Bus rapid transit: the next big thing?

More and more cities are looking to integrate transit solutions into their communities but budget cuts threaten to bring these visions to a standstill – bus rapid transit rises to the challenge.

Transit, transit oriented development (TOD), walking, and cycling are becoming a lifestyle choice rather than just a connection between A and B. We have seen how well transit can be integrated into European cities and increasingly in the US – the Portland MAX Light Rail Transit, Los Angeles Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit, Seattle Streetcar, and Salt Lake City TRAX are just a few examples of successful, high quality transit systems in action.

But in this age of financial struggle, budget cuts, and increasing transit demand, how do we continue this march towards fully integrated transit into our cities? One option rising to the forefront of transit alternatives analysis processes is bus rapid transit (BRT). While BRT success stories do exist in the US, transit agencies are not the leaders in this area. Historically, BRT in the US has been the second choice option to developing rail systems. Short answer, BRT can be implemented with less cost than rail. However, in maximizing the cost effectiveness of this less expensive option, we tend to strip away the critical attributes that focus on the needs of the passenger, and are the key to BRT success.

BRT takes many different forms, depending on the needs and the context of the communities being served. A BRT system can operate in suburban and urban environments, supporting commuters into employment centers or serving shorter trips in an urban environment. Communities such as Pittsburgh have long standing segregated busway BRT networks, primarily serving commuters from the suburbs to the downtown core. Cleveland’s ‘Healthline’ BRT corridor serves the downtown core and adjacent developed urban neighborhoods. The Healthline directly connects with the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals and is where the line derives its name. These institutions add to the overall financial benefit of the system by providing sponsorship in exchange for naming rights on the line.

Most successful BRT systems have similar attributes. These attributes typically include: frequent stops (around ¼ mile); dedicated or semi-exclusive rights-of-way; strong brand identity; identifiable stop infrastructure; off board fare collection; real-time information; and high capacity/low floor vehicles. BRT systems are desirable due to their operational flexibility and lower capital cost. Buses operating within the BRT system can be routed to also circulate in downtown areas or activity centers, minimizing the need for transfers and promoting consistent single seat journey opportunities for passengers. Passenger response to these high quality, passenger focused, and reliable BRT systems has been positive.

Given the multiple benefits of BRT and the potential lower capital cost, one would expect BRT systems to proliferate across the US. However, this has yet to occur. BRT is growing in popularity in the US, but tends to be perceived by communities as a less desirable alternative to rail service. Many developers perceive that the investment in rail and rail stations has more permanence than BRT, leading to more development surrounding rail stations. The success of BRT, not only as a mobility option, but as a community amenity, requires focus on the passenger. In many traditional alternatives analyses, BRT becomes the low cost option. As the low cost option, components critical to the BRT’s success and competitiveness (when compared to rail) are eliminated to continually lower capital cost. Many times, off board fare collection, branding, and realtime information (that are standards on rail systems) are seen as added amenities for BRT. The stripped down BRT becomes an enhanced bus service versus a competitive option to rail service. At Steer Davies Gleave, we work under the premise of ‘Putting the Passenger First’, where we consider the experience of the passengers from the time they leave their origin to the time they arrive at their destination. This is especially true of our planning and design of BRT systems around the world. In examining the quality of BRT design we ask simple, but probing questions related to the passenger’s experience:

• Are there primary pedestrian, bicycle, and bus connections to the BRT with wayfinding information? (ie. How do I get to the stop from home or to my destination?)
• Is the walk to the stop a safe and inviting environment? (ie. Will I have to push my stroller on a narrow and broken sidewalk at the edge of a high speed road?)
• Is fare collection easy to understand and readily available at stops?
• Would you be comfortable waiting at the stop in all climates? (ie. Is there a pleasant stop with weather protection?)
• Are the stops highly visible and easy to access? (ie. Is that the BRT stop in the center of that eight lane highway with the long pedestrian walkway connection?)

If there isn’t a clear and reassuring answer to any of these questions, given the choice, most people will go for an option that they are more comfortable with – and get in their car. Critical to the passenger’s experience is access to the system. Our most successful BRT projects provide direct access to major activity centers, not a stop requiring a ¼ mile walk to the passenger’s ultimate destination. This approach considers integration of BRT into the surrounding community via strong pedestrian and bicycle networks as an essential element of the project. BRT cannot be developed in isolation; the system is part of the surrounding community and must be designed as such. Providing high quality BRT design that functions around the needs of the passenger can be a catalyst for surrounding development and redevelopment. Which is exactly what Steer Davies Gleave is good at doing.