This document discusses different design options for Bus Rapid Transit Systems including open versus closed systems and different station typologies. Some key findings from analysis of different design options are: 1) Closed systems have higher operational speeds, frequencies and shorter journey times compared to open systems. 2) Staggered station designs have better performance than island stations. 3) Junction station locations have better performance than mid-block stations. 4) Including an overtaking lane at stations improves operational speeds compared to designs without overtaking lanes. The analysis provides guidance on optimal design features for achieving higher performance of BRT systems.

1. Bus Rapid Transit System:
Metro on surface or high performance bus
system?
Geetam Tiwari
MoUD Chair Professor
Department of Civil Engineering &
Coordinator Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP)
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi(IITD)
New Delhi, India
31 January, 2014

2. Bus Rapid Transit System:
1973-75
Brazil: “ I would like to have a
metro system, however, at present I
cannot afford it, why not have metro on
road”- Mayor Jamie Lerner
 Curitiba,

Why?
 Problems caused due to growing car
ownership
 Bus system moving in mixed traffic
could not carry large number of
people as possible in metro system

3. Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005

4. Alan Hoffman:Delhi BRT workshop 2005

5. Sao Paulo(10 million), Brazil
Central bus lanes~170kms,
links underground metro
US Federal Transit Administration, 2001

6. Quito (1.8 million), Ecuador
Electric
trolley
buses
running
through
congeste
d
historical
district

7. TransMilenio in Bogota from highway to city center

8. Taipei(6mill), Taiwan
~60km of BRT with metro
Photos: Jason Chang, 2002
Creative use of lane space

9. Kunming(4.6 million), China
central bus lns 50% increase in corridor cap.
Source: unknown. From
Lloyd Wright, 2002

10. Nagoya, Japan
BRT
planning
in 8 cites
John Cracknell, TTC, and the US
Transportation Research Board

11. US examples
Lloyd Wright
Honolulu
US Federal Transit Administration
Pittsburgh

12. Rapid boarding & alighting
Lloyd Wright
Lloyd Wright
Quito, Ecuador
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Bus stop platform and bus floor at
the same level
Wider doors
Attention to details is the
difference between BRT and
typical bus system
Karl Fjellstrom
Curitiba, Brazil

13. 1980-2000+
BRT(some form of) in every continent!
Latin America
Belo Horizonte
Bogota
Campinas
Curitiba
Goiania
Lima
Porto Alegre
Quito
Recife
Sao Paulo
Europe
Claremont Ferrand
Eindhoven
Essen
Ipswich
Leeds
Nancy
Rouen
North America
Honolulu
Los Angeles
Miami
Ottawa
Pittsburgh
Vancouver
Asia
Akita
Fukuoka
Gifu
Kanazuwa
Kunming
Miyazaki
Nagaoka
Nagoya
Nigata
Taipie
Oceania
Adelaide
Brisbane
Cities shown in red
> 5million
population

14. What is
BRTS ?
• Bus Rapid Transit is a high-quality, stateof-the-art mass transit system at a
fraction of the cost of other options.
• Exclusive right of way-central lanes on
arterials roads
• No friction with other vehicles
• Not affected by traffic jams
• Lanes can be used by police and
emergency vehicles
• Faster boarding and alighting
• Level platform
• Improved buses
• ICT integration
• Passenger information

15. BRT Experience
• ASIAN CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip
lengths, high share of two wheelers)
– Open systems
– Low Floor buses
– Junction bus stops
• Latin America ( Slums near city borders,
moderate to long trip lengths, absence of two
wheelers
–
–
–
–
Closed system
High Floor buses
FOB
Island mid block bus stop

16. BRT Experience
• European CITIES(mixed landuse , short trip
lengths, presence of formal bus system)
– Open systems
– Low Floor buses
– Junction bus stops
• North America (suburban development, very
high car ownership, long trip lengths)
–
–
–
–
Closed system
Low Floor buses
FOB( or curb side lane)
Island mid block bus stop

17. Bus System planned like metro
Gives a brand image to public
transport

Ensures high service quality and
reliability

Allows ease of control and
enforcement

Fare structure and fare
collection system is generally
simpler and uniform.

Simpler Junction design and
signal plan. Can be managed in
maximum of 4-5 phases as
turning buses is controlled

1030km
Closed /
Trunk & Feeder System
1-3km

18. Bus System planned like metro
Heavy dependence on feeder
infrastructure
Transfers are increased,
increasing journey time
Suitable for cities with majority
trips are more than 10km ~
Not suitable for corridors with
high segment demand variations.
High quality feeder network is
essential
Restricts use by non BRT public
transport modes
Needs a new and independent
institutional mechanism

1030km
1-3km

19. Metro & BRT network in selected cities
Metro
Moscow
Metro
Tokyo
BRT
Bogota
BRT
Jakarta

20. Network connectivity in bus
systems
• Majority O-D are connected by direct
service
• Some routes can go off the corridor nearer
destinations
• Bus stop spacing 500 m providing short
access trips

21. Open System
Increases the catchment area of buses

Transfers are minimised, decreasing
journey time.

Does not need separate feeder network

Suitable for cities where majority trips
are less than ~10 km.

Works well in corridors with high
segmental demand variations

Extends segregated lane benefits to all
public transport and high occupancy
modes on the corridor.

Can work within the existing institutional
and regulatory framework using the
existing operators.


22. Open System
Predictability and reliability of public
transport is decreased because the
buses have to move in mixed
conditions for sometime

Difficult to regulate and control

Has generally complex fare structure
and fare collection system

Signal cycle design may require more
phases as turning is allowed for buses.


23. Hybrid System
HYBRID SYSTEM – Combines benefits

of Open and Closed System
In the same corridor a route is reserved only to
ply on the corridor. Other buses move in and out of
the corridor and this will be city bus service

Minimum standard/frequency is met by BRTS
operations, higher segmental demands are met by
city buses.

Provides reliability and high service quality as
well brand image along with flexibility and
convenience.

Fare collection and control within corridor may be
simplified by providing closed shelters with offboard ticketing


24. Open and Closed Systems
Open System
• Buses can enter and leave the busway
depending on the origin and destinations –
shared busway with multiple routes
Closed System
• Buses remain within the busway and
operate between terminals
24

25. Trunk and Feeder System
25

26. 115 Buses/hr
(14 Routes)
Network Planning
1 Route, 5 buses/hr
CHIRAGH DELHI
1 Route, 15 Buses/hr
Existing routes
123 Buses/hr
(14 Routes)
2 Routes, 12 Buses/hr
5 Routes, 46 Buses/hr
PRESS ENCLAVE
157 Buses/hr
(18 Routes)
1 Route, 12 buses /hr
•36 bus routes
•4 through routes
•120-150 buses/h
2 Routes, 19 buses/hr
LEGEND
123 Buses/hr
(14 Routes)
ORTHONOVA
2 Routes, 15 buses/hr
VIRAT MARG (MID BLOCK)
Buses Joining Corridor
Buses Leaving Corridor
Bus Shelters
4 Routes, 38 buses/hr
123 Buses/hr
(14 Routes)
Buses On Corridor
10 Routes, 85 Buses/hr
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
26

27. Understanding Capacity
Line capacity vs vehicle capacity
• Line capacity : Vehicle capacity(Transit Unit, TU) X
TU/h
• TU capacity= No. of vehicles /TU
• Vehicle Capacity : vehicle size, standing, seating, load
factor, passenger comfort
• Frequency: TU/h= cycle time/headway
• Cycle time: Station time+ running time
• Running time: corridor length/speed
• Station time: boarding and alighting time
• Vehicle design, station design
27

28. Why do cities invest in Public
transport?
•
•
•
•
“reduce” congestion
Improve air quality
Control sprawl
Provide mobility choices
This requires 1. retaining PT and NMV users
2.attracting people car users
& two wheeler users to PT

29. What do people want
• Get me from point A to point B,
(connectivity)
• Quickly and don’t make me wait (system
performance)

30. How do you reduce door to door
journey time?
• Reduce Waiting time~ increase
frequencies
• Door to door travel that is faster than
driving~ increase direct service and
express service
Pedestrian connectivity

31. 3 km
trip
car
bicycl
e
BR
T
wal
k
metr
o
3
2.5
Distance, km
2
1.5
1
Metro
Bicycling
0.5
Walking
BRT
2-Wheeler/car
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time, minutes
IIT Delhi 2006

32. 12 km Trip
metr
o
car
12
Distance, km
10
BR
T
8
S’pore average metro
trip 12 km
6
Metro
4
BRT
2
2-Wheeler/car
0
0
10
20
30
Time, minutes
40
50
60
IIT Delhi 2006

33. BRTS Design and Evaluation Process
• Design and operation
selection currently based on
experience in different cities
– Problem– cities differ in
context and requirements
Xiamen*
• Lack of comprehensive
indicators of “success”
– Mostly operational indicators
commercial speed and capacity
used, user or social
indicators not used.
Seoul*
Taipei
* source- www.chinabrt.org
BRT Corridors–Global Examples

34. = 16
Possible Designs (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/10/0/10_1292/_article
Station
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Staggered Stations
Station
X
Island Stations
Station
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bus Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
2
Station
Mid-block Stations
Station
Station
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Motor Vehicle Lanes
Bus Lanes
2
Motor Vehicle Lanes
X
Junction Stations
Bus Lanes
2
Station
Motor Vehicle Lanes
X
Stations with overtaking lane
Stations without overtaking lane
Open System – Multi route operation
Closed System – Single route operation
2
15

35. Possible Design Variations
Average Trip Length – 7km
Demand 7500 PPHPD
Average Walk Speed – 1m/s
Average Station Spacing :600m
Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s
Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) :150s
At grade signalized access for ped.
Boarding Bay from Crossing: 26m
30% turning buses in open system
5 distinct routes in open system
Variations in features modeled (for 16 design options)
Demand (PPHPD)
2500, 5000, 7500, 10000, 12500
Average Station Spacing (m)
400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000
Signal Cycle (s)
120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300
Boarding bay dist. From int. (m)
0, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78
Results compared (for 16 design options)
Average commercial speeds
Maximum achievable frequency
Door to door journey time
Access & egress time
Total walk distance in a one way trip

36. Findings
– Closed systems are better
than open
– Staggered are better than
island stations
– Junctions are better than mid
block shelter locations
– Higher speeds with overtaking
lane than without
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
Operational Speed in Km/h
• Commercial Speed:
Average Distance Between Stations
(m)
Average Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
3.4
3.2
17.9
17.6
14.5
14.2
450
18.9
18.6
15.5
15.2
500
19.9
19.6
16.4
16.1
550
20.8
20.5
17.2
17.0
600
21.6
21.3
18.0
17.7
650
Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system
Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system
Junction Without Overtaking Island in Open system
22.3
22.0
Average Journey Time in
Minutes
– Lowest journey time at 750800m station spacing
– Open systems better than
closed systems for station
spacing >450m.
– Staggered better than island
– Junctions better than mid block
– With overtaking better than
without
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system
50
18.8
18.5
700
49
48
Average Distance Between Stations
2
2
25.2
24.9
Average Distance
24.7
24.4
24.2
vs. Journey Time
23.9
23.6
23.3
23.0
22.7
20.1
19.8
19.5
19.2
47
16.7
46
16.4
45
13.4
13.2
18.9
18.6
17.9
17.6
750
800
850
18.0
17.7
17.2
17.0
16.4
16.1
15.5
15.2
14.5
14.2
21.6
21.3
20.8
20.5
19.9
19.6
2
2
21.8
21.5
21.3
21.0
20.7
20.4
900
950
44
400
43
450
500
550
600
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
• Journey Time
6.7
6.4
00
Average Distance Between
26
Stations vs. Operation Speed
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
650
Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close system
Average Overtaking Island in Stations (m)
Junction WithDistance Between Close system
Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in system
Junction with overtaking staggered in openClosed system
Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system

37. Findings
• Total Access+Egress Time
600
500
Maximum Frequency P
– Higher frequency for closed
systems than open
– Higher frequency for mid block
stations than junction
– Higher for staggered stations
than island
– Higher with overtaking lane
400
300
200
100
0
0
13
26
39
52
65
78
Distance of First Boarding Bay from Stop line in m
Average Distance between Stations
– Compared to open system Distance between Stations Vs. Operation Speed
Average
40
Vs. Total Access Time
access+ egress time is almost
Average Distance
double for junction stn. and 15%
35
higher for mid. block stn. in
30
closed systems
– Compared to junction stations it
25
is 30% higher for mid block
20
stations in open systems and
10% higher in closed systems
15
17.9
17.6
14.5
14.2
450
18.9
18.6
15.5
15.2
500
19.9
19.6
16.4
16.1
550
20.8
20.5
17.2
17.0
600
21.6
21.3
18.0
17.7
650
• Total walk dist. in a trip
– Shorter for open system than for
closed system
Junction with overtaking staggered in open system
Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system than
– Shorter for junction stations
Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in Open system
for mid block
Junction Without Overtaking Island in Open system
Total Access Time (min.)
3.4
3.2
00
700
• Max. Achievable Frequency:
6.7
6.4
Distance of First stop fr Stop line vs.
Max. Frequency (Bus Capacity)
16.7
16.4
13.4
13.2
400
18.9
18.6
17.9
17.6
750
800
450
850
500
900
550
18.0
17.7
17.2
17.0
16.4
16.1
15.5
15.2
14.5
14.2
21.6
21.3
20.8
20.5
19.9
19.6
2
2
21.8
21.5
21.3
21.0
20.7
20.4
20.1
19.8
19.5
19.2
18.8
18.5
700
23.6
23.3
23.0
22.7
22.3
22.0
2
2
25.2
24.9
24.7
24.4
24.2
23.9
950
600
650
Average Distance between Stations (m)
Junction With Overtaking Staggered in Close system
Junction With Overtaking Island in Close system
Junction Without Overtaking Staggered in system
Junction with overtaking staggered in openClosed system
Junction Without Overtaking Island in Closed system
Junction With Overtaking Island in Open system

38. 4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
4
0.0
10
-1.0
16
Trip Length in
Km
Average
motorized
speed in City
in km/hr
4.0-5.0
3.0-4.0
2.0-3.0
1.0-2.0
0.0-1.0
-1.0-0.0
Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular
Bus Service (in Closed System)
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
4
10
Speed Differrence in km/hr
• Passenger Speed gain
over regular buses:
– Open system with
staggered stations
better than closed
system with island
stations for trip lengths
up to 9km.
– BRTS has little or no
advantage over regular
bus systems if avg.
motor veh. speed >22.5
km/h.
– In all systems longer
avg. trip lengths are
more attractive over
regular buses for avg.
MV speeds less than 20
km/h.
5.0
Gain in Passenger Speed (in km/h) over Regular
Bus Service (in Open System)
Speed Difference in km/hr
Trip length variation Impact
5.0-6.0
4.0-5.0
3.0-4.0
2.0-3.0
1.0-2.0
16
Trip length in
Km
Average
Motorized
speed in city
in km/hr
0.0-1.0
-1.0-0.0

39. Typical System/Design comp
1. Staggered Stations in open system, first bay is 26m from crossing
2. Island station in closed system, first bay is 60m from stop line
Common Design Features(for both designs)
No. of boarding bays :3 per direction
Demand 7500 PPHPD
Average Walk Speed :1m/s
Bus overtaking lanes at station: None
Signal Cycle (Ped. Crossing) – 60s
Signal Cycle (Veh. Int.) – 150s
At grade signalized access for ped.
Boarding Bay from Crossing – 26m
30% turning buses in open system
5 distinct routes in open system
Variations in Context Elements
Trip Length (km) -
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16
Average Station Spacing (m) -
500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000
Peak bus speed (km/h) -
40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100
Avg. veh. speed in corridor (km/h) 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5,
30.0
Results compared
Travel time (min), Operational/Commercial speed
Passenger Speed (km/h)

40. Stn spacing and peak speed Impact
Operational Speed in Km/Hr
Open System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip
Length
32
27
22
17
12
40
27-32
60
22-27
80
17-22
Peak Bus
Speed in
Km/hr
100
32-36
12-17
Close System Operational Speed for 8 Km Trip
Length
Operational Speed in Km/Hr
• Commercial Speed:
Avg. Trip length variation does
not effect commercial speed
in BRTS
Commercial speed increases
with increasing station
spacing and increasing peak
bus speeds in all systems.
Commercial speed is more
sensitive to station spacing
and peak bus speed in
closed systems.
Steepest gain in commercial
speed with increase in peak
speeds from 40 to 60km/h
At ideal station spacing of
750m, an increase in peak
bus speeds from 40 to
60km/h ,commercial speed
increases by 10% in open
system and 15% in closed
system.
33
28
40
23
60
18
80
100
33-36
28-33
23-28
18-23
Peak Bus
Speed in
Km/hr

41. Impact on Journey Time
• Door to Door Journey
Time:
44
43
Trip time in min
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
40
44-45
43-44
42-43
41-42
40-41
39-40
38-39
60
500
37-38
80
600
700
800
900
100
1000
36-37
Peak Bus Speed
in Km/hr
Close System Travel Time (min) Comparison for 6 Km Trip
Length
45.00
44.00-45.00
44.00
43.00
43.00-44.00
42.00
Trip time in min
– Open systems are more
sensitive to station spacing
than closed systems
– Ideal station spacing for all
systems is about 750m
– Journey time advantage of
increasing peak bus speed
increases with avg. station
spacing increase
– Increasing peak bus speed
has minimal impact on
journey time
Open System Travel Time Comparison for 6 Km Trip
Length
45
42.00-43.00
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
37.00
36.00
41.00-42.00
40.00-41.00
40
60
80
100
Peak Bus Speed
in Km/hr
39.00-40.00
38.00-39.00
37.00-38.00
36.00-37.00

42. Conclusions
• In general closed systems perform better against
operator indicators while open systems perform better
against passenger and social indicators.
• Open systems work better in cities with avg. trip length
less than 9-10km when no bus overtaking lane is used
and less than 14-16km when bus overtaking lanes exist.
• Staggered stations perform better than island stations in
all conditions, for all operational designs.
• Stations perform better with overtaking lanes than
without
• BRTS systems are useful on inner city roads with higher
congestion and avg. MV speed of 15-20km/h or less.
They are counter productive on corridors with speeds in
excess of 27.5km/h
• Increasing peak bus speeds over 40km/h results in no
significant advantage either to passengers or to
operators but significantly increases fatality risk.

43. WAY FORWARD
st
21
What is a
century city?

44. An Alternative Approach
Sustainable Mobility(D. Banister, T.Litman, J.Gehl..................
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social dimensions
Accessibility
People focus, instead of vehicle
Local in scale
Street as a space
All modes of transport often in a hierarchy with pedestrian and
cyclist at the top and car users at the bottom
Visioning on cities
Scenario development and modelling
Multicriteria analysis to take account of environmental and
social concerns
Travel as a valued activity as well as a derived demand
Management based
Slowing movement down
Reasonable travel times and travel time reliability
Integration of people and traffic

45. BRTS in Future Cities
• Inclusive
• Compact
– High density
– Mixed landuse
• Short to medium trip lengths
• Less dependent on personal motorized
vehicles
OPEN BRTS or CLOSED BRTS??