Introduction: the complexity of urban environments

Urban areas have been recognised for decades as complex systems (North 1990), akin to organic structures (Simon 1997). Both comparisons aptly acknowledge the dynamics and interactions at play in cities and metropolitan areas, complexities which tend to scale up with population and size. Transportation is a key component of the development and management of increasingly large and complex cities because it provides the means to move goods and people along mobility chains. Ideal urban mobility systems provide access to activities as quickly and conveniently as possible.

High quality urban transport generally requires the participation of multiple organisations across different elements of the system. While political entities define objectives to be achieved, planning agencies design the system (for example, operations, infrastructure). Different types of operators oversee vehicle operation, infrastructure, traffic management, parking, and so on. Regulating agencies establish and monitor market rules; other agencies undertake the enforcement role. The success of transportation interventions, especially the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services, depends on all these entities acting in concert, and this is where complexity is born. Lack of consistency between these entities will inevitably lead the system to underperformance or even to collapse. Each time a new economic agent (or actor) enters the system, new interactions develop, either with other private agents, or with public entities, or both, and readjustments are needed. As noted by Macário (2011), in mobility systems the mutual dependence between actors requires the system to have structural consistency. It is this consistency that provides alignment between operational results and planning objectives and between these and the strategic vision of the city.

The implementation of a BRT system is always done in cities where an urban mobility system already exists, however informal. Implementation can often be disruptive to this pre-existing system, whether due to lack of intermodal adjustment, inequitable situations between new and incumbent operators, and conflicts over tariffs, or to gaps in information systems. Examples of such disruptions are reported in several cities, such as Bogotá, Santiago, Léon and Mexico City (Flores and Zegras 2012; Kash and Hidalgo 2012) and are also addressed in Chapter Four of this book.

Introduction

To efficiently design and operate public transport (PT) systems it is important to understand the decision making process of users as well as their preferences and perceptions. The introduction of BRT corridors in a city, as any major PT system modification, can have significant impacts on the decision making processes of the travellers. Let us consider the case of Santiago, Chile, where there are two main public transport modes: buses and metro. In February 2007, the entire PT system of Santiago was changed from a non-integrated ‘door to door’ bus system to a ‘trunk and feeder’ integrated system. Two main behavioural changes occurred: many travellers (who previously had a direct service) were forced to transfer, and many travellers (who previously used only buses) could access the metro system without having to pay a new fare. When designing the new system, and forecasting what would happen, it was essential to understand how travellers would perceive transfers and what they would choose under a single fare.

Decisions can be considered at two levels: (i) choice of a PT mode within the system (bus, metro, combined modes, and so on) and (ii) choice of travel route (selection of PT lines and transfer points along the way). These decisions are interrelated, and their order might depend on a particular PT system's characteristics. Traditional mode and route choice models tend to consider only tangible attributes (that are easily measured/understood, such as fare, travel time, and number of transfers) to analyse and explain the travellers’ decisions (Ortúzar and Willumsen 2011). Nevertheless, we know that intangible attributes, such as safety and comfort, are also considered by individuals (Koppelman and Pas 1980; Ben-Akiva et al 2002; Raveau et al 2010). These attributes tend to be highly subjective and cannot generally be quantified directly; therefore, we need to study them to understand how they affect individuals’ decisions.

The general objective of this chapter is to understand how travellers choose their modes and routes when travelling in a PT system, identify the relevant factors taken into account and quantify the impact that different characteristics of the system (such as station infrastructure, available information and schematic maps) may have on the preferences of the travellers. This allows the PT system to be evaluated and analysed at a tactical level and allows future scenarios to be forecast, which is necessary for selecting the ideal design and operation of the PT system.

Introduction

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) signifies a concrete commitment to bus transit, encompassing coordinated institutional, financial, physical, and operational interventions. This commitment can catalyse wider urban development by improving local and metropolitan accessibility and urban spaces and streetscapes. This chapter explores prospects for such BRT-oriented development (BRTOD).

Transit-oriented development (TOD) aims to leverage the interactions between urban land use, mobility, and socioeconomic systems. This chapter examines how BRT corridors might spur TOD, structuring the city and its spaces towards more equitable and transit-conducive urban forms. Specifically, it uses results from a graduate level planning and design workshop in two regions, Boston, Massachusetts and Santiago de Chile, to explore how BRT corridors might catalyse cross-disciplinary approaches to urban development. Adopting an integrated approach to the design of transit routes and infrastructures, surrounding public spaces, real estate projects, public policy and governance, the students’ proposals for these two corridors highlight BRT's transformative potential across diverse urban settings.

The next section provides a brief theoretical and empirical background. The third section summarises the workshop's approach and contexts; the fourth presents workshop results, illustrating various possible design and planning innovations for realising BRTOD. The conclusion synthesises lessons learned.

Theoretical perspectives and empirical precedents

Basic economic theory suggests that households and firms make tradeoffs between travel costs, land area, and other relevant attributes in their location decisions. These interactions essentially occur between two urban subsystems: land use and mobility. Land uses determine the locations of potential trip origins and destinations and influence the relative attractiveness of different travel modes. Mobility, in turn, influences the relative desirability of different locations, improving ‘connectivity’, but sometimes with negative consequences such as pollution. The interaction of these subsystems defines urban accessibility: the degree to which people and firms can reach activities, services, and goods (Geurs and van Wee 2004).

A major transportation investment will change accessibility across a metropolitan area, impacting the relative attractiveness of locations. System users and residents may benefit from lower travel costs, higher quality of life/wellbeing (see, for example, Cao 2013) and possibly increased social capital (Kamruzzaman et al 2014). These effects should be capitalised in land values (Zegras et al 2013).

Introduction: bringing context into focus to understand the power of participation

As discussed elsewhere in this book, transport planners seeking to build more sustainable urban transport systems generally view Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an option that offers substantial advantages, in terms of flexibility, implementation, public–private arrangements, capacity and other elements. Moreover, when treated as the articulator of a whole transport system and major contributor to resilience overall, BRT can also enhance health, environmental quality, social integration and equality, among other benefits.

Often these benefits are not realised, despite planners’ and politicians’ efforts to position BRT as an alternative to better known approaches, such as metros/subways, trains and light rail. In these conditions, traditional participation methods, which primarily involve vertical delivery of information to passive recipients, do not help and can hurt. Often, citizens see these as largely hollow rituals that do not genuinely consider the needs and desires of diverse, often marginalised groups (Bickerstaff et al 2002). With a few exceptions, BRT has provoked indifference, hostility and rejection among the general public and political leaders. This is highly problematic, given that for BRT to accomplish the larger/sustainability goal of transforming street/public space it requires active support from the public, particularly vocal and respected organisations, committed public health officials, transit riders, cyclists and pedestrians, given the prevailing bias favouring car use in many cities.

This chapter examines issues of public buy-in, focusing on experiences in Santiago, Chile. Unlike traditional views, which examine participation largely from a process-centred perspective, this chapter starts by examining issues of democratisation in established, post-World War II democracies (Canada, the US, most of Europe), and in newly democratising countries, particularly in Latin America, as these affect the relevant policy making environment.

Terminology is complex, with ‘citizen engagement’ being the most common in the English-language literature, based primarily on experiences in North America and Europe, while participación ciudadana (citizen participation) is widely used in Latin America.

Although analogous, the terms enclose a world of difference. The first refers to permanent procedures for citizen involvement, practised in the context of established democracies, with diverse civil society actors and elected ‘public servants’ at the local and regional levels. Their relationships tend to be relatively horizontal, although there are many exceptions.

Introduction

Our goal for this book is to present the wider context of BRT and show its potential role to restructure transportation and urban space to improve sustainability. These chapters have highlighted the opportunities and challenges of fulfilling this potential. Our wider vision is created by the interconnections between multiple research projects, disciplines, and methodologies. It is also formed by the collaboration of academics and practitioners working to solve real-world problems. From that experience we offer this assessment of the role of BRT and propose steps for moving forward.

Institutional relationships

Before a bus ever runs along a corridor, a BRT system requires appropriate institutional structures. This includes a governance framework to regulate bus operators, the alignment of urban policies (Chapter Five), and the situating of the public and local community in the process (Chapter Six). Since BRT is often used as a tool to formalise informal bus services in developing cities, it can provide a mechanism to strengthen institutions and the regulatory capacity of authorities (Chapter Four). This process can provide a catalyst to discuss policy issues such as fares, operating subsidies (Chapter Eight) and the need for a metropolitan authority. However, one of the greatest challenges in addressing urban transport problems and BRT implementation comes from the weakness and fragmentation of existing institutions.

Public transport policy should be aligned with urban, land use and wider transportation policy to ensure the proper incentives and cohesive decision making. Failure to align land use and transport policy with the broader goals of liveable cities constrains the planning process and may increase transport costs and exacerbate urban inequities. This is a challenge for developed and developing cities alike. But it is particularly difficult in developing cities where organisations lack institutional capacity and a tradition of working together. This difficulty is highlighted in a project as challenging as the integration of a citywide transport system (Chapter Three). The issue of who operates the system further strains the public sector capacity. Private operators add another set of actors, which requires careful contract design to align public and private interests (Chapter Seven).

Introduction

In deregulated transport systems, operation is often based on multiple owners of a few vehicles each providing transport services. This usually leads to on-street competition between operators to attract demand, yielding severe traffic congestion and unsafe conditions for both passengers and drivers. Through the formalisation of the industry into a few firms operating larger fleets that are required to satisfy minimum standards, the system drastically reduces these externalities. In this process, to stay in the market, firms must manage their fleet and drivers efficiently and with fewer degrees of freedom than when a firm handled just a few buses. Public transport formalisation leads to policies to meet specific levels of service, vehicle regulations and contractual conditions for workers that should be satisfied by operators, whether they are public or private agencies. Thus, formalisation usually increases operational costs (see Chapters Three and Four), increasing the fare or the subsidies needed to finance the system. However, transit formalisation also opens the door to the implementation of operational research techniques in order to optimise planning and operation of transport systems to achieve a more cost-effective network. These techniques can also be applied in already formal public transport systems.

Under large operations, attractive and flexible solutions for these planning and operational problems are much less apparent, and their impact can be huge in contrast with decisions based on very simple rigid rules. Also, these big firms reach the economic scale at which they can invest in management support tools that could improve their performance. Cost savings usually amount to around 10% of operational costs while providing similar or better service to users.

The main aspects of transit operations that operational research tools can address are the vehicles and drivers. Their associated decisions can be structured into strategic (long term), tactic (medium term) and operational (short term) planning stages (see Ibarra-Rojas et al 2015). The cost involved in providing a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) service can be structured similarly – that is, by respectively structuring (i) the infrastructure of the streets that the bus takes and the bus stations, (ii) buses and technology systems and (iii) daily bus operations and maintenance and drivers’ wages.

Introduction

Passenger information systems play a key role in the experience of users of public transport. The main role of passenger information systems is to inform users about travel options and modes. As noted in Chapter Twelve, there are many different aspects involved in a user's decision to use specific or combined transport modes. Travel time, fare and number of transfers are some of the main related issues taken into account by users. However, users also take into account factors that relate to more personal perceptions, such as the safety of the route, perceived waiting times, vertical movements (going up or down staircases and lifts), availability of services at bus stops and interchange points, among others. Through the planning and decision process, users are ultimately reducing the uncertainty of the trip that will be undertaken. The anxiety and insecurity caused by an unknown journey can have serious impacts on users (Mijksenaar 1998). Passenger information systems can serve as an important tool to reduce these feelings of anxiety.

The implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems opens great possibilities for passenger information in public transport. Because BRT provides increased certainty about routes and waiting times compared to regular buses, this information can complement information systems and constitute an important improvement in the user's experience of public transport. The incorporation of time schedules and/or estimated wait times, as well as more detailed information about the route and bus stops (for example, connections with other transport services, commerce or the availability of car or bike parking) can help users to understand what to expect from the service and therefore allow for a trip to be planned with more certainty, reducing the discomfort or anxiety associated with travelling.

In addition, if the implementation of a BRT project involves a major reorganisation of the public transport network in a city, passenger information is critical. For example, in a switch from a direct service model (where buses serve point to point with limited need for transfers) to a trunk feeder model (where local buses feed into main BRT corridors), users have to get used to a new logic of navigating the city that requires more passenger decisions. This necessitates a new approach to passenger information, sometimes in cases where no formal system previously existed, and very clear marketing to explain to users the benefits of the new system.

Introduction

In many developed countries there is a debate, usually ‘won’ by the implementation of light rail transit (LRT), on the potential role of bus rapid transit (BRT) in comparison with LRT and heavy rail. Despite the arguments promoting the advantages of BRT, there exists a lot of resistance to BRT as an alternative to rail options. Part of the problem may be the perception that any public transport (PT) option associated with the word ‘bus’ conjures up images of noisy, polluting buses in mixed traffic congestion. Yet BRT can, if designed appropriately, deliver a service that is equivalent to or better than LRT and/or heavy rail with built in growth prospects, which competes very favourably with the equivalent cost outlays of rail options.

Although the predominant focus of traveller behaviour research has been on studying the choice of mode for specific trips, a growing challenge is to understand why stakeholders (that is, the community at large) in specific geographical jurisdictions, prefer one PT mode over another. When asked, stakeholders frequently and overwhelmingly support LRT, regardless of whether they themselves use a specific mode, and irrespective of cost considerations. There may be a strong sense of imagery conditioning modal preferences for LRT without a full appreciation of the equivalent or better benefits than can flow from the less favoured BRT. Hensher (1999) has referred to the debate as one of ‘choice vs. blind commitment’.

The purpose of understanding community perceptions is to assist in the development of a strategy to promote BRT and to break through the barriers that have created the modal misperceptions so common in many geographical jurisdictions. In this chapter a survey of residents of six capital cities in Australia provides the empirical context, but ongoing research is extending the study to other locations (cultures and languages) throughout the world. Overall this chapter suggests that there are often good rational reasons to implement BRT over LRT; however, this often does not happen, so there must be some other factors (emotional/ideological) that impact on the decision making. This study is designed to identify those factors and how one might overcome them.

Introduction

Authorities of an urban area with regulatory control over the mass transport have to decide whether to operate the service with a publicly owned agency, contract the service to private companies, or create a framework for a deregulated market. This decision is necessary in both developing cities transitioning from an informal mass transport sector and developed cities exploring deregulation of existing public services. There are technical components, but the decision primarily takes place in the political realm.

As explained in Chapters Three and Four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being used as a tool to formalise informal bus services in developing cities. But how to phase that transition and what to do with the existing informal operators is politically complicated. These complications play into the decision of whether to operate the service publicly or to contract it to private companies. Even if the authorities decide to contract the service, the way they handle the incumbents and include them (or not) in the tendering process may affect the success of a new bus service.

While BRT is not possible under completely informal conditions, contracting operations to private operators is not necessary. In developed and developing countries there are BRT services operated by public operators. Many factors, such as the role of incumbents, institutional and regulatory capacity of the government, and the legal and political context, play into the decision. However, contracting service to private operators is part of the model of BRT service being promoted around the world by various nonprofits and development banks.

This makes the issue of contract design central and relevant for BRT decision making in both developing and developed cities. Contracting is complex since it seeks to align public and private interests and it should be done carefully because renegotiating is expensive and complicated. After the initial round of contracts, the incumbent operators have advantages that can make competitive rebids difficult.

Why contracts are necessary

Contracting between the public and the private sector in order to provide a public service has been employed in a wide range of projects in the transport sector (Bernardino et al 2010; Galilea and Medda 2010; Medda and Carbonaro 2007).

Introduction

As discussed in the Introduction to this book, the acronym BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is often used to describe a variety of infrastructure, operation and image improvements to local urban bus services. Different components of BRT have been implemented in both developed and developing cities around the world; not all BRT-like projects are called BRT and sometimes corridors without key BRT features are called BRT. That is why in this chapter we provide a global overview of bus priority schemes on a corridor basis and not just BRTs. We use the comprehensive database that the BRT Centre of Excellence has funded (www.brtdata.org) to develop comparative analyses ranging from more general aspects (such as geography, length and demand) to physical characteristics and performance in terms of demands and operating speeds. Finally we briefly compare the performance and costs of BRT to other modes.

Definitions

A BRT system is a mass transport system that couples the quality of railways with the flexibility of bus systems (Levinson et al 2003; Wright and Hook 2007; FTA 2009), including both infrastructure and operational characteristics that improve the level of service, as shown in Figure 2.1. The expectation is that BRTs can accommodate high demand especially when overtaking facilities allow for a combination of local, accelerated and express services. Given the many barriers to planning and implementing BRT systems (Lindau et al 2014), not every corridor incorporates all BRT elements.

Part of the issue when examining BRT is determining what defines a BRT or a ‘good’ BRT. Given the diversity of urban contexts, existing public transit systems and institutional capacities, BRT is implemented differently around the world. The acronym is used for services in corridors that lack some of the elements that a BRT is generally considered to need. At a minimum, the most basic features of a BRT service are a segregated corridor and off-board payment stations, even though it is usually expected also to involve high frequency services, high capacity vehicles and clear branding.

In examining BRT systems around the world, it is clear that the system design characteristics are combined in a myriad of different ways, giving rise to a continuum of quality in self-named BRT corridors.

Introduction

Bus Rapid Transit's (BRT) promise for sustainability is more than improving public transit accessibility, it is also that by design BRT dedicates public space for bus and, in some cases, non-motorised users. Shifting space away from personal cars is a radical act that can have impacts beyond benefits for bus operations. It has the potential to reshape urban development away from car-centred cities. However, achieving this potential will result in conflict.

The reality is that transportation requires physical space and in urban areas the amount of space is limited. Decisions have to be made about whose mobility needs or what type of mobility (non-motorised, public transport, personal vehicles) is prioritised in the design, management, and enforcement of street space.

The competition for space generates conflicts, which are both physical and political (Vasconcellos 2001). The conflicts are not always explicit, but there are no neutral decisions. As Vasconcellos (2001, p. 71) notes, ‘Every circulatory space is physically marked by past politics, revealing the dominate interests that shaped them’. The political conflicts can be just as challenging for BRT implementation as the institutional challenges discussed in Section 1 and operational challenges discussed in Section 3 of this book.

How governments and BRT implementers respond to conflicts has substantial impacts on the success of BRT projects and the ability of BRT to significantly reshape cities and contribute to sustainability. This chapter uses four transport projects with dedicated busway components, in cities with a high proportion of non-motorised and/or public transit users, in order to examine how governments respond to conflicts over space and the impact on the outcome of the project.

Theoretical framework

Conflicts over transportation take place within the context of automobility. Automobility is the reliance on private motorised vehicles for mobility, but also a theoretical concept to describe how private car trips have been prioritised and have shaped not only the urban fabric of cities, but people's relationship to time and space (Sheller and Urry 2000). The reliance on cars did not just happen, but is the result of specific political decisions. Mobility is both created by and creates the production and distribution of power; there are struggles over which transport modes are prioritised in terms of resources and space (Cresswell 2010; Henderson 2004).

Introduction

Public transport systems are increasingly aiming at providing an integrated service for the user. In these systems, BRT is a key component since it can provide a fast trip to users in congested urban setting. The promise of BRT is not just that it can be delivered at a fraction of the cost of a rail-based system and considerably faster, but also that it can provide an equivalent level of service and capacity. This combination of cost and performance leads to the growing global interest in BRT as an urban passenger transport solution in situations typified by maximum peak hour ridership often in the range 7,000 to 45,000 passengers per hour per direction.

As discussed in Chapter Fifteen, public transit should be designed, implemented, and evaluated as a system. BRT can either play the role of a main structural spine of the system or of a high capacity feeder from the periphery into a rail network. In cities without an integrated system BRT can also be implemented on its own, but as a building block toward a full system. In any of these cases, the basic unit of BRT is a corridor; its potential to attract demand and to offer a high level of service depends on the characteristics of the corridor.

Using the corridor as a unit of analysis is limiting since it does not address overall system performance. But corridor performance measures can provide valuable insight into how to improve operations on existing BRT corridors and act as inputs into the decisions around new corridors. Understanding the relationship between the operational performance of a corridor and its design characteristics is crucial when planning, designing and implementing a BRT corridor.

In this chapter we identify key performance measures and focus our analysis on ridership and operational performance. For the latter, we discuss how to improve speed, frequency, vehicle load, and reliability. The results are based on studies with samples from BRT systems around the world.

Of course, the urban context of any BRT corridor affects its performance. In some contexts some of the high productivity opportunities could be much harder to implement than in others. Thus, corridor planners need to consider their local conditions in addition to these results.