively uniform, the below
i i ll i lstopping pattern is usually optimal.
8000
9000
express route ‐ example of demand boarding
alighting
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
pass/hour
Load
0
1000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
p
normal express normal
A B CA B C
Passengers traveling within zone A or within Zone C can take local or express
so no loss of benefit. So for 2 OD pairs there is no change.
Passengers traveling from A to C or C to A can all take Express and gain Td * 7
stops. So for 2 OD pairs, there is a big time savings benefit.
Passengers traveling between A and B or B and C lose 50% of frequency orPassengers traveling between A and B or B and C lose 50% of frequency, or
waiting time * 2. So for 2 OD pairs there will be a disbenefit.
The outcome depends on the demand profile

51. Empirical evidence shows Benefits of express routes tend to be
higher for Trunk and Feeder systems (on average in the 40%higher for Trunk and Feeder systems (on average in the 40%
range) than for Direct Service systems (in the 20% range)
because demand is concentrated at the terminal and the
downtown
12000
express route ‐ example of demand
6000
8000
10000
ss/hour
boarding
alighting
0
2000
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
pa
normal express normal
Load
A B C
Optimal pattern likely to be two services: one stopping
everywhere and one stopping only at the two extremes, the
terminal and downtown

52. If demand is very high, more patterns y g , p
can probably be sustained keeping the
frequency per route in the optimal 15frequency per route in the optimal 15
– 30 range. This is the reason
TransMilenio services have this look
Express 3
E 2Express 2
Express 1
Local

53. Early return services allow for higherEarly return services allow for higher
frequency on high demand portion with
the same fleet or reduction in fleetthe same fleet, or reduction in fleet
and
n
and
n
engerdem
rdirecition
B
A
engerdem
rdirecition
B
A
Passe
pe
B
Passe
pe
B
Travel time along corridor
RT
Travel time along corridor
RT

54. l l b fSplitting a longer route is a combination of
two early returns.
and
n
and
n
engerdema
rdirecition
B
A
engerdema
rdirecition
B
A
Passe
per
B
Passe
per
B
Travel time along corridor
RT
Travel time along corridor
RT

55. An example from YichangAn example from Yichang
Actual itinerary for routes 101,102
Proposed itinerary for routes
101 102 & 103 cut integrating in
y ,
& 103
101,102 & 103 cut integrating in
BRT corridor

56. Decreasing load from a transfer
t i l d t E l fterminal or a downtown: Example of
Santa Amaro Corridor in Sao Paulo
14000
16000
example of continuous decrescing load boarding
8000
10000
12000
pass/h
alighting
load
0
2000
4000
6000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
stations

57. Optimal pattern turns out something
like this: (also likely to be used onlike this: (also likely to be used on
TransBrasil BRT)
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
demand and express routes
boarding
alighting
load
Local.1
exp 1
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
pass/h
exp 1
exp 2
exp 3
local
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
stations
This combines clustered stop removal with early return services. Fleet does not
need to go all the way to the end, so there is a big reduction in the needed fleet.

58. New materials on institutional
structures for BRTstructures for BRT
Transportation
Authority (transit and
traffic)
Transit
Authority (rail
also)
BRT and
Other Buses
and
Minibuses
Special
Purpose BRT
Agency
Public Bus
operator
Transport
Department
BRT Management Authority Options
TransMilenio, Bogota X (Phase IV) X (Phases I ‐ III)
GBRT, Guangzhou X
BRT, Curitiba X
Guadalajara, Mexico X
Dar es Salaam X
Lima BRT X
Dar es Salaam (pending) X*a es Sa aa (pe d g)
Perreira, Colombia X
Mio, Cali, Colombia X
Jan Marg, Ahmedabad X
Rea Vaya, Johannesburg X
Metrobus, Mexico City X
HealthLine, Cleveland X
Lanzhou BRT XLanzhou, BRT X
TransJakarta, Jakarta X
Sao Paulo, Brazil X
LAMTA (Orange Line) X
Cape Town BRT X
Pittsburgh ACTA X
London (No BRT in London) X
( )San Francisco (no BRT yet) X
Dakar (CETUD) X
BRT basic, Lagos X
Gold Standard BRT
Silver Standard BRT
Bronze Standard BRT
Basic BRT or Below

59. MunicipalityMunicipality
(Mayor)
Metro Company
Transportation
BRT Authority Traffic Police
Public Works
Metro Company
Department
Transit licenses
BRT Authority
BRT Operations
Traffic Police
Station security
(BRT Infrastructure)
Traffic
management
Bus operating Traffic signals Station Architects,
Road Engineering
Fare collection Construction
Advantages and
disadvantages of
Operational
Control
alternative structures
explained

60. Advantaes and disadvantages of
l dcontracting out options explained
Curitiba Bogota Santiago Jakarta Johannes Cape Ahmed Guang Mexico ITDPCuritiba Bogota Santiago Jakarta Johannes
-burg
Cape
Town
Ahmed
abad
Guang-
zhou
Mexico
City
ITDP
Recommended
Urbs Trans-
Milenio
Trans-
Santiago
Trans-
Jakarta
Rea Vaya MiCity Jan
Marg
GBRT Metro-
bus
(Africa)
Milenio Santiago Jakarta Marg bus
Bus Procurement Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Private
Bus Operations Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
F C ll ti P bli P i t P i t P i t P i t P i t P bli P bli P i t P i tFare Collection Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private
Trust Fund Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private
Control Center Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private
O ti l Pl i P bli P bli P i t P bli P bli P bli P bli P bli P bli P i tOperational Planning Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

61. Examples of BRT Systems with
Multiple Private BRT BusMultiple Private BRT Bus
Operators
BRT System Phase I Operators Phase II operators
Number of Operating Companies
Bogota 6 8
Guangzhou 3 3
Curitiba 2 4Curitiba 2 4
Mexico City 2 3
Rea Vaya 1 2
Ah d b d 1 1Ahmedabad 1 1
MiCity 1 3
TransJakarta 1 2
BRT Standard Rank Not BRT
Gold
Silver
Bronze

62. Corporatization is key to Gold BRT
Former
Mi ib
Mixed
F
Former
Private Bus
C i C ll i
BRT Operator Ownership Type
Minibus
Operators
Formed into
Companies
Former
Minibus and
Private
Investors
Companies
under new
contract
form
Outside
Private
Investor
Collective
without
Integrated fleet
Management
Public bus
operator
TransMilenio Bogota X XTransMilenio, Bogota X X
GBRT, Guangzhou X
BRT, Curitiba X
Guadalajara, Mexico X X
Lima BRT X X
Perreira, Colombia X X
Mio, Cali, Colombia X X
Jan Marg, Ahmedabad X
Rea Vaya, Johannesburg X
M b M i Ci X XMetrobus, Mexico City X X
TransJakarta, Jakarta X X
HealthLine, Cleveland X
Lanzhou, BRT X
LAMTA (Orange Line) XLAMTA (Orange Line) X
MiCity, Cape Town X X
LiteBRT, Lagos X
Porto Alegre Basic BRT X

63. provide feeder services in any BRT
system. Some feeder services usesystem. Some feeder services use
minibuses. Important not to confuse
th hi l t f th t t tF d B O tithe vehicle type from the contract type.Former minibus
operators
formed into
Same
companies No Feeder, No Feeder,
Feeder Bus Operations
formed into
formal
companies
companies
as Trunk
Operator
No Feeder,
Direct
Services
No Feeder,
Trunk Services
Only
Informal
minibus feeders
TransMilenio, Bogota X
GBRT Guangzhou XGBRT, Guangzhou X
BRT, Curitiba X
Jan Marg, Ahmedabad X
Mio, Cali, Colombia X
R V J h b XRea Vaya, Johannesburg X
Metrobus, Mexico City X
TransJakarta, Jakarta X
HealthLine, Cleveland X
Lanzhou, BRT X
LAMTA (Orange Line) X
MiCity, Cape Town X
Porto Alegre Basic BRT X