BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE US: WHAT DO THEY DO? WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Association for European Transport and Contributors 2012 1

BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE US: WHAT DO THEY DO? WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Graham James

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1. INTRODUCTION Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) eludes simple definition perhaps the first clue to the diversity of this mode. In the US it is generally described as having a range of enhanced attributes compared to conventional bus service, aimed at increasing ridership. One such definition is:

coordinated improvements in a transit systems infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential treatment to buses on fixed guideways and urban roadways. The intention of Bus Rapid Transit is to reduce bus travel time, improve service reliability, increase the convenience of users, and ultimately, increase bus ridership.

(US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 611)

It may also be seen as aiming for rail-like service but with greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital costs (see, for example, definitions in GAO (2012) and TCRP (2007b)). This paper provides an overview of what is a diverse field. Three contrasting case studies from Nevada, Oregon and California are presented. Data are provided in imperial units, reflecting US practice, with approximate metric equivalents. 2. ORGANISATIONAL AND POLICY CONTEXT This section describes the organisational, planning and policy context for BRT as part of US urban local public transport. As a federal nation, arrangements can vary from state to state, so it should be seen as a general description that will broadly apply to most locations. 2.1. Buses as a municipal function

Urban local bus and subway/metro services (transit in US terminology) are typically municipally owned. In conurbations there may be individual city bus operations, a regional transit authority, or a combination of both. Day-to-day operation is sometimes contracted to a private sector operator. Transit is therefore principally a public service, and in smaller cities the lifeline function can be its most significant role. Service-planning criteria are locally defined but tend to be a combination of coverage and ridership goals. This approach, along with wider land-use patterns, explains the hub and spoke model seen in many systems: routes pulse together at a central transfer centre for interchange.


2.2 Local and regional transport planning BRT schemes generally emerge through the planning process operated by Metropolitan Planning Organisations (MPOs). Despite the name, these are essentially transport policy-making bodies established by federal law (Duff et al, 2010). Their key functions are to prepare a Metropolitan Transport Plan (also known as a long-range transportation plan) covering at least 20 years, and a short-range Transportation Improvement Plan. Individual schemes, however, are generally developed and managed by municipalities or transit agencies rather than by the MPO. MPO boards are appointed by municipalities and there is usually a close relationship (although not necessarily political agreement) between municipalities and MPOs. Larger MPOs have their own technical staff; in smaller areas municipal staff also act as MPO staff. 2.3 US transport policy context

The practical and symbolic importance of car travel in the US can obscure the continuing role of public transport. Around 6% of American households have no car, and these households account for around half of the nations transit ridership. However, around 19% of Americans use transit at least once in a typical month (Chu, 2012). In the largest cities, public transport is central to city life in a way that would be familiar to Londoners or Parisians. And in large and small cities alike, politicians and transport planners can be conscious of the needs of transit dependent riders: those who have no effective choice but to use transit. Current themes in national transport policy include:

the asserted role of infrastructure investment in maintaining national economic competitiveness;

increasing urban and suburban traffic congestion;

fluctuations in gasoline (petrol) prices, and concerns over the resulting cost of motoring; and

the sustainability and livable cities movements, feeding into the concepts of smart growth and transit oriented development (TOD) (see Calthorpe (1993), for example, and much subsequent literature).

2.4 Public transport funding Transit is funded through a combination of farebox revenue and local, state and federal support. The federal role is particularly significant for capital investments, providing around 40% of capital funds (APTA, 2011). Through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the federal government provides dedicated funding streams for public transport, covering both routine capital/operating costs and specific projects. These may be competitive or allocated by formula. The New Starts programme, described in section 8 below, is particularly important for BRT projects. Multimodal funds, allocated by formula and passed down through the state and MPO level, are also available. These were historically highway funds but


now they can be spent on transit (flexed) if the decision-makers prefer. In practice they are still mainly used as highway funds. 3. SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT BRT PRACTICE

3.1 Overview

Until recently, BRT in the US context tended to mean:

The intensive systems in foreign cities such as Bogota, Columbia, or Curitiba, Brazil. These can resemble a road-based version of an urban metro, with substantial stations and corresponding ridership levels.

Existing North American busways, often on ex-railroad corridors, in cities such as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In aspects other than the busway and limited-stop operation, these tended to share the look and feel of the wider city bus system.

Recent US BRT systems generally take a different approach. Most often using existing or reconfigured streets (with or without busways), there is an emphasis on raising service quality and distinguishing the BRT from the rest of the bus network. These contemporary projects cover a wide spectrum. Promoters often aim to replicate the look and feel of light rail seen, for example, in vehicle styling, station design, rail-inspired route diagrams, or off-bus ticket purchase. However, this depends on the level of funding available or considered justifiable. A less-intensive approach, with fewer nods to light rail, is therefore also common. Often described as BRT-lite, some commentators suggest this approach does not qualify to be BRT at all (eg Wood, 2008; Bowen, 2009). Reflecting the spectrum, one organisation has recently suggested a scoring system to assess BRT schemes against best practice, with Gold, Silver and Bronze standards (ITDP, 2012). As the Las Vegas case study will show, an individual system may have both heavy and light characteristics. Meanwhile some BRT-lite elements such as low-floor buses and real-time information are spreading to non-BRT routes (Kantor et al, 2008). Table 1 (at the end of this section) gives some examples of recently-opened and planned BRT schemes. It is not a full list. 3.2 Corridor selection and service concept

BRT schemes generally emerge out of a focus on a specific corridors problems or goals. Typical scenarios are:

a congested arterial corridor, with a goal of providing an attractive and reliable alternative to car travel;

a corridor with existing high bus ridership, with a goal of improving service to existing riders and attracting new riders;

a corridor with a strongly transit-dependent population that is not well served by existing routes;

a corridor with a focus on economic development, either by supporting existing growth poles or by regeneration;


a desire for park-and-ride service; or

a combination of these factors. The corridor may be narrowly defined as an arterial route, or may be a sector of the city where several street or railroad corridor options are evaluated. BRT might be selected for its flexibility in its own right, or as an effective but lower-cost alternative to light rail (Schlosser, 2012); in the latter case the route may or may not be designed for later conversion to light rail. The BRT projects route structure (its service concept in US terminology) can also vary (see, for example, Falbel et al, 2006). Most common is a single end-to-end route along the corridor. This may replace an existing route, or alternatively the BRT may be treated as an express overlay with the existing route retained. Either way, radial BRT routes typically serve transfer centres in downtowns and sometimes at the suburban end, where riders can transfer to/from other routes. 3.3 Running ways, guidance and priority Running-ways vary widely; this is one of the key areas in which high-end BRT differs from BRT-lite. Note that the term fixed guideways, often seen in legal language about BRT, is potentially misleading as it can include busways or bus lanes with no physical guidance. At the high end, there may be a segregated busway along the edge or centre (median strip) of an arterial corridor, or along a separate corridor such as a former railroad. BRT-lite may be in general traffic or in bus lanes. There are no kerb-guided busways, although there is awareness of this option (see, for example, Phillips (2006) and Special Transit Advisory Commission (2008)). However, kerb-guidance is used in Eugene, Oregon and Cleveland, Ohio for docking at stops. Optical guidance, as used in Rouen, France, was tried in Las Vegas. 3.4 Stops / stations Again, practice varies widely. At the high end, they are described as stations, with a spacing closer to that of light rail stations than of traditional bus routes. They may be given place names, rather than the conventional approach of naming stops after intersecting streets. A bespoke design may be used, such as in Kansas City where it includes a 17-foot (5m) pillar topped by the BRT route logo. In some corridors, stations in median strips have centre island platforms, again similar to rail practice, requiring vehicles with doors on both sides. The BRT-lite approach is much closer to what British transport planners would recognise as a Quality Corridor. Stops are less likely to be described as stations. Shelters may be higher-quality than the authoritys norm, but still recognisably bus shelters with less attempt to replicate the feel of light rail.


3.5 Vehicles The US bus industry talks of BRT vehicles. In reality, these range from stylised versions of conventional buses to vehicles that are specifically designed for BRT applications. Notable examples include:

The Irisbus Civis and Wright Streetcar, as used in Las Vegas; and The New Flyer vehicles used in Eugene and Cleveland, which have

doors on both sides to serve both nearside and offside stops. Even taking the bespoke designs into account, there are still strong commonalities with non-BRT practice. BRT vehicles are normally either rigid 40-foot (12m) or articulated 60-foot (18m) types. This is no different from busy non-BRT routes, and articulated buses are relatively common in major urban areas. Propulsion systems are also in line with non-BRT equivalents. In some areas, compressed natural gas (CNG) is used for air quality reasons. Otherwise diesel is nearly always used. Hybrid buses (both diesel-electric and CNG-electric) are very common on BRT services but also increasingly so for conventional routes. Trolleybuses only appear to feature in BRT planning in cities with existing trolleybus systems. This is in contrast to some European efforts where trolleybuses or proprietary systems such as Translohr are used or have been proposed for standalone schemes (see for example Carr, 2009, 2010). In Boston, Massachusetts (which indeed has trolleybuses) the Silver Line BRT uses dual-mode vehicles: they run as trolleybuses in a bus-only tunnel under the waterfront but switch to diesel power along city streets. 3.6 Vehicle-stop interface Across the spectrum there is a goal of close and level docking between bus and kerb. Kerb-guidance is used in Eugene, Oregon and Cleveland, Ohio for docking at stops. These systems also use vehicle-borne bridge plates to eliminate the gap altogether. In Las Vegas, optical guidance was installed but was superseded by manual docking. Apart from these, the vehicle-stop interface generally relies on low-floor buses (increasingly the norm on non-BRT routes, too) and sometimes raised kerbs at stops. Tactile paving may be used in the same manner as a light rail platform. There is awareness of other technological options (Kantor et al, 2006) but without adoption to date. 3.7 Service span and frequency

Generally BRT systems operate at turn-up-and-go frequencies, at least at peak times. This may be an improvement over the existing service level, particularly in smaller cities. The service span may also be improved. A common profile is 10-minute headways at peak times and 15-minute headways off-peak and at weekends. In some systems, weekend service levels are lower and occasionally there is no Sunday service. On the busiest routes, the frequency may already be high for capacity reasons and the BRT service would offer no improvement on this measure. 3.8 Ticketing

Off-vehicle fare collection (with ticket machines at stops) is often used, particularly for high-end schemes, in an attempt to reduce dwell times.


However, on-board fare collection remains common (Schlosser, 2012). Generally an off-vehicle-only ticketing policy will apply to the whole route, even if it is only partly on a busway. 3.9 Intelligent Transportation Systems Two Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) applications are very common:

transit signal priority, to advance or extend a green phase for an approaching bus (see, for example, Wong (2008); and

real-time information, through at-stop displays and/or mobile applications.

3.10 Branding

Branding is a final area of distinction between the ends of the BRT spectrum. High-end BRT tends to adopt a brand quite distinct from that of the transit agencys existing bus service. The name Max is used in more than one city. In contrast, BRT-lite tends to have some relationship to the agencys existing brand. Metro is unsurprisingly a common agency brand, which has spawned Metro Express BRT in Stockton, California and Metro Rapid in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, which has both high-end and BRT-lite routes, is an interesting example. The high-end Metro Orange Line BRT is deliberately positioned as part of the rail system. Unlike standard or BRT-lite routes, it is given a colour designation similar to rail lines and is included on the rail system map (Cain et al, 2009). 3.11 Sources for more detailed description of current practice Weinstock et al (2011) provide some case studies and a synopsis of current US BRT operating and branding practice. Detailed descriptions of planning and operating practice can be found in TCRP (2007) and Diaz (2004). Falbel et al (2006) provide a useful case study of the planning process. A survey of agencies intending to procure BRT (Kantor et al, 2008) gave an interesting snapshot of the level of interest in each element, particularly in relation to vehicles.

7

Table 1. Selected examples of recent and contemporary US BRT schemes

Opened / due open

State City Route / System Name

Notes

1997 Florida Miami Miami-Dade South Busway

8.5 miles exclusive at-grade busway in former rail right-of-way alongside US Highway 1. Several routes including express buses.

1997 Florida Orlando Lymmo Free downtown circulator. Continuous loop through downtown Orlando. 3 miles of bus lane / bus-only route with distinctive paving. Stations and running way designed as part of the streetscape.

2000 + California Los Angeles Metro Rapid Regional network of routes along high-ridership corridors. Introduced in several phases. Reduced number of stops compared to standard routes.

Wilshire Boulevard (the first Metro Rapid corridor) was recently enhanced with 9.6 miles of peak-hour bus lanes (converted from general lanes).

2004 Massachusetts

Boston Silver Line Two separate segments: city streets (Washington Street) and a busway tunnel in the city centre waterfront area (South Boston Piers Transitway). Articulated dual-mode diesel / trolleybuses.

2004 Nevada Las Vegas Max Arterial street BRT with substantial stations, from downtown northwards to Nellis Air Force Base. Length 7.5 miles (3 miles in mixed traffic, 4.5 miles bus lanes). Civis vehicle by Irisbus, with optical guidance system (not used). See case study in this paper.

2005 California Los Angeles Orange Line Arterial corridor in South San Fernando Valley. 14-mile dedicated busway directly alongside road (ex- railroad corridor) or in central reservation. Substantial, light-rail inspired stations. Branded as equivalent to a rail route: included on rail maps and same livery as rail vehicles. Stylised articulated vehicles with interior cycle racks. Includes pedestrian/cycle trail alongside.

2005 Missouri Kansas City Max Six-mile route (including 3.75 miles of bus lanes) runs across city from River Market, through downtown to Plaza (all as express service), then on to Waldo (as local service). Distinctive stations with 17-foot high information markers. Replaces one existing route on corridor; another retained to serve local stops omitted by Max. See Jandt (2007)

2007 + California Stockton Metro Express Three arterial corridors:

Route 40, opened in 2007, runs from residential areas, past two major shopping malls and university, then through more residential areas to the downtown transfer centre. See case study in this paper.

Route 44 (Airport Way corridor) runs from downtown to airport.

Route 43 (Hammer Lane corridor) opened in 2012, is radial and connects to route 44.

Total 16.1 miles, on-street in mixed traffic, with 20 hybrid vehicles.

8

Opened / due open


Notes

2007 + Oregon Eugene EmX (Emerald Express)

Franklin EmX, opened 2007, connects downtowns of Eugene and Springfield. See Harmack (2007). 4 miles, of which 2.4 miles are in central reservation (median) of arterial road. Some centre island stations.

Gateway EmX, opened 2011, extends Franklin corridor service from downtown Springfield to Gateway area. Six miles (10 km) including sections on-street in one-way pair, on busway in median strip, and on-street in arterial mixed traffic. Some centre island stations.

West Eugene EmX extension, due open 2017, extends 8.9 miles (5.8 miles bus lane, 3.1 miles mixed traffic) from downtown Eugene westwards, serving designated mixed-use activity centres as part of city growth / livability efforts..

Buses have doors on both sides (3 on kerb side, 2 on island side), and bridge plates to eliminate gap from platform. See case study in this paper.

2008 Ohio Cleveland Healthline (previously known as Euclid corridor)

Arterial street BRT with substantial stations, running for 9.4 miles from downtown Cleveland through an area with a high concentration of hospitals and medical research facilities. Part of a comprehensive multi-agency effort to redevelop Euclid Avenue and attract new jobs and residents to the corridor. Some centre island stations. Buses have doors on both sides. Naming rights sold.

2010 + Washington King County (Seattle area)

RapidRide A growing network of street-running BRT lines. Articulated buses with free Wi-Fi. System includes downtown transit tunnel used by both BRT and conventional bus routes.

Route A: Seattle Pacific Highway South BRT. Runs for 10.9 miles from Tukwila to Federal Way. Connects with light rail.

Route B: Bellevue-Redmond BRT, 9.5 miles connecting downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond.

Routes C and D due to open in 2012. Routes E and F due to open in 2013.

2011 Arizona Flagstaff Mountain Link (Route 10)

From downtown, through campus of Northern Arizona University on busway, then on-street to residential and retail area. Route acts partly as a campus shuttle. Route is 5.8 miles, of which 1.3 miles is busway through campus and the remainder in mixed traffic on campus and city streets. Eight hybrid vehicles.

2011 Missouri Kansas City Troost MAX Nine-mile on-street corridor along Troost Avenue to downtown Kansas City. Approximately one mile west of, and parallel to, Max

9

Opened / due open


Notes

2012 California Monterey Jazz line (Monterey Bay Rapid Transit)

Connects the transit-dependent community of Seaside to the employment and tourist centres in Monterey. Length 6.7 miles. Uses existing buses, which will be re-branded.

2013 Colorado Glenwood Springs and Aspen

VelociRFTA (Roaring Fork Valley BRT)

Unusual BRT as it is a semi-rural corridor between towns. Connects several communities along Highway 82 in a valley corridor between Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Length 38.8 miles, including some existing HOV lanes. Project includes 300 park and ride spaces.

2013 Florida Jacksonville JTA BRT North Corridor

Downtown Jacksonville to Interstate Highway 295. Heavily transit-dependent corridor. Project is 9.3 miles and connects to Downtown Phase I project currently under way.

2014 California Fresno Fresno Area Express Blackstone / Kings Canyon BRT

Links North Fresno, Downtown and the Southeast Growth area. High-ridership commercial corridor. 13.8 miles of street running, 20% of which is in bus lanes.

2014 California San Bernardino

E Street Corridor sbX BRT

Through San Bernardino and Loma Linda, including California State University and Loma Linda University Medial Center. 16 miles on-street with bus lanes. Both nearside and centre-island stations. 14 new CNG articulated buses.

2014 Colorado Fort Collins Max (Mason Corridor BRT)

From downtown south to Colorado State University, then to new South Transit Center (built as part of project). Combination of mixed traffic and dedicated busway alongside railroad line. Length 5 miles (1.2 miles in mixed traffic, 3.8 miles exclusive busway. Centre island platforms on busway; visualisations suggest buses will cross to opposite side to give nearside boarding. Parallel bicycle / pedestrian trail. Aims to encourage infill and economic development along the corridor, with new development oriented towards the BRT corridor rather than the existing parallel street corridor. Dropped out of Small Starts pipeline in 2005 when local ballot initiatives failed; state funding allowed re-entry in 2007.

2014 Florida Jacksonville JTA BRT Southeast Corridor

South-east from Downtown. Project is 11.1 miles and connects to BRT Phase 1 currently under way. Transit-dependent corridor but currently no direct service to downtown.

2014 Michican Grand Rapids

Silver Line 9.6 miles along radial arterial from downtown. Operating costs to be covered by hypothecated property tax, approved in 2011 referendum

10

Opened / due open


Notes

2015 Connecticut Hartford CTfastrak (New Britain -Hartford Busway)

From New Britain to downtown Hartford. Several routes will use the busway, including expresses and local routes. Parallel to congested Interstate highway 94. A 9.4-mile exclusive busway on existing / former railroad corridor.

2015 Texas El Paso Dyer Corridor On-street, downtown to suburban transfer centre, Army base and another transfer centre. No route currently serves full length of corridor; transit-dependent areas. Will save interchange time. Mixed traffic. 12 stations

2016 California Oakland East Bay BRT From downtown Berkeley through downtown Oakland to San Leandro. Aimed at improving service to existing transit-dependent riders. 14.4 miles of street running, of which 75% is bus lanes in median with island stops. Buses will have doors on both sides.

2016 California San Francisco

Van Ness Avenue BRT

Major city street. Project to improve speed, reliability and amenities along the core of two existing bus routes. Two miles of bus lane, and 60 new electric and hybrid vehicles

Table shows a selection of schemes and is not intended to be comprehensive. Data may be rounded. Sources: FTA New Starts annual reports and project descriptions from various years (www.fta.dot.gov.uk); other sources as listed in bibliography; local publications and websites.

11

4. CASE STUDY: MAX (LAS VEGAS, NEVADA) Transit in Las Vegas, Nevada is operated by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). Although internationally known for the Strip and its casinos, it is a sizeable urban area with a substantial transit-dependent population. The Max BRT line serves a 7.5-mile (12km) corridor along an arterial highway from downtown out to Nellis Air Force base at the edge of the city. A full description of the system is in Swallow (2005) or Schmiek et al, (2006); the latter includes early results.

This corridor has strip-development, with largely low-income residential neighbourhoods close by. Before Max, the corridor was served by one of the busiest conventional routes (route 113). That route still exists, but Max is now an express overlay. The two have separate stops and are scheduled separately.

Max has no exclusive busways simply 4.5 miles (7km) of bus lanes and 3.0 miles (5km) in general traffic. Although this represents the light end of the spectrum in traffic engineering terms, some other aspects of the system are heavy.

Most stations are substantial structures, with a distinctive design featuring raised kerbs and tactile paving (Figure 1). Fares are paid at ticket machines, with random on-board checks by armed security staff.

The vehicles (Figure 2) are the Civis design by Irisbus (Boucheret, 2004). These are articulated, fully low-floor vehicles with diesel-electric (not hybrid) propulsion and regenerative braking, a centre driving position, and four doors. Another unusual feature is the interior bicycle rack. These vehicles cost around $1 million each; the nearest conventional equivalent (an articulated hybrid bus) might only have cost around two thirds of that figure. Irrespective of that, the fact that vehicles made up around half of the projects capital cost illustrates the importance of vehicles to the costing in schemes where the physical interventions are limited.

An optical guidance system was installed, so that the buses could dock closely at stops. This used a sensor following a white stripe on the road surface. However, the system was abandoned. The dry, dusty climate made it difficult to maintain the required visual contrast without substantial cost. In practice, drivers found they could follow the stripe themselves and dock the buses accurately enough (see also Kantor et al, 2006 and Phillips, 2006).

An evaluation two years after opening (Schmiek at al, 2006) came to broadly positive conclusions:

Passenger satisfaction surveys were overwhelmingly positive, and more positive than on standard routes.

Corridor ridership had increased by nearly 40% since the start of Max service. Around 30% of Max riders were new to transit, and 10% previously made their trip by car. The new riders also represented a change in demographic, being more likely to be younger and/or in full-time employment.

12

Signal priority had not improved travel times significantly a result attributed to the corridor having relatively little congestion and therefore already consistent travel times.

The additional training, higher pay scale and extensive selection process for Max drivers, compared to drivers of regular routes, was seen as a success, borne out in passenger satisfaction and safe driving records.

Operating costs per vehicle hour were around 50% higher than normal routes attributed to greater attention to maintenance, use of more experienced drivers, and the higher maintenance cost of the complex, foreign-built vehicle.

Dwell times (time spent at stops) were lower than on standard routes. This was due partly to the close docking at kerbs but mainly to the off-bus ticketing regime.

Operating speed was higher due to the shorter dwell times and the wider spacing of stations compared to conventional stops. Transit travel time along the corridor reduced by around 30%. This higher productivity partly offset the higher operating cost per hour.

The studys authors added that based on this evidence, a BRT system using more conventional vehicles could reduce operating costs per mile if it adopted off-bus ticketing and less frequent stops.

Interestingly, when riders on route 113 were surveyed, a majority said they preferred Max; most of these reported that they chose the 113 that day because Max did not stop in just the right place for them. Schmiek et al (2006) reported anecdotal evidence that the presence of security staff had reduced crime on what had previously been seen as a rough corridor. However, police data suggested this was a perceptual change rather than one reflected in the crime rates. A second BRT route has been brought into operation, originally branded Ace but now known as Strip and Downtown Express (SDX) (New Transit, March 2010; Weinstock et al, 2011). Instead of the Civis, this route uses the Wright StreetCar a design which will be familiar to UK practitioners as the ftr.

13

Figure 1: Las Vegas, Nevada: Max station. Bus lane. Raised kerb with tactile paving; marking showing where to board with cycles, corresponding to rear door of vehicle (at end of tactile paving nearest camera). Bespoke structure and hefty seating. Optical guidance line (faint dashed double white line on carriageway).

Figure 2: Las Vegas, Nevada: Max vehicle. Four doors; centre driving position; low-floor throughout with ancillary equipment at roof level; wheel covers.

14

5. CASE STUDY: EMX (EUGENE, OREGON) The Emerald Express or EmX (pronounced M-X), operated by Lane Transit District, Oregon, is also at the heavy end of the spectrum, but has some distinctive features of its own (Hemmer, 2009; Harnack, 2007).

The first section of the EmX Green Line opened in 2007, connecting the downtowns of Eugene and Springfield. The project cost $24 million including vehicles. The four-mile (6km) route included 2.4 miles (4km) of busway along arterial roads. An extension north from downtown Springfield opened in 2011, and a further extension, from downtown Eugene westwards to the edge of the city, is currently in development. EmX uses a variety of running way configurations, including:

Median (central reservation) busway (Figure 3) on an arterial divided highway (dual carriageway), with stations having centre island platforms.

Two-way bus lane, threaded through an urban street (Figure 4)

Conventional nearside stations on an arterial street (Figure 5)

Offside bus lanes and stations, on a one-way pair of streets (Figure 6) Some constrained sections of busway and bus lane are single-lane between stations, requiring the use of rail-style signalling principles to prevent conflicts. The stations are substantial bespoke designs, with canopies, raised kerbs and a particular focus on public art (Figures 5 and 6).

The buses have doors on both sides, to accommodate the centre island and offside stations. Stylised articulated vehicles are used. They are fitted with guidewheels for docking at stations, although these are not used for guidance along the route. Internal bicycle racks allow three cycles to be carried. The buses for the initial section, built by New Flyer and costing $960,000 each, were ordered jointly with the Euclid Avenue corridor Healthline BRT service in Cleveland, Ohio, which also uses guidewheels in this way.

15

Figure 3: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Start of busway in median strip (central reservation). Bus is at an island platform station in the background. Photo: Nathaniel Grier

Figure 4: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Island platform station in urban street. Note offside doors on bus. Camera is pointing west in direction of general traffic flow. Westbound traffic lanes on right. Bus lane in centre (concrete surface). Eastbound bus pictured will move onto bus lane, which becomes a two-way single lane behind camera. Photo: Nathaniel Grier

16

Figure 5: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Station design. Points to note: bespoke shelter design; rail-like name boards; raised kerb that accommodates guidewheels; bespoke art design for railings. Station is in a conventional nearside location on a typical five-lane arterial street. guidewheels. Interestingly Tebb (1993) had envisaged this use of kerb-guidance at on-highway stops. Photo: Nathaniel Grier

Figure 6: EmX, Eugene, Oregon: Offside with-flow bus lane. On a one-way street (part of a one-way pair). Camera is pointing in direction of traffic flow. Offside doors will open at this station. Photo: Nathaniel Grier

17

6. CASE STUDY: METRO EXPRESS (STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA) Stockton, in the San Joaquin Valley of California, offers a contrast (Starcik (2007), San Joaquin RTD (2007)). San Joaquin Regional Transit District has three BRT routes, branded Metro Express. The city bus network is branded as Metro, so Metro Express represents a step up rather than an altogether separate brand. The first Metro Express line, route 40, is a typical example of BRT-lite. The route runs along an arterial corridor from residential areas, past two major shopping malls and the University of the Pacific, then through more residential areas to the downtown transfer centre. The service runs every 15 minutes Monday-Friday daytime and every 30 minutes in evenings and weekends. The service started in January 2007, and was accompanied by a wider restructuring of routes, with some now feeding into Metro Express. The capital cost was $5.2 million, funded by a $4 million federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant and a local 0.5% sales tax for transport projects. Stops include simple shelters (Figure 7) with ticket machines (Figure 8). The vehicles are stylised versions of otherwise conventional 40-foot (12m) hybrid buses (Figures 9 and 10). As with most urban buses in the US, bicycles can be carried on an external rack at the front of the bus (Figure 7).

The agency found that even without the Las Vegas level of investment, they were attracting new riders, including collar-and-tie commuters (Kaplan, 2007; Paul Rapp, pers. comm., 2007). Some people appeared to be using one of the malls as an informal park-and-ride.

18

Figure 7: Stockton, California: Metro Express: Typical stop. Note conventional kerb.

Figure 8: Stockton, California: Metro Express: Bus stop furniture. Left: ticket machine. Right: route flash. Note brand coordination with vehicles.

Figure 9 : Stockton, California: Metro Express vehicle in downtown. Note silver and red livery, coordinated with the bus stop furniture. Standard city buses have a much plainer white livery.

19

Figure 10: Stockton, California: Metro Express vehicle at a suburban stop. Note how the low emission attribute is used as part of the branding.

7. FUNDING A BRT SCHEME

The capital costs of BRT schemes are most commonly funded through a mixture of federal grants and local money. This combination is in fact very typical for US transport investment. However, some promoters choose not to seek federal funding, in order to speed up project delivery. The federal contribution is often through the New Starts capital grant programme, which is described in more detail below. Other grant programmes can be used, as shown in Table 2. The local contribution may be from state or municipal funds, or both, depending on laws and policies in each state. The municipal contribution may include an element of general transit funds but typically involves a hypothecated local funding source such as those in Table 2. A common choice is a 0.25% or 0.5% local sales tax, often covering operating and/or capital costs for a package of local transit measures. Usually these funding streams must be approved by voters in a local referendum. This is not just a formality, and transit projects can become the subject of highly political campaigns both for and against. The recent recession showed how sales tax income is susceptible to economic cycles, with agencies having to cut back plans to reflect lower-than-forecast income. The balance between local and federal funding varies depending on the programme. New Starts projects have an 80% federal maximum, but many

20

promoters aim for a lower federal share as this can score more highly in evaluation. Net operating costs are, in principle, met by the transit agency. New Starts grants include a requirement for the agency to demonstrate that it can meet those costs. In some cases, a hypothecated local tax is used. Many universities underwrite free-to-use transit passes (U-pass) for staff and students, and this may be part of the balance sheet. There are also federal funding streams for operating and re-capitalisation costs; a full discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Table 2: Examples of capital funding mechanisms

Federal

Funding mechanism Example

New Starts (Section 5309) Many schemes

State Transportation Investment Program (general transport funds)

East Bay

New Britain Hartford

Bus formula funding (Section 5307) New Britain Hartford

Bus discretionary funding (Section 5309) East Bay

Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco


Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant programme



Metro Express, Stockton

Local (municipal or state)

Funding mechanism Example

Bonds / locally-funded debt Fresno Area Express

El Paso

Bridge tolls East Bay

Sales tax East Bay


Jacksonville

Developer contributions Van Ness Avenue

Vehicle registration fees Van Ness Avenue

Local gasoline (petrol) tax Jacksonville

State lottery Eugene, Oregon (Pioneer Parkway Extension)

Local payroll tax Eugene, Oregon (Initial section)

Source: FTA (2012a). Table is not intended to be comprehensive.

8. NEW STARTS FUNDING 8.1 Overview of New Starts The most common federal funding stream for a BRT scheme is New Starts, one of several funding programmes operated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). New Starts is a competitive capital grant programme for new or extended fixed guideway transit systems. The term fixed guideway is potentially confusing: it means a system where transit has exclusive use of its

21

own right-of-way for the majority of the route length a definition which covers bus lanes even if there is no guidance (GAO 2012). The process and evaluation criteria change from time to time. Duff et al (2002) provide a full description of the New Starts process from a legal point of view. TCRP (2007) tackles it from the planning point of view, and GAO (2009) critically reviews some issues regarding the process. The remainder of this section provides an overview of the Small Starts and Very Small Starts elements of New Starts, which are most applicable to BRT. 8.2 Small Starts In 2005, legislation established a Small Starts category within the New Starts programme. This provides a simplified evaluation and project-development process for smaller schemes, defined as meeting all three of the following criteria (FTA, c.2007a):

requiring less than $75m in New Starts funding;

total capital cost less than $250 million; and

one or both of the requirements below: (a) be a fixed guideway for at least 50% of the project length in the

peak period, or (b) be a corridor-based bus project with:

substantial transit stations signal priority low-floor / level-boarding vehicles special branding maximum headways 10 mins peak, 15 mins off-peak, and service at least 14 hours per day.

BRT projects are therefore generally Small Starts. The new category of corridor-based bus projects (not previously eligible) within Small Starts opened the door to BRT-lite projects that did not have bus lanes or busway for most of their length. FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined process, known as Very Small Starts, for the smallest projects that met each of the following criteria:

the minimum elements for a corridor-based project as listed above; existing corridor ridership above 3,000 per day;

cost less than $50m total; and

cost less than $3m per mile, excluding vehicles. These criteria mean Very Small Starts can be regarded as simple, low-risk projects with characteristics that can be assumed to be inherently beneficial. The inclusion of corridor-based bus projects and the development of Small Starts and Very Small Starts explains why some relatively small and low-impact schemes appear within a funding stream that was originally the province only of much larger schemes. The Very Small Starts criteria also explain why some of the smallest projects share a distinct family resemblance for example in their peak frequency.

22

8.3 Small Starts / Very Small Starts Process

Figure 11 summarises the Small Starts / Very Small Starts process. It begins with a local planning effort, including an Alternatives Analysis, that identifies the project as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA is significant: once this is set, the federal government does not normally ask project sponsors to re-evaluate against alternative modes in order to reduce costs. With Alternatives Analysis complete, the project is assessed for the first time against the New Starts rating criteria (see below). If successful, the project is approved to enter Project Development, which involves preliminary and final engineering and the environmental assessment process (NEPA, named after the relevant legislation). The project must continue to receive acceptable ratings each year if it is to remain in the Small Starts pipeline. The budget process is separate from the rating process, so projects with acceptable ratings are not guaranteed to receive any funding. Ultimately, however, if successful a grant agreement is signed. As with much US legislation, the New Starts process has been susceptible to earmarks. These are clauses inserted by individual lawmakers into technical legislation or annual budget bills, stating that certain funding must be directed to particular projects. In the last few years, earmarks have been a subject of political opprobrium and few if any earmarks are now used in New Starts. 8.4 Small Starts / Very Small Starts Rating Criteria

Figure 12 summarises the project rating criteria currently used for Small Starts and Very Small Starts projects. In general these can be seen as a simplified version of the full New Starts criteria, which includes some such as operating efficiencies that are not applied to Small / Very Small Starts. The high-level criteria and some specific requirements are set out in federal law through primary legislation enacted by Congress. FTA implements these through secondary legislation (Code of Federal Regulations) and non-legislative policy documents. On each criterion, a project is given one of five ratings: high, medium-high, medium, medium-low or low. Some criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, are assessed quantitatively. Others, such as the three components of the Land Use criterion, are assessed qualitatively. For full details see FTA (2012b). Very Small Starts automatically receive a medium rating for Project Justification, which in practical terms means the project is justified. The cost-effectiveness criterion is not an attempt to perform a full cost-benefit analysis (NARA (2012)). It is rather an attempt to assess whether certain benefits are in scale with project costs. There are some simplifying assumptions: for example, all projects are credited with an allowance for highway time savings and other benefits (as all projects receive the same allowance, the competitive position is not affected).

23

Figure 11: Small Starts / Very Small Starts Project Development Process Source: After FTA (c.2007a)

Alternatives Analysis Identifies the project as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

This may include a major modelling exercise, or a smaller-scale analysis, as appropriate to the scheme

LPA must be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in order to progress through Small Starts

Project Development Project undergoes Preliminary Engineering and Final Design

Environmental process (NEPA) is completed

Project must continue to receive acceptable ratings

Project sponsor can include costs of this stage within project budget to be covered by Grant Agreement

Project Construction Grant Agreement Negotiated during project development

Funding is subject to funding availability

Includes various conditions and certifications required by law

FTA Approves Project to Enter into Project Development This requires:

Completed Alternatives Analysis

Adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

LPA included within MTP

Completed environmental scoping

Receive an acceptable rating from FTA

Sponsor to have an acceptable Project Management Plan, budget and schedule.

Construction

24

Figure 12: Small Starts / Very Small Starts Project Evaluation and Rating Process Source: FTA (c.2007a), FTA (c.2007b)

Overall Project Rating

Small Starts: rated based on combination of Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment

Local Financial Commitment Must demonstrate:

Funding, or a reasonable plan to secure funding, for the local share of capital costs

Incremental project operating and maintenance costs < 5% of agencys operating budget

Agency is financially sound

Project Justification Small Starts: rated based on the three contributory factors below. Very Small Starts: automatic medium rating

Cost Effectiveness

Small Starts: Incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits. Compared to baseline alternative. Opening year forecast. Very Small Starts: automatic medium rating

Land Use

Small Starts: rated based on the three contributory factors below. Very Small Starts: automatic medium rating

Other Factors Small starts: Economic Development benefits and congestion pricing will be considered. Applicants may provide info. FTA may raise rating based on these other factors. Very Small Starts: not used.

Existing land use patterns

Qualitative

assessment against detailed criteria

Transit supportive plans and policies

Qualitative

assessment against detailed criteria

Performance and impact of these

policies

Qualitative assessment against detailed criteria

25

8.5 Changes to the New Starts process The New Starts process and its evaluation criteria have evolved over time (Duff et al (2010)) and continue to do so. At the time of writing, FTAs latest proposed revisions have themselves been overtaken by new transport legislation. FTAs January 2012 proposals (NARA, 2012; FTA, 2012c) aimed to measure a wider range of the benefits that transit projects provide, and to streamline the project development process. The latter goal reflected stakeholders concerns over the cost and timescale for obtaining funds (see GAO, 2009). As an example, cost-effectiveness is currently measured as the incremental annualized capital and operating cost per hour of travel time savings across all transport users. This is proposed to change to per trip on the project, in order to simplify the modelling requirements. However, extra weight would be given to transit dependent users. FTA is also proposing to expand the role of pre-qualification approaches in which certain project or corridor characteristics automatically earn a satisfactory rating. It is planning to develop methods for estimating benefits using simple approaches, with sponsors being able to undertake more elaborate analysis if they wish. In particular, it is proposing to offer an FTA-developed national forecasting model for estimating ridership, using census data and ridership experience on existing systems. Detailed analysis of these changes is beyond the scope of this paper, but FTA has provided a thorough review of consultees views and a commentary on them (NARA 2012). The federal transport legislation MAP-21, enacted in July 2012, has made further changes to the process (FTA, 2012d), and FTA will be required to develop new policies and procedures to reflect these. 9. OUTCOMES

Early results from recent BRT schemes have been positive. The successful results in Las Vegas and Stockton have been described above. Interestingly, both systems produced not just higher ridership, but a wider clientele than hitherto and some mode shift from car travel. This is echoed in ridership and passenger satisfaction results elsewhere (GAO, 2012; Cain et al, 2009; Diaz, 2004). For example, Kansas Citys Max not to be confused with other systems of that name increased daily corridor ridership from 3,100 to around 5,000, and again with a wider clientele evident for special events in the city (Jandt, 2007). This pattern is consistent with wider evidence that packages of improvements do particularly well in attracting increased ridership (TCRP 2007a). High-end BRT seems able to replicate both the functionality and image that riders normally associate with light rail; meanwhile BRT-lite appears to give

26

particularly good results for the relatively low level of investment involved (Cain et al, 2009). There remains a debate on whether BRT can have the same transformational effect on development patterns as is claimed for light rail. Certainly some BRT corridors, such as Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio, have seen major investment and economic development. However, it is difficult to isolate the specific role of BRT from that of other factors such as local policies, land assembly and wider economic conditions (GAO, 2012; Currie, 2006; Diaz, 2004). A full discussion is outside the scope of this paper. 10. CONCLUSIONS

Current US BRT schemes represent a range of designs and physical features. BRT-lite schemes have involved relatively little physical intervention, reminiscent of a British Quality Corridor. For the larger schemes, their diversity is itself a characteristic, such as the use of bespoke shelter designs and vehicles. Throughout the spectrum, there is usually an attempt to mark out the route as something different from the rest of the transit system. Although formal before-and-after studies are limited, projects have been reported as successful, with ridership increasing and choice riders being attracted to the BRT service. It is not yet clear exactly which elements of the service are the key factors in this. It may be down to the mix of factors which one UK bus manager has likened to the ingredients in a cake and local conditions. Certainly both the functional (hard) factors and the image/branding appear to be valuable. Table 3 lists some key similarities and differences between the UK and US in terms of BRT context, planning, funding and design. Potential questions for European transport planners to consider include:

Is there a role for centre island platforms, as used in some US schemes?

Is there a role for kerb-guidance at stops, irrespective of the merits of guided busways?

Does the move towards simplification of the New Starts process offer any lessons for European practice e.g. in comparison with the UK Department for Transports major scheme assessment process?

Are the Very Small Starts criteria a useful way of streamlining small, conventional schemes? Or do they encourage a box-ticking approach that does not completely reflect local needs?

Is the Alternatives Analysis / LPA stage beneficial (in avoiding re-evaluation of different modes) or a constraint (in locking-in a solution that may no longer be best)?

Is there a role for hypothecated local funding sources, such as sales taxes? These can be a valuable ongoing funding stream, but carry political risks and are not necessarily stable in value.

27

Table 3: Comparison between BRT in the US and the UK

Planning and funding

Similarities Differences

Context of an ongoing local transport planning process

Little or no private sector involvement in operations. In particular, operations and assets are publicly accountable and usually publicly owned.

Municipally-led projects Less risk of Locally Preferred Alternative being revisited and a change of mode enforced

New Starts and DfT Major Scheme funding are both competitive grant processes, requiring project assessment against national-level criteria and including value-for-money thresholds

New Starts assessment and rating process is more formulaic, and technically simpler, than DfT Major Scheme funding process

Attention to a broadly similar range of factors (running ways, vehicles, branding etc)

Local hypothecated funding sources are very common

Physical and soft features


Some systems use guidewheels at stops No guided busways

Use of stylised / branded buses Use of bespoke BRT vehicles in some cases

Off-bus ticketing may be used Off-bus ticketing, if used, tends to apply to the whole route, not just the busway

Running ways include former railroad alignments, median strips or reconfigured streets

Use of offside doors in some locations

Use of bus lanes and busways No double-decker BRT vehicles (double-deckers are rare in the US)

Use of transit signal priority Cycles normally accommodated, either on external racks (common in the US) or internally

Attention to branding and marketing

Goals and outcomes


Increased ridership evident Development/regeneration goals are often more significant than in UK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to Geoff Green, Kenneth Lin and Helen Murphy for helpful comments during preparation of this paper, to Nathaniel Grier for helpful comments and photographs, and to Parsons Brinckerhoff for permission to present the paper. Much of the background knowledge and material for this paper was gained while working for Martin/Alexiou/Bryson in North Carolina, to whom the author is also grateful. All photographs are by the author except where credited otherwise. All views expressed are those of the author.

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Public Transportation Association (2011) 2011 Public Transportation Fact Book, 62nd Edition, American Public Transportation Association, Washington DC.

Boucheret, J.-M. (2004) Briefing: The CIVIS optically-guided urban transport system, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 157 (ME1) 13-15.

Bowen, D. J. (2009) Option or oxymoron?, Railway Age, April 2009, 46-54.

Cain, A., Flynn, J., McCourt, M., and Reyes, T. (2009) Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, Tampa, Florida.

Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Carr, J. (2009) Lyon and Liverpool: a tale of transport in two cities, New Transit, December 2009, 44-45.

Carr, J. (2010) Bus rapid transit with a truely [sic] French flavour, New Transit, March 2010, 40-41.

Chu, X (2012) An Assessment of Public Transportation Markets Using NHTS Data, National Center for Transit Research, Tampa, Florida.

Currie, G. (2006) Bus Transit Oriented Development Strengths and Challenges Relative to Rail, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (4) 1-21.

Diaz, R. B. (ed.) (2004) Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

Duff, D., Gill, E.J., and Woodman, G.K. (2010) Legal Research Digest 30: Legal Handbook for the New Starts Process, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington DC.

Falbel, S., et al (2006) Bus Rapid Transit Plans in New Yorks Capital District, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (3) 23-48.

Harnack, L. (2007) BRT: Improving the Environment, Mass Transit, July/August 2007, 8-16.

Hemmer, C. (2009) A Unique Approach to Implementing Bus Rapid Transit in a Confined Right-of-Way, PB Network, 69 (May 2009), 33-38.

Institute for Transportation Development and Policy (2012), The BRT Standard, Version 1.0, Institute for Transportation Development and Policy, New York.

29

Jandt, F. (2007) Redefining Max, Mass Transit, April 2007, 8-14.

Kantor, D., et al (2006) Issues and Technologies in Level Boarding Strategies for BRT, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (3) 89-101.

Kantor, D., Moscoe, G., and Silver, F. (2008) 2008 Bus Rapid Transit Vehicle Demand and Systems Analysis Update, CALSTART, Pasadena, California.

Kaplan, A. (2007) Eco-ficient Metro Express proving popular with riders, The Record (Stockton, California), 24 August 2007.

New Transit (2010) StreetCar brings a whole new look to Las Vegas. New Transit, March 2010, p. 50

Phillips, D. (2006) An Update on Curb Guided Bus Technology and Deployment Trends, Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (3) 163-180.

San Joaquin Regional Transit District (2007) San Joaquin RTD begins Metro Express Service (press release 21 January 2007), San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Stockton, California.

Schlosser, N. (2012) BRT Survey: Funding Levels Higher, Yet Still a Concern, Metro Magazine, April 2012, 16-20.

Schmiek. P., et al (2006) Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project 2006 Evaluation, Washington Group International and Wilbur Smith Associates for US Federal Transit Administration, Springfield, Virginia.

Special Transit Advisory Commission to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organisation (2008) Regional Transit Vision Plan: Recommendations for North Carolinas Research Triangle Region, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Starcic, J. (2007) San Joaquin RTD: Making Strides in Revitalizing Transit, Metro Magazine, May 2007, 52-56.

Swallow, D.C. (2005) MAX The New Trend in Rubber-Tire Rapid Transit, ITE Journal, 75 (2) 32-39.

Tebb, R.G.P. (1993) Possible Applications of Guided Bus technology in Britain Operational Design Implications, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Transport, 100 (Nov) 203-212.

Transit Cooperative Research Program (2007a) TCRP Report 111: Elements Needed to Create High Ridership Transit Systems, TranSystems, et al, for Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.

30

Transit Cooperative Research Program (2007b) TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioners Guide, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, et al, for Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (c.2007a) Small Starts Fact Sheet, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (c.2007b) Very Small Starts Fact Sheet, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (2008a) The Predicted and Actual Impacts of New Starts Projects - 2007, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (2012a) Annual Report on Funding Recommendations: Fiscal year 2013: Capital Investment and Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Programs, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (2012b) Capital Investment Program FY 2013 Annual Report Evaluation and Rating Process, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (2012c) Proposed New Starts / Small Starts Policy Guidance, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Federal Transit Administration (2012d) MAP-21 Fact Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants (New Starts) Section 5309, United States Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC.

United States Government Accountability Office (2009) Public Transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess Length of New Starts Process, and Options Exist to Expedite Project Development, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington DC.

United States Government Accountability Office (2012) Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington DC.

United States National Archives and Records Administration (2011) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49: Transportation, United States National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC.

United States National Archives and Records Administration (2012) Federal Register, Volume 77, No. 16, Wednesday January 25, 2012: Part II: Department of transportation: Federal Transit Administration: 49 CFR Part 611: Major Capital Investment Projects: Proposed Rule, United States National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC.

31

Weinstock, A., Hook, W., Replogle, M., and Cruz, R. (2011) Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: A Survey of Select U.S. Cities, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.

Wong, C. (2008) Transit Priority Systems, Is Your Region Ready for BRT? A Los Angeles/New York ITS Peer-to-Peer Exchange, U.S. Department of Transportation's ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Webinar 16 April 2008, available at http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/t3/s080416_brt.asp.

Wood, J. (2008) BRT: A Case of Mistaken Identity, www.planetizen.com/node/36406 (page dated 8 December 2008, accessed 23 August 2012).

Documents

BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE US: WHAT DO THEY DO? WHAT CAN WE LEARN?