BRT Project

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

Which exactly will be the road to the BRT stations? I'd like to know to do the reflections on the stations based on the right road
A picture of the road would be good, because I know nothing about NAM acronyms

[Edvarz 1,985]

1 hour ago, f3cs said:

Wow! Sweet stations! But do you think that we can use them as BRT? Tram has a pay-n'-ride system (you pay in the train) and BRT have a pre-paid system (pay before enter the bus). Because of that, GLR stations tend to be smaller then BRT stations because of the prepayment equipment like ratchets, ATMs and that kind of stuff. You know, GLR is just a thing such as a bus stop side to side with a rail and BRT is more like a subway station

True, although here in MXCity line 4 and line 7 (under construction) of our BRT system have payment on bus, this is because they circulate trough key areas of downtown (the Historic Centre and Reforma Avenue, respectively), so the bus sheds really need to preserve the surrounding area as much as posible; of course these buses also have passenger entrance solely on the right side, like the common bus, and they take longer to board.

Still, I noticed the issue, maybe with some creative lotting and the right props I can simulate some kind of barrier at the station entrances (like tourniquets or something along those lines) I'll see what I can find and what can I do.

EDIT: Welcome to page two!

[matias93 7,535]

Mildly offtopic: it's fun how this thread somehow concentrated forumers from an specific region, I guess BRT hasn't so much appeal outside of the continent.

1 hour ago, JP Schriefer said:

I'd like to know to do the reflections on the stations based on the right road

Another option would be to ditch reflections and opt for semi-transparency, using Nique's method. That way your props would be compatible with other uses, apart from the BRT. Depending on their design, they can end as normal bus stops, train platforms or even covered stands for an open air market.

1 hour ago, Edvarz said:

of our BRT system have payment on bus, this is because they circulate trough key areas of downtown (the Historic Centre and Reforma Avenue, respectively), so the bus sheds really need to preserve the surrounding area as much as posible

This is also the situation in Santiago, and I guess it will be on several cities on the game, if the BRT system is not planned along the initial tracing of the street grid (+1 layer of realism). Even if the BRT concept is more akin to expansive cities with big rights of way to be used, in most cases the transportation demand requires that the lines cut through more narrow places, and to expropiate --after some very infortunate experiments-- is not a reasonable option.

[f3cs 1,063]

2 hours ago, matias93 said:

At least here in Santiago (where there isn't any full BRT system implemented), pre-paid bus stops exist, but are not much larger than the conventional stops (they are longer, though), and their access controls aren't much more sophisticated than a couple of bus inspectors with a portable device to pay:

Now the transportation ministry is developing a true BRT line on the main avenue of the city, and the stops, while more sophisticated than the current standard, will be very simple anyway:

(I really love that render)

The point is, stops don't need to be very wide to be adequate for a BRT, particularly if it's structured as a central trunk with branches, being wide stops needed only on the more loaded sections.

Well, I'm thinking about a scale thing that is one of the reasons for the RHW existence. A 2 lane highway (or avenue)  in RL usually measures 8m. With game scale and other compatibilities, we end up with 2 lanes covering like 15m, a SC4 Tile.  The Narrowest BRT stations are 5m large, and the largest ones usually measures like 8m too. My point is, the stations really shouldn't be at less one tile large in game?

  Edited February 6, 2017 by matias93  
thumbnailed images

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

Thanks, matias, the reflections are actually too small to so much work, but I'll take a look

f3cs, I was drafting Rio stations to start modelling later and in the Transolímpica I found they are around 11m x 75m (with the pedestrian ramps and the roof), so it's like 1x5 tiles in game.

[matias93 7,535]

Even more offtopic: just checked the Transcarioca video, and now I cannot stop thinking the editors did a very good job imitating the Sims 3 music style...

And guys, you are completely right about the width, the AVE-2 option is nice, but simply too narrow to be useful: if you check Edvarz' images, the space between the asphalt and the pillars is just 1 maxis sidewalk tile, 1,5 metres. On the other hand, the AVE-4 (maxis avenue) median doubles that space, letting 3 metres on each side, which is more reasonable. What's more, using the median as a central platform (New York subway syle) the available space for both sides widens to an standard 6 metres (standard because is the typical width on metro platforms); and as BRTs usually move people from residential boroughs to the city centre, most of the traffic will always be for one side of the platform.

In short: we should discard AVE-2 central stops, but keep AVE-4, using models that don't cut the space in halves. In place of AVE-2, what can be done is to adapt the RTMT Road bus stop for RHW-2 (which is just to change the transit enabling exemplar), based on the example of centric Mexico City Metrobus stops.

[Edvarz 1,985]

5 hours ago, matias93 said:

And guys, you are completely right about the width, the AVE-2 option is nice, but simply too narrow to be useful: if you check Edvarz' images, the space between the asphalt and the pillars is just 1 maxis sidewalk tile, 1,5 metres. On the other hand, the AVE-4 (maxis avenue) median doubles that space, letting 3 metres on each side, which is more reasonable. What's more, using the median as a central platform (New York subway syle) the available space for both sides widens to an standard 6 metres (standard because is the typical width on metro platforms); and as BRTs usually move people from residential boroughs to the city centre, most of the traffic will always be for one side of the platform.

In short: we should discard AVE-2 central stops, but keep AVE-4, using models that don't cut the space in halves. In place of AVE-2, what can be done is to adapt the RTMT Road bus stop for RHW-2 (which is just to change the transit enabling exemplar), based on the example of centric Mexico City Metrobus stops.

Aaaaaand that settles the question about the AVE-2 stations, I guess the concept didn't pass the proof.

I'll see what I can do about the the AVE-4 stations, but I'm having second thoughts about those RTMT models, they are too close to the ground and in real life, most BRT stations have raised platforms, in theory, a platform prop could salvage the idea if it doesn't look to bad when clipped. Additionaly, I have a second doubt, how long should the stations be? IIRC the average articulated bus measures 18 meters; a 3x2 station lot (48 meters) would be enough to fit one bus, and leave space for the ATM's, accesibility ramps and that stuff, and maybe even leave some sidewalk.

So In conclusion, I´m guessing we will need entirely new models. Still, if you want my lotting services or one of my prop family slots, say the word and I'll be really happy to oblige!

EDIT: IIRC, RTMT bus stations don't entirely block access to buildings, so maybe a downtown BRT could go in that direction. However, I'm not sure if this hypothetical override network should (or will be able to) allow zoning; as rsc204 said a couple of posts back, maybe a re-purposed SAM set would work better (or rather, be more plausible) for a downtown route, but, SAM being... well... street based, I don't know if Sims would choose such a system, I guess it would need good city planning by players.

[Tarkus 6,933]

Just to share my thoughts on stations, here's what a typical Emerald Express (EmX) station looks like in Eugene--this is the Agate Street station, right next to the University of Oregon campus.

The roadway encircling the BRT lanes (Franklin Boulevard/Highway 99) is basically a really wide AVE-6 or a pair of OWR-3s (depending on how you look at it), with some turn restrictions at intersections.  The actual dedicated lane setup never exceeds two lanes, and is actually one lane for a good bit of this stretch, with conflicts averted by scheduling.  The station here actually looks a lot like the AVE-2 setup.

I'd advise everyone to keep in mind that the appearance of the bus lanes is not really predicated on the base network.  There's a lot of flexibility there.  It would be good to determine the specifications so that station building can begin in earnest.

Regarding some of the other aspects of implementation, if the BRT lanes are indeed RHW-based, they can hook into any sort of RHW FLEX piece, including height transitions and the like.  TE Lots and actual network pieces are implemented in completely different ways, and have very different capabilities and limitations, so it is necessary to keep this in mind.  The one thing TE Lots can do that network items can't is filter the vehicle subtypes of the broader path types.  Here's how this hierarchy of path types and vehicle subtypes breaks out:

Path Type 1 - Cars, Buses, Freight Trucks (Green in DrawPaths)

Path Type 2 - Pedestrians (Blue in DrawPaths)

Path Type 3 - Passenger Train, Freight Train (Pinkish Orange in DrawPaths)

Path Type 4 - Subway (Yellow in Draw Paths)

Path Type 5 - Construction (Pinkish Red in DrawPaths)--these are temporarily placed on Avenues and Maxis Highways to facilitate the construction automata when the network is being built.

Path Type 6 - Light Rail (Magenta in DrawPaths)

Path Type 7 - Monorail (Purple in DrawPaths--almost the same shade as Type 6)

No one has made a TE Lot serve double-duty as a starter piece.  However, it was determined shortly after the NAM 28 release in May 2010 that the underlying network flags on a TE Lot can trigger at least some RUL code.  Unfortunately, in that particular case, the flags matched the setup for an AutoPlace puzzle piece, and caused a CTD (this was pre-SC4Fix).  That said, knowing what to avoid, I am curious now to experiment with TE Lot/RUL interaction a little further.  I don't have a ton of optimism that my experiments will produce anything meaningful, but I do want to at least investigate that avenue a little further.

Edit: My test just now to use a trick RUL flag embedded in a TE Lot to induce an override was not successful, unfortunately.

-Tarkus

[f3cs 1,063]

On 06/02/2017 at 6:08 PM, Edvarz said:

True, although here in MXCity line 4 and line 7 (under construction) of our BRT system have payment on bus, this is because they circulate trough key areas of downtown (the Historic Centre and Reforma Avenue, respectively), so the bus sheds really need to preserve the surrounding area as much as posible; of course these buses also have passenger entrance solely on the right side, like the common bus, and they take longer to board.

Still, I noticed the issue, maybe with some creative lotting and the right props I can simulate some kind of barrier at the station entrances (like tourniquets or something along those lines) I'll see what I can find and what can I do.

EDIT: Welcome to page two!

I think they should be considered as a BHLS as they don't keep all the BRT features. Like Transoeste in Rio de Janeiro, TransOceânica in Niterói, Busway in Nantes, or in Nîmes. They are more flexible then the BRT: act like buses in tight/difficult/not so profitable parts of the way, and like BRTs in the rest of the way. We surely should consider creating infrastructure for this kind of transportation too as they're easier to develop, but don't get too apart from the full BRT as in Curitiba, Bogotá, Rio, Belo Horizonte, Beijing and others.

On 06/02/2017 at 7:54 PM, matias93 said:

Mildly offtopic: it's fun how this thread somehow concentrated forumers from an specific region, I guess BRT hasn't so much appeal outside of the continent.

This is also the situation in Santiago, and I guess it will be on several cities on the game, if the BRT system is not planned along the initial tracing of the street grid (+1 layer of realism). Even if the BRT concept is more akin to expansive cities with big rights of way to be used, in most cases the transportation demand requires that the lines cut through more narrow places, and to expropiate --after some very infortunate experiments-- is not a reasonable option.

Yes, I think that is not so appealing as they kinda of simulate GLR. Full BRT is useful in Arterial busy corridors, like the one that JP Schriefer said here, and that's the one of the most un-busy corridors in Rio:

 

On 06/02/2017 at 8:18 PM, JP Schriefer said:

Thanks, matias, the reflections are actually too small to so much work, but I'll take a look

f3cs, I was drafting Rio stations to start modelling later and in the Transolímpica I found they are around 11m x 75m (with the pedestrian ramps and the roof), so it's like 1x5 tiles in game.

(That's really huge, but real, i kinda like Big transit stations as they fit all the bus or train inside)

On 07/02/2017 at 1:37 AM, Edvarz said:

Aaaaaand that settles the question about the AVE-2 stations, I guess the concept didn't pass the proof.

I'll see what I can do about the the AVE-4 stations, but I'm having second thoughts about those RTMT models, they are too close to the ground and in real life, most BRT stations have raised platforms, in theory, a platform prop could salvage the idea if it doesn't look to bad when clipped. Additionaly, I have a second doubt, how long should the stations be? IIRC the average articulated bus measures 18 meters; a 3x2 station lot (48 meters) would be enough to fit one bus, and leave space for the ATM's, accesibility ramps and that stuff, and maybe even leave some sidewalk.

So In conclusion, I´m guessing we will need entirely new models. Still, if you want my lotting services or one of my prop family slots, say the word and I'll be really happy to oblige!

EDIT: IIRC, RTMT bus stations don't entirely block access to buildings, so maybe a downtown BRT could go in that direction. However, I'm not sure if this hypothetical override network should (or will be able to) allow zoning; as rsc204 said a couple of posts back, maybe a re-purposed SAM set would work better (or rather, be more plausible) for a downtown route, but, SAM being... well... street based, I don't know if Sims would choose such a system, I guess it would need good city planning by players.

I think that will be nice! I'm being picky, but I think we should do the best in this project as this is a entirely new thing. and your stations will be useful in another purposes as well. you did a great work!

 

Guys, read this:http://oa.upm.es/9300/1/INVE_MEM_2010_86419.pdf

[f3cs 1,063]

Just reposting to give this topic some movement.

Linking that terminal makes me wonder: Will we have some sort of terminal? The Bus terminals on STEX are not that good, and have another standards then the BRT one. This is one of the few bus terminals that I found realistic looking and high capacity.

AND

should we change Viaduct stations from NAM? they're on the last standard (L2), is there some way to change it to L1?

[Edvarz 1,985]

That terminal station looks neat!

I have also thought about this issue, I don't think this is a problem for terminal stations since we can use existing buildings and props and just re-lot them. For Viaduct stations, we'll have to see how @matias93 does with his re-scaling experiment, but we'll most likely need entirely new models.

BTW, I don't think this is a BRT only issue, there are 7.5 m rail viaducts being developed for NAM that will also need stations, maybe we can request that they work for both networks, the same way the avaliable stations work now.

[JerrySosa 32]

I have been working on a BRT system in one of my cities, I didn't find any BRT stations so decided to create my own... 

[f3cs 1,063]

On 19/02/2017 at 5:42 PM, Edvarz said:

That terminal station looks neat!

I have also thought about this issue, I don't think this is a problem for terminal stations since we can use existing buildings and props and just re-lot them. For Viaduct stations, we'll have to see how @matias93 does with his re-scaling experiment, but we'll most likely need entirely new models.

BTW, I don't think this is a BRT only issue, there are 7.5 m rail viaducts being developed for NAM that will also need stations, maybe we can request that they work for both networks, the same way the avaliable stations work now.

Yes, it is. I really like how they just fit with BRT models. I think if that works, it will be excellent. If we need new viaducts, we could use NRD-4, like this example:

22 minutes ago, JerrySosa said:

I have been working on a BRT system in one of my cities, I didn't find any BRT stations so decided to create my own... 

 

That by the way, is just prolific. Really well done!

[Edvarz 1,985]

3 hours ago, JerrySosa said:

I have been working on a BRT system in one of my cities, I didn't find any BRT stations so decided to create my own... 

That is some creative lotting, I might steal an idea or two from it... I also like the bikepath and the way you used NRD-4 for overtake lanes. Neatly done!

[f3cs 1,063]

Just to end up my comment about viaduct stations, something that I've only seen in Rio:

That station integrates one of the busiest Urban Railway stations with BRT system. It also attends the greatest suburban center of CS$ in the city. With the implementation of the BRT Corridor, Madureira Station turned in one of the most used stations in SuperVia's Urban Railway system, used by people from the West zone of the city to reach the downtown. Few years ago, they have to take a normal bus in a congested road to reach the same station, or take Linha Amarela and Avenida Brasil, the two busiest expressways in the city.

Here's some aerial photos from it's construction. The initial plan was to use the already existing viaduct and widening it, but they think that it was cheaper to make a viaduct side by side with the existing one.

[f3cs 1,063]

On 19/03/2017 at 4:19 PM, JerrySosa said:

I have been working on a BRT system in one of my cities, I didn't find any BRT stations so decided to create my own... 

 

What do you think about pedestrian bridges in your model?

[JerrySosa 32]

On 27/3/2017 at 3:22 PM, f3cs said:

What do you think about pedestrian bridges in your model?

 

I'm still learning how to use gmax and all that stuff needed in order to create 3d models,  but as soon as i master these tools I will create some nice models with pedestrian bridges and more elaborated platforms

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I started to model one of the Rio BRT stations, I hope to get it looking better after add some other things especially to the roof, it's looking weird so far IMO '-'

 

[f3cs 1,063]

Maybe it's possible to have something like this in a BRT Station?

 

[matias93 7,535]

For the looks of the ground lanes, it seems only doable through the wizardry of @Tarkus or @Eggman121, but discounting that, it would be relatively easy, either as a transit-enabled lot or simply an overhanging one. The lanes would need to be done on RHW, or maybe REW if it supports internal ramps. 

[f3cs 1,063]

Hello Everyone! I've been reading in my vacation about BRT and I think that these chapters could be useful here:

Station Configurations

Stations are the critical linchpin between the customer and the system. Some of the attributes of BRT systems that distinguish them from conventional bus systems include pre-boarding fare collection and rapid and at-level boarding and alighting via multiple station doors into multiple doorway vehicles. The station design makes that happen.

When a busway approaches a station area, more roadway space is required due to the need for a station platform in addition to the busway lanes. A standard BRT station should be at least three meters wide (The BRT Standard awards 3 out of 3 points for appropriately wide stations). There are many possible ways of fitting a station into limited right-of-way.

• Building stations within medians: Sometimes a median already exists in the corridor. A median that is of a similar width as a proposed station is ideal since it represents unused space in the roadway. Some new roads, as in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, are being constructed with wide medians, serving as placeholders for potential future BRT lines;
• Removing on-street parking spaces: If on-street parking has been retained, even after the dedication of bus lanes, it may be possible to remove some spaces in order to accommodate a station. This has the benefit of allowing removal of exactly the number of spaces that are needed to accommodate the station and the only result is a direct loss of parking spaces. Removing additional space from mixed traffic, on the other hand, even if in a very specific location, means a reduction in mixed-traffic throughput, which extends beyond that location;
• Removing left turn bays: Often, roadways widen at intersections in order to make room for dedicated left turning bays. It is thus possible to remove the left turning bays and replace them with a station. Removing left turns has the added benefit of eliminating a mixed-traffic phase at intersections, with the result of increased bus throughput at the intersection (The BRT Standard rewards removal of left turns across the intersection with maximum points).
• Building stations where there is land readily available: While it is always recommended to build stations where the highest demand exists, within that framework it can be reasonable to select an exact location in which there is open land available. At that place, the road can be widened to make way for a station. Ideally, the land that is taken will have been of marginal use to the community. For example, it may be possible to acquire off-street surface parking lots and widen for stations there. This option is less desirable when it is viable businesses or residences that must be acquired. However, this is sometimes done as well, provided it is accompanied by careful and responsible outreach to the affected community (see Chapter 10: Participation and Outreach);
• Creatively configuring stations: There are a variety of station configurations that may fit better into particularly constrained roadways. These are described in the following section.

It is not recommended, however, to reduce the width of sidewalks in order to accommodate stations, since pedestrian volumes will only grow, not shrink, with the introduction of a BRT station.

If passing lanes are included in the design, there is an even greater need for additional roadway space. In some cases, such as on 80th Street (Calle 80) in Bogotá, passing lanes are provided throughout the entire corridor since the road was wide and space was not constrained. However, this is very rarely the case. Where constraints exist, most of the same principles bulleted above for accommodating stations may apply. However, because passing lanes are an additional draw on roadway space, a combination of these techniques may be needed.

Additionally, it is possible to include passing lanes only at critical passing points rather than along the entire length of the corridor if right-of-way is constrained. The BRT Standard awards 4 out of 4 points for providing passing lanes at BRT stations, and does not further incentivize full-corridor passing lanes. On the TransOeste corridor in Rio de Janeiro (Figure 22.44) a passing lane is provided only at station areas. Outside the station areas, only a single lane of busway is provided for each direction of travel.

Fig. 22.49The TransOeste in Rio de Janeiro provides passing lanes at stations. Clarisse Linke. Fig. 22.50In Guangzhou, the passing lane is provided through a widening of the roadway at this midblock station area. ITDP.

Station Types

There are three main station types that are based on the function or role they play in the system:

1. Standard: the configuration and structure of a standard station depends on the capacity needed for both customer and vehicle volumes expected at that station;
2. Transfer: a structure that fulfills the role of a standard station and facilities transfers either within the system to another trunk route or a feeder route or to another system, like metro. Ideally this happens without leaving the structure—physical integration—but may not be possible due to space constraints;
3. Terminal: a structure that represents the endpoint of a corridor. Usually space is available for a larger facility that can easily accommodate physical integration of feeder and trunk lines. With direct services becoming more popular, large terminal structures may not be as necessary.

Stops, which are usually defined as having a totem and/or a bus shelter, but no real infrastructure, can occur as well, but usually when the direct services buses are operating off the trunk corridor or when the stations on a trunk route need to integrate into dense downtowns, like on Line Four in Mexico City. It is important to ensure that these are branded as part of the system and can be distinguished from regular bus services. Stops are not usually recommended for BRT systems.

When designing the roadway, the design team should take into consideration the role a particular station will perform upon opening and potentially in the future as the system expands. Upon the opening of line 1, a station may function as a standard station but line 3 will intersect line 1 at that station. Having the space and flexibility to adjust the role of the stations as the system expands will be key. Planning for the infrastructure required for that standard station to become a transfer station can be incorporated into the design process for the roadway. Key aspects of service planning, such as the frequency of the services that coincide at the station and customer transfers, should lead the design of the facility. Ideally services are designed to minimize the number of transfers, which is beneficial to the customer, but can also help reduce the need for large transfer stations.

Standard Stations

The role of a standard station is to be the interface between the customer and the system, through fare collection and allowing access, providing at-level boarding, information about the services. A station should be safe and weather protected. A station can serve as a community focal point. In Ahmedabad, India, when Janmarg opened, its stations were called the city’s best public spaces.

A station typically has the following components:

1. Transition areas: the areas that are not directly spaces for boarding and alighting but can include kiosks for buying tickets, seating areas, etc. These are areas where customers can find information about the system;
2. Docking bays: this is where the bus pulls up in order to let customers on and off.
3. Sub-stops: also known as modules, stations may contain multiple sub-stops that can connect to one another but should be separated by a walkway long enough to allow buses to pass one sub-stop to dock at another. A station may be composed of only one sub-stop.
4. Platform: this is the main area where customers wait to board and where they alight. For conceptual design, an average width of five meters is used to estimate the cross section of a center-aligned station. If split, each station is about 3 meters. Platform height will depend on the type of bus being procured or used, which is usually a function of the financial model;
5. Passing lanes.

As a baseline, every station has one sub-stop with two docking bays. Above that, sizing the station should be a function of the operational plan and projected peak customer volume. The peak number of boarding and alighting customers will determine how much station floor space will comfortably accommodate all customers. The operational plan for a particular BRT corridor will dictate whether a single sub-stop will be able to accommodate the planned number of vehicles using the station during a peak period, or whether multiple sub-stops will be required due to high vehicle frequencies or multiple vehicle routes (Figure 22.46).

In order for multiple stopping bays to function properly, and for services to be split between various local and limited-stop routes, vehicles must be able to pass one another at the stations. Passing lanes allow buses approaching the station to pull around docked buses to available docking bays and not sit in queue. Therefore, sub-stops need to be spaced at least 1.7 times the vehicle length from each other in order to allow for buses to bus in or out of the sub-stops. These details of station design are described in more detail in Chapter 25: Stations and Terminals.

Fig. 22.51The existence of a passing lane makes the high customer capacities achieved in the Bogotá system possible. Carlos Pardo.

The passing lane may exist as just a second lane in the station area, or the additional lane may be extended all along the corridor (Figure 22.47). Whether the second lane is needed beyond the station area depends on the saturation levels along the corridor, and especially depends on the level of congestion at intersections.

Fig. 22.52Options for provision of a passing lane. ITDP.

The principal difficulty in including a passing lane is the impact on road space. The additional lane in each direction would seem to require a road width few developing cities can reasonably provide. However, a staggered station design can help permit passing lanes, even in relatively tight corridors. In this case, the sub-stops for each direction of travel are offset. The preferred median station design is retained, but its shape is elongated to help accommodate the passing lane. Customers can still change directions within the closed station area by crossing a connecting platform. In this case, the higher customer flows within the stations are achieved by lengthening the stations instead of widening them.

Other options for accommodating passing lanes in relatively narrow roadways include reducing mixed-traffic lanes as well as making property purchases for widening. In some BRT cities, such as Barranquilla, Colombia, plans call for the purchase of properties near station areas. The road infrastructure is widened in these areas in order to accommodate the passing lane. This same strategy is being proposed for some stations in the Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, system. The viability of property purchases for this purpose depends on local property costs as well as the existence of a well-designed compensation program for property owners.

Transfer Stations

These stations have to meet the needs of a standard station, but also address transfers, whether between feeder and trunk routes, between other trunk routes, or between other modes. The space requirements may be greater, or the connecting infrastructure may be additional and more costly.

Feeder connections to the trunk lines do not necessarily occur only at major terminal facilities. When feeders intersect the trunk corridors outside of terminals, due to space constraints, it may be difficult to have a seamless integration where the customer remains in a paid-fare area and does not have to re-enter the system between feeder and trunk due to space constraints. Thus, a bit of creativity is required to design and control the transfer process.

Fig. 22.53An intermediate transfer station on Cape Town’s MyCITI system, with a closed environment between the trunk platform on the left and the feeder platform on the right. Planning Partners.

In addition to feeder connections, transfer stations can also link two different trunk lines. As a system expands across a wider network, more opportunities to link different corridors of the BRT system will occur. There are several options for facilitating transfers between corridors. These options include:

• Platform transfers;
• Underground tunnels/overhead pedestrian bridges;
• Interchange facility (multi-bay or multi-story facility).

A system may use a combination of these interchange options, depending on the local circumstances at the interchange point.

U-turn facilities may be needed as these stations are often the termination points of either trunk or feeder routes. The U-turn movement of vehicles requires additional road reserve width, a consideration when locating these facilities. In addition, an area is required in close proximity to these stations for the holding of off-duty buses, or buses waiting for their departure time on their schedule. Staff facilities may also be required for drivers changing shift, ablution facilities, and accommodation for a localized dispatch.

Fig. 22.54An interchange station in Bogotá, with a closed environment between the two trunk platforms. ITDP.

Station Configurations

There are two main ways of configuring BRT stations: either as center or as split, side-aligned stations. Within those, there are options to address roadway availability and/or constraints.

Center

Center stations are located in the middle of the busway and typically require buses with doors on the opposite side from conventional buses that normally have doors on the curbside. While requiring a somewhat wider floor area and buses with doors on the opposite side, the single station in the median is by far the most useful in terms of customer convenience and system design. With a single station serving both directions, customers are able to change directions by simply crossing the station platform.

Where road width is a constraint, there are two main options with center configurations: elongated and offset. Width is harder to add, while length is easier.

Elongated

One way to address the need for width, which is based on the peak customer demand, is to elongate the station so that the docking bays for the buses from each direction are not directly across from each other. If the station doors for each direction are situated directly opposite one another, then when two buses dock at the same time, the competition for that space increases and it may become too congested, in which case, the station size must be increased to meet the capacity demand.

Alternatively, the station itself can be elongated to offset the placement of the station doors for each service direction. Thus, instead of the station doorways being directly opposite one another for each corridor direction, the doorways are staggered somewhat (Figure 22.49). In order to accommodate this doorway configuration, the stations must be somewhat longer than a station with doorways directly opposite one another (Figure 22.49). However, the advantage is a reduction in the required station width. Quito’s Ecovía corridor makes use of this technique in order to fit the system into a relatively narrow roadway (Figure 22.50). Thus, an elongated station configuration allows a fairly narrow station with the favored median station location. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that a narrower station is less comfortable for customers.

Fig. 22.55Comparison of a standard and elongated station configuration. HHO Africa.

Off-Set Stations

Fig. 22.56An off-set station in Cape Town, South Africa. The platforms are arranged a distance apart to allow for a passing lane on each side at the station docking area. ITDP.

Another way to address constraints in road width with a center-aligned configuration is to off-set the directions of travel into two separate sub-stops, so that each sub-stop only allows for docking in one direction of travel. This still allows buses to dock and transfer customers in both directions of travel, including passing lanes. However, each sub-stop only allows for docking in one direction of travel. This configuration reduces the required road width by one lane and still delivers full passing capabilities at the station. Of course, this configuration does elongate the station footprint and also introduces a slight turn at the station area. Nevertheless, in cities with restricted road widths, this design can be effective in allowing passing lanes at stations. Cape Town, South Africa, has applied this concept on its Atlantis corridor (Figure 22.53).

Fig. 22.57By offsetting the sub-stops and elongating the platform, passing lanes can fit into relatively narrow road widths. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.58An offset station in Cape Town, South Africa. Pierre Smit. Fig. 22.59An offset station in Bogotá, Colombia. ITDP. Fig. 22.60A multiple sub-stop, split, side-aligned station in Guangzhou, China. ITDP.

Split, Side-Aligned Station Configuration

Split stations are located adjacent to the busway along the side, with each station serving just one direction. This type of configuration allows the use of existing bus fleets with doors on the curb-side boarding, and a new fleet with left-side doors may not be required. The benefit is then that all existing bus services already on or near the corridor may continue to use the corridor since existing bus fleets can be used for each service. In the United States, this is often the selected course since most cities already own large bus fleets with right-side doors. However, some cities are beginning to consider procuring left-side or dual-side boarding buses as a standard practice whenever new buses are required anywhere in their systems.

Split stations will require either complicated connecting infrastructure (underground pedestrian tunnels or overhead pedestrian bridges) or a more costly fare system to recognize customers leaving and reentering the system from nearby stations. It may also cause confusion to users new to the system (they may get lost or lose their paid fare). Additionally, building two stations instead of a single median station will tend to increase overall construction costs and may require more road space. To address space constraints, split stations can be staggered.

Fig. 22.61An alternative means of connecting split and side-aligned stations is to provide a full set of route permutations. HHO Africa. Fig. 22.62However, the required number of permutations becomes excessive, even for just a single intersection. Median stations permit easier platform transfers and multiple route permutations. HHO Africa.

Staggered

The staggering of split stations for each direction may provide marginal space savings in terms of road width. The station will have to accommodate approximately half as many customers for a single direction, and thus a reduction in width is possible (though a reduced width can feel uncomfortable for customers). The marginal width gained from a staggered configuration, estimated at 0.5 meters, is not significant, and given the operational advantages of center-aligned stations, they are recommended over split stations. For those reasons, split stations receive no points in The BRT Standard.

Fig. 22.63Relative space requirements for roadway configurations with median stations. HHO Africa.

https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/master/guide/roadway-and-station-configurations/station-configurations
 

[f3cs 1,063]

Roadway Configurations

The location of the segregated busway within a specific roadway is a design decision that offers more options than might be immediately apparent. Busway configuration, also known as alignment, is critical to achieving fast and efficient operations by minimizing the potential conflicts with turning cars, stopping taxis, and unloading delivery trucks. Because of this, The BRT Standard awards the highest points to those configurations that minimize those conflicts that happen at the curb the most: two-way busways in the central verge of the roadway, two-way busways that run adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront, and bus-only corridors, like a transit mall. A two-way busway that runs on the side of a one-way street is awarded fewer points. The reason for the point drop is a concern for safety as pedestrians are unlikely to expect traffic to come from the opposite direction. One-way busways in the median of a one-way street are awarded even fewer points and one-way busways that run alongside the curb of a one-way street fewer still. Virtual lanes are awarded the least points.

Fig. 22.8Examples of different BRT roadway configurations from The BRT Standard. ITDP.

A corridor may have multiple configurations over its length. Like many other design decisions associated with BRT, there is no one correct solution to roadway configuration. Much depends on the local circumstances. Johannesburg, South Africa, has a two-way median-aligned busway until it gets into the downtown where it splits into one-way, median-aligned busways running on one-way streets. Curitiba, Brazil, uses center lanes, both lanes on the side, and streets exclusively for BRT (Figures 22.9, 22.10, and 22.11). Curitiba essentially tailors the roadway configuration to the particular situation on the given road segment.

Fig. 22.9Curitiba utilizes a variety of roadway configurations. Each street’s design depends on the local circumstances. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.10Curitiba utilizes a variety of roadway configurations. Each street’s design depends on the local circumstances. URBS and the Municipality of Curitiba. Fig. 22.11Curitiba utilizes a variety of roadway configurations. Each street’s design depends on the local circumstances. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.12TransJakarta utilizes buses with doorways on both sides of the vehicle in order to service both median and curbside stations. ITDP.

Box 22.2 The Example of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Fig. 22.13In the conceptual design for Dar es Salaam, the corridor was broken up into ten main typologies with different configurations based on unique conditions. Logit.

Stretch 1 is located along the waterfront and its typical cross sections varies from 25.5 meters at station locations to 21.5 meters in between stations. Its design characteristics include:

• Two 3.5-meter wide BRT lanes, one per direction;
• A 3.5-meter wide mixed-traffic lane in the southeast bound direction only;
• A 3.5-meter wide bikeway lane on the ocean side on the same road way level, separated from the vehicle lanes by concrete separators;
• A 3-meter pedestrian’s boulevard will be provided on the ocean side;
• Retaining walls will be required in some parts where there is a steep slope of more than 2 meters and fills will be required along the coastline.

Fig. 22.14Plan and section view of Stretch 1 at a width of 25.5 meters. Logit. Fig. 22.15Plan and section view of Stretch 1 at a width of 21.5 meters. Logit.

In Stretch 5 (Figure 22.16 below), the cross section design varies from 49 meters at stations to 38.5 meters in between stations. The section characteristics include:

• 2.5-meter wide bikeway on both sides of the road;
• 4-meter sidewalks on both sides;
• 6.5-meter lanes per direction for mixed traffic on both sides;
• 7-meter lanes per direction for BRT vehicles at stations;
• 3.5-meter lane per direction for BRT vehicles between stations;
• 1-meter wide median separating the BRT vehicles;
• 1.5-meter wide planting strip between bikeway and mixed-traffic lanes.

Fig. 22.16Plan and section view of Stretch 5 at a width of 49 meters. Logit. Fig. 22.17Plan and section view of Stretch 5 at a width of 38.5 meters. Logit.

Following are the typical configurations for BRT corridor design to consider in the conceptual design phase and that should become the basis for the detailed engineering.

Fig. 22.18Insertion of bus lane and station in a narrow space in Quito. Andre Frieslaar.

Box 22.3 Options for Narrow Roadways

Areas with narrow road widths, such as central business districts (CBDs) and historic centers, present many challenges to BRT developers (Figure 22.50). The density of activity and architectural nature of these areas may mean that less road space is available for a surface-based public transport system. At the same time, CBDs and historic centers are prime destinations for customers, and thus such areas should be included in the system’s network. Without access to central destinations, the entire system becomes considerably less useful to the potential customer base.

In general, there are at least ten different solutions to designing BRT systems through an area with extremely narrow road widths:

1. Median busway and single mixed-traffic lane (e.g., Rouen, France);
2. Transit malls and transit-only corridors;
3. Split routes (two one-way services on parallel roads);
4. Virtual lanes;
5. Use of median space;
6. Road widening;
7. Grade separation;
8. Fixed guideway;
9. Single-lane operation or virtual lanes;
10. Staggered stations/elongated stations.

Median Busways

The most common option is to locate the busway in the center median or in the center two lanes (Figure 22.7). The BRT Standard awards full points for a median busway alignment. This is because the central verge of a roadway encounters fewer conflicts with turning vehicles than those closer to the curb, due to alleys, parking lots, etc. Additionally, while delivery vehicles and taxis generally require access to the curb, the central verge of the road usually remains free of such obstructions.

The median location also permits a central station to serve both busway directions. The BRT Standard awards full points under the “Center Stations” metric for a single station serving both directions of travel, allowing for easier transferring between directions or routes. A median station permits customers to select multiple routing options from a single station platform. A single station reduces infrastructure costs in comparison to the construction of separate stations for each direction. For more information about station configurations, see the next section.

Fig. 22.19A median busway in Bogotá with a single median station has become the standard for high-quality BRT systems. ITDP. Fig. 22.20One section of Lima, Peru’s BRT, with a single lane for mixed traffic in one direction, and two lanes in the other direction. ITDP.

Curbside Busways

While it is typical to find conventional bus lanes at the curbside, it is rare for BRT to place the busway on the sides of the roadway. The BRT Standard awards no points for this configuration under the “Busway Alignment” metric, as curb lanes rarely function as intended. Curb lanes have conflicts with turning traffic, stopping taxis, delivery vehicles, and non-motorized traffic, greatly reducing the system’s capacity. Achieving capacities of more than five thousand customers per hour per direction is quite difficult if turning vehicles frequently interfere with busway operations. Curbside busways create the potential for the entire busway to be stopped due to a single taxi picking up a customer, a policeman temporarily parking, an accident, or a turning vehicle trapped behind high pedestrian-crossing volumes (Figure 22.17).

Fig. 22.21Curbside bus lanes often fail due to traffic congestion and poor enforcement (Hangzhou, China). ITDP. Fig. 22.22Curbside bus lanes often fail due to traffic congestion and poor enforcement (New York City). ITDP. Fig. 22.23In this image from Quito, Ecuador, the Trolé BRT vehicle operates in an “exclusive” curbside lane, but is blocked by merging traffic from a side street. A median busway would largely avoid these types of conflicts. Lloyd Wright.

Side-Aligned, Two-Way Busway Configuration

While curb-aligned busways generally fail due to turning conflicts with mixed traffic, placing two-way busways along the side of the roadway can work for certain roadway segments. If a roadway is bordered by green space (e.g., a large park), water (e.g., ocean, bay, lake, or river frontage), or open space, then there may be no turning conflicts for long distances, in which case side alignment may actually be preferable to median alignment. The BRT Standard awards the highest points under the “Busway Alignment” metric for side-aligned busways that are adjacent to such an edge condition. A key to choosing this type of alignment is the absence of access to development along a particular corridor edge, i.e., a park, an airport boundary wall, etc.

Where such an edge condition does not exist, it is still possible to consider other side-aligned options. Lima has implemented a two-lane, two-way busway adjacent to a two-lane, two-way general-traffic roadway (Figure 22.19). Intersections along a side-aligned busway can be problematic, but can be dealt with by using traffic signals and roundabouts.

Fig. 22.24In this city-center location, Lima, Peru is able to segregate the busway to the side of an existing roadway. ITDP. Fig. 22.25In this city-center location Curitiba, Brazil, is able to segregate the busway to the side of an existing railway. ITDP.  

Grade-Separated Busways

Grade separation, where the BRT corridor either runs on an elevated roadway or underground, is an option within narrow right-of-way configurations, as well as an option at very busy intersections and roundabouts. Grade separation can also be an option to consider bypassing difficult terrain or water (Figure 22.26). Because it is so expensive to build grade separations, it is usually done in strategic locations where the separation greatly improves operations. Grade-separated busways, however, can also be the length of a corridor, like Expresso Tiradentes in São Paulo, which runs on an elevated roadway. A grade-separated busway receives maximum points under the “Busway Alignment” metric of The BRT Standard, since it is a fully exclusive right-of-way, completely separated from mixed traffic.

Fig. 22.31An elevated busway in Brisbane, Australia, allows the system to maneuver through a sensitive greenway. Queensland Transport. Fig. 22.32The elevated track of São Paolo’s Expresso Tiradentes. ITDP.

In all cases, the physical terrain and base materials must be considered for their engineering appropriateness for tunnels or elevated structures. High water tables or hard bedrock can make underpasses and tunnels impractical from a cost and engineering standpoint. Likewise, soft soils can significantly increase the cost of securely siting pillars for elevated structures. Thus, an engineering and cost-feasibility analysis should be conducted whenever grade separation is being considered as an option along certain BRT corridor segments.

In addition to being highly costly (up to five times the cost of at-grade infrastructure), elevated busways can cause visual impacts in a community, and can also serve to split up an urban area.

Transit Malls and Transit-Only Configurations

“Bus-only” or “transit-mall” corridors are effective options in giving complete priority to public transport. Such corridor segments are typically employed in central areas where space restrictions limit the ability to share space between both public transport and private vehicles, but can exist along an entire corridor, such as the Orange Line in Los Angeles, USA. Transit mall configurations receive maximum points under the “Busway Alignment” metric of The BRT Standard, since they constitute a fully exclusive right-of-way, completely separated from mixed traffic.

Transit malls are frequently an effective solution when a key corridor only has two lanes of road space available. Thus, segments with only seven meters of road space could be appropriate for a transit mall. Private cars, motorcycles, and trucks are banned either entirely from the corridor segment or during public transport operating hours. However, a one-way transit mall can operate on as little as three meters of space, as is the case with the Plaza del Teatro segment of the Quito Trolebús.

Transit malls are particularly appropriate when the public transport service enhances commercial activity and integrates well into the existing land-use patterns. In such cases, the transit mall creates a calmed street environment void of traffic congestion. Transit malls permit a maximum number of customers to access shops and street amenities. Thus, transit malls typically reside in locations where shop sales are quite robust. The lack of mixed traffic encourages an environment friendly to pedestrians and street activity.

The open interaction between pedestrians and the public-transport service on a typical commercial transit mall requires that buses usually travel at slower speeds in these areas. Otherwise, accidents can occur, or the system will dampen the usefulness of the public space. However, the Plaza del Teatro segment of the Quito Trolebús avoids this problem by physically separating the pedestrian area from the busway. While this separation reduces the risk of accidents, it also makes the streetscape less socially inviting to pedestrians. Bogotá’s TransMilenio restricts maximum speed in its transit mall to 13 kph, while the rest of the system has a higher speed.

In instances where pedestrian movement along a transit mall is quite high, the presence of public-transport vehicles can become detrimental to the overall quality of the street. Conditions on the Oxford Street corridor in London have become difficult due to the fact that pedestrian volume exceeds the provided footpath space. In this case, the space given to public-transport vehicles (and taxis) may be better allocated entirely to pedestrians. Thus, at certain pedestrian volumes a street may be better utilized as a “pedestrian mall” rather than a “transit mall.”

Cities such as Bogotá and Quito, employ bus-only corridors in selected locations. Likewise, Brisbane, Australia; Ottawa, Canada; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, also have developed bus-only corridors over certain roadway segments (Figure 22.28).

Fig. 22.33An exclusive busway runs under the Mater Hill Hospital in Brisbane. Queensland Transport. Fig. 22.34Examples of successful transit malls include central Zurich, where the tram system provides easy access to shops, offices, and restaurants. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.35The Avenida Jiménez corridor of Bogotá’s TransMilenio system represents a high-quality example of merging urban regeneration with a BRT system. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.36A transit mall in the central district of Pereira, Colombia. Municipality of Pereira. Fig. 22.37Painted information employing a bus-only approach is also an option, as shown here from an example in Jakarta, Indonesia. Lloyd Wright. Fig. 22.38Transit mall in Utrecht, Netherlands. Deliveries are made very early in the morning, or via side streets. ITDP.

Transit-only corridors, though, are not just restricted to central business and shopping districts. For example, some busways are essentially limited-access roadways restricted to bus use. The West Busway in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, moves through a bus-only corridor in largely residential areas (Figure 22.34). In the cases of Pittsburgh and Brisbane, the busways run along corridors with significant green space. Thus, there are no residential driveways entering directly onto the corridor. Otherwise, these schemes would likely be less viable.

Fig. 22.39In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, entire roadways are devoted exclusively to BRT operation. Lloyd Wright.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in making transit malls and other transit-only corridors work is access for delivery vehicles and local residents. Some merchants desire round-the-clock delivery access, which is both a political and technical obstacle to implementing a transit mall. The loss of on-street parking and direct customer access by private vehicles may also be a worry for some merchants. In general, the experience to date has indicated that transit malls and pedestrian malls tend to both improve shop sales and property values. Thus, merchants sometimes object to vehicle restrictions at the outset

…they virtually never campaign for the abandonment of a scheme once it has come into operation. It is notable that, once a scheme has been put in place, traders are often the main people to voice a desire to extend its boundaries or period of operation.Hass-Klau 1992, 30

A common solution is to establish delivery access for shops during non-transit hours. Thus, merchants are able to move large goods during the late evening and early morning hours. Smaller goods can typically be delivered at any time by carts and delivery services operating from the pedestrian area (Figure 22.35). This may, however, pose a safety challenge for nighttime freight deliveries in some areas and should be addressed properly.

Fig. 22.40Non-motorized delivery systems, as shown here in Santiago, Chile, can help make transit malls viable for local shop owners. Lloyd Wright.

If the area is largely residential, then conflicts are usually with individuals seeking private-vehicle access to their properties and parking. Such conflicts can sometimes be resolved with the establishment of nearby parking garages and access during non-operating hours of the public transport system. In both the case of residential access and shop deliveries, the successful achievement of a transit mall is likely to require careful political negotiation.

One-Way Pairs Configuration

As an alternative to the transit mall, cities frequently consider splitting each direction of public transport service between two different (typically parallel) roads. The public transport system thus operates as two one-way pairs. This is sometimes called a couplet configuration. In this case, at least one lane of mixed traffic can typically be retained.

The chief advantage of splitting the route is the impact on mixed traffic, parking, and truck deliveries. Private vehicles retain some form of direct access to corridor properties. Also, this type of configuration often mirrors the existing bus routes, and thus is potentially more acceptable to existing operators. Guayaquil, Ecuador, has successfully utilized a split-route configuration in the central areas of the city (Figure 22.36) with the one-way pairs running in the center of the street. Johannesburg, South Africa, also has a similar configuration of median-aligned, one-way pairs in the downtown. Outside the denser city center, both directions of the BRT system are recombined in a more conventional two-directional configuration.

Fig. 22.41Through the denser city center area, the Guayaquil Metrovía system utilizes a split-route configuration, with each direction of travel being provided on parallel streets. Carlos González.

However, this configuration receives only half the amount of points under the “Busway Alignment” metric of The BRT Standard, because of the transfer penalty faced by customers if they need to transfer to a different line or go in a different direction and the potential for customer confusion in determining which station to board for which direction.

Bi-directional One-Lane Configuration

In some special cases of lower demand and good technology, a short stretch of narrow busway could be operated with a single lane. Thus, a single lane would provide service to both directions on an alternating basis. To ensure that two vehicles do not try to use the one-lane segment at the same time, a special traffic control system is usually employed.

Fig. 22.42Eugene, Oregon, USA, employs single lane operation for portions of its corridor. ITDP.

Single-lane operation is used most notably in Eugene, Oregon, USA (Figure 22.37). This option works because it is limited to short road segments and bus frequencies are low. An advanced signaling system holds oncoming buses and the busway breaks into two directions at key points for passing. Because of these low frequencies, Eugene’s Lane Transit District has been able to avoid most conflicts simply through scheduling.

Under such a design, as the length of the one-lane operation is increased, the greater the possible disruption to operation of the overall system. This option is also not likely to be viable in systems with high vehicle frequencies and high customer demand.

However, in some circumstances, single-lane operation can be used to overcome obstacles spanning short road segments. A single-lane tunnel or bridge or a narrow historic street may appear as insurmountable obstacles, and therefore cause planners to forgo an otherwise ideal corridor. Single-lane operation can be an option to consider in such situations.

Contra-Flow Busway

In addition to the different roadway configurations, system designers can opt for either “with flow” or “counter-flow” bus movements. “With flow” means that the vehicles operate in the same direction as the mixed traffic in the adjoining lanes. “Counter-flow” means that the vehicles operate in the opposite direction of mixed traffic. “Counter-flow” is sometimes used if the doorways on the existing buses require the bus to drive on a certain side. Counter-flow bus lanes are used in various conventional bus systems around the world (Figure 22.40). Often, counter-flow designs are employed to discourage private vehicles from entering the bus lane. However, the counter-flow lane may simply result in busway congestion if private vehicles nevertheless decide to enter the area.

“Counter-flow” set-ups do have a potentially serious problem with increased pedestrian accidents. Pedestrians can be unaccustomed to looking in the direction of the counter-flow lane, and thus cross unknowingly into a dangerous situation.

Counter-flow systems are generally not employed in BRT systems, particularly due to concerns over pedestrian safety. Quito briefly utilized counter-flow movements for its Ecovía corridor since its only available vehicles possessed doorways on the wrong side. However, once the new vehicles arrived from the manufacturer, Quito converted the corridor back to “with flow” movements.

Fig. 22.45Bangkok employs contra-flow design. ITDP.

Mixed-Traffic Operation

A BRT system can operate in mixed traffic for certain segments of a corridor. If the corridor is not congested and future congestion can be controlled, it may make sense not to have dedicated infrastructure at that point. Many cities are also designing “direct service” systems where services, by design, travel both on the trunk infrastructure in dedicated lanes and off the trunk corridor, often in mixed traffic. Direct-service systems can be found in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Guangzhou, Lanzhou, and Changzhou, China; Ottawa, Canada; Cleveland, Ohio, USA; and a growing number of cities around the world.

Many systems, however, operate in mixed traffic at precisely the areas where dedicated infrastructure is needed, that is, downtowns where there may be a lot of congestion. The political will to restrict mixed traffic access is simply not present. If the link is congested, then this choice will have a detrimental impact on travel times, system control, and the overall system image. Therefore, mixed-traffic operation is awarded 0 points under the “Busway Alignment” metric in The BRT Standard.

Near the Usme terminal of the Bogotá TransMilenio system, the BRT vehicles operate in mixed-traffic lanes. This design choice is due to two factors: (1) Limited road space (two lanes in each direction) and limited right of way; (2) Relatively light mixed-traffic levels. Since the Usme terminal area does not see high congestion levels, the BRT system co-exists with the mixed traffic in a way that does little to affect public transport operations. In this case, the mixed-traffic operation has a negligible impact on system performance. However, mixed traffic may result in higher bus conflicts with other road users, and experience has indicated that, in particular, bus-motorcycle accidents are more prevalent.

By contrast in Changzhou, China the BRT corridor passes through a mixed-traffic section in the city center. This, combined with multiple four-phase intersections, has a major negative impact on BRT speeds.

Fig. 22.46Changzhou, China, operates its BRT system along mixed-traffic lanes at a crucial segment of the corridor, and thus travel times and system control are negatively affected. ITDP.

Mixed-traffic operation can also become necessary when a BRT vehicle must traverse around a flyover or other obstacle. As the BRT vehicle moves to the center median, it must temporarily mix with cars descending from the flyover. While this set of circumstances is undesirable from a travel-time and system-control standpoint, the congestion usually does not occur at the bottleneck or flyover, but prior to it. Providing public transport vehicles with separated facilities up to the flyover will allow them to jump the queue with little detriment to overall travel time.

Thus, short and selected points of mixed-traffic operation can likely be tolerated without undermining the functionality of the entire system. However, longer periods of mixed-traffic operation can render the BRT system indistinguishable from a standard bus system. The impact of such a design is not just on the performance and operational control, but also on the psychological image of the system. The exclusive, priority lane given to a BRT vehicle is the principal physical feature that sets it apart as a higher-quality form of transport. The segregated lane is what allows customers to develop a “mental map” of the system in their minds. Removing this segregation from significant portions of the system greatly diminishes the metro-like nature of BRT, and makes it far less attractive to discretionary riders.

An option for mixed-traffic operations is to include queue-jump lanes, which help give some form of priority during peak periods to avoid vehicles being trapped in congestion.

Fig. 22.47A section of median queue-jump lane in Cape Town, South Africa. Andre Frieslaar.

Queue-jump lanes can be located on the curbside or in the middle of the corridor (Figures 22.42 and 22.43). Issues that affect the location of these lanes are: driveway spacing and frequency, the presence of a median, median break, turn lanes, etc. Issues associated with queue-jump lanes are the difficulty with encroachment by general traffic vehicles, and difficulty with enforcement due to the need to cross the dedicated lane to access driveways, turn lanes, and median breaks.

Fig. 22.48A section of curbside queue-jump lane in Cape Town, South Africa. Andre Frieslaar.

In some instances, access to the queue-jump lanes by general traffic is only restricted during peak periods, that is, general traffic may utilize these lanes during the out-of–peak periods. This weakens the exclusivity of the road space, which in turn leads to higher rates of peak-period violations, and hence should not be encouraged.

]https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/master/guide/roadway-and-station-configurations/roadway-configurations

[AsimPika3172 1,155]

Cool!  😎

[Lab Rat 16]

Automated Notice Message

All posts after 1 March, 2026 @ 01:37 GMT were lost in the site crash.

We've added this message thread divider in every topic across all forums for what were then active threads. (We decided active is if the most recent extant post (from the backup) was on or after 1 January, 2026.)

This divider serves as notice that the conversation was interrupted. Answers and further discussion which used to be here have been lost. Keep this in mind when replying. Our hope is to rebuild what is missing.