8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
1/60
1Introduction
THE BRT STANDARD
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
2/60
The BRT Standard
Edition
Cover Photo: The TransMilenio system in Bogotá, Colombia
inspired a wave o BRT innovation around the world.
Cover Photo Credit: Carlos Felipe Pardo
www.itdp.org
www.gtz.de www.theicct.org
www.rockeelleroundation.org
www.climateworks.org www.unep.org
www.barroundation.org
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
3/60
INTRODUCTION
SCORING IN DETAIL
APPLICATION TORAIL CORRIDORS
BRT STANDARD SCORECARD
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
4/60
2Introduction
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
5/60
3Introduction
INTRODUCTION
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
6/60
4Introduction
Introduction
The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool or world-class bus rapid
transit (BRT) based on international best practices. It is also
the centerpiece o a global effort by leaders in bus rapid transit
design to establish a common definition o BRT and ensurethat BRT systems more uniormly deliver world-class passenger
experiences, significant economic benefits, and positive
environmental impacts.
Despite the increasing prevalence, prominence, and success o
BRT, many remain unaware o the characteristics o the best BRT
corridors and their ability to provide levels o service more typically
associated with metro and subway systems. This lack o awareness
requently results in a preerence or rail when BRT is in act a
comparable, more cost-effective, and equally elegant solution. This
alse impression stems partly rom the lack o a common definition
or BRT. Without a definition, modest improvements to standard
bus service are ofen inaccurately labeled as BRT.
The BRT Standard unctions as a means o achieving a common
definition, as a scoring system, and as a planning tool. By defining
the essential elements o BRT, it provides a ramework or systemdesigners, decision-makers, and the sustainable-transport
community to identiy and implement top-quality BRT corridors.
The BRT Standard celebrates cities that are leading the way in
BRT excellence and offers best practice-based guidance to those
planning a system.
Certiying a BRT corridor as basic BRT, bronze, silver, or gold places
it within the hierarchy o international best practice; however, allstandard levels represent excellence in BRT. Cities with certified
BRT corridors are beacons o progress that have adopted a cutting-
edge orm o mass transit, elevating urban transport to a new level
o excellence while making communities more livable, competitive,
and sustainable. From Guadalajara, Mexico, to Guangzhou, China,
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
7/60
5Introduction
cities that have built gold-standard BRT have seen significant
benefits to commuters, increased revitalization o city centers,
and better air quality.
As we continue to clariy and elevate the standards to which
all BRT systems are built, more people will experience the
convenience and comort o this cutting-edge mode o transport,
and more cities will experience the benefits o an efficient and
cost-effective mass-transit system. We hope that helping to
define and recognize good-quality BRT will bring about the
undamental change needed to shif people out o their cars
through modern and sustainable BRT. The Standard
reinorces the basic elements or bus rapid transit and makes
some improvements to the earlier versions to strengthen the
BRT brand.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
8/60
6Introduction
Why was The BRTStandard Created?
The BRT Standard was developed to create a common definition o bus rapid transit and recognize
high-quality BRT systems around the world. It also unctions as a technical tool to guide and
encourage municipalities to consider the key eatures o the best BRT systems as they move
through the design process.
Historically, there had been no common understanding o what constitutes BRT, and the lack o a
shared definition has caused conusion about the concept. The absence o an agreement among
planners and engineers meant that or every new BRT corridor that is world-class, dozens o bus
corridors opened that were incorrectly labeled BRT. The lack o any sort o quality control made it
possible or modest bus system improvements to be branded as BRT, leading to some backlash
against BRT. Modest incremental improvements, while beneficial, are ofen not the most cost-
effective solution, and they certainly do not add up to the undamental change needed to shif the
travel paradigm rom a dispersed pattern o private automobile travel to bus-based mass transit.
BRT also plays an important role in the global effort to reduce transport-sector emissions. As
emissions rom private motor vehicle use grow, shifing these trips onto public transit by improving
the quality and reach o BRT becomes critical. Establishing a quality standard or BRT ensures not
only that better projects are built but that transport sector emissions are reduced.
Certiying a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze, or basic sets an internationally recognized
standard or what BRT is and what is best practice in BRT. The elements that receive points in
The BRT Standard have been evaluated in a wide variety o contexts. When present, they result
in consistently improved system perormance and have a positive impact on ridership.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
9/60
7Introduction
What’s New in ?
The BRT Standard , Edition is the culmination o a review o The BRT Standard, Edition by
The BRT Standard Technical Committee and practitioners around the world. Revisions were made
collectively by the Technical Committee, a group comprising the world’s leading BRT engineers,
designers, and planners. Descriptions o the most significant changes ollow in the sections below.
• Corridor Definition
The definition o a BRT corridor has been reduced rom kilometers (km) (. miles) in length
to km (. miles) to allow BRT corridors in downtown areas to qualiy as BRT. These downtown
corridors can provide valuable connections to the regional transit network, even i they are
relatively short in length.
• Frequency Penalties
The most significant change or has been the removal o the peak and off-peak requency
design metrics and the addition o penalties or low peak and off-peak requencies. This was
done because the setting o route requencies was seen as more o an operational rather than
a design decision.
• Emphasis on Basics
An additional point was added to each o the BRT Basic elements, creating a greater emphasis on
the basic elements o BRT. The scoring o the Basics categories has been reconfigured alongside
the additional points.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
10/60
8Introduction
Governance
Two committees govern The BRT Standard : the Technical Committee and the Institutional
Endorsers. The Institute or Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) currently convenes
both committees.
The Technical Committee o The BRT Standard comprises globally renowned experts on BRT.
This committee serves as a consistent source o sound technical advice with respect to BRT and
is the basis or establishing the credibility o The BRT Standard . The Technical Committee certifies
corridors and recommends revisions to The BRT Standard as needed.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee members include:
Manred Breithaupt, GIZ
Wagner Colombini Martins, Logit Consultoria
Paulo Custodio, Consultant
Walter Hook, ITDP
Colleen McCaul, Consultant
Gerhard Menckhoff, World Bank (retired)* Carlos Felipe Pardo, Slow Research
Scott Rutherord, University of Washington*
Pedro Szasz, Consultant
Lloyd Wright, Asian Development Bank*
Unless indicated by an asterisk (*), each committee member also represents his or her institution.
The emissions scoring detail or buses was recommended by the International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT), an international non-profit specializing in vehicle efficiency
and uel standards.
The Institutional Endorsers are an integrated group o highly respected institutions in the fieldso city building, public transport systems, and climate change with decision-making abilities over
The BRT Standard certification process. All have a commitment to high-quality public transport
and dedication to its contribution to social and economic development.
They establish the strategic direction o The BRT Standard , ensure that BRT projects ranked by the
scoring system uphold the goals o The BRT Standard , and promote The BRT Standard as a quality
check or BRT projects globally.
The Institutional Endorsers include:
Barr Foundation
ClimateWorks Foundation
Gesellschaf ür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Institute or Transportation and Development Policy (convener)
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Rockeeller Foundation
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
11/60
9Introduction
The BRT Standard Scorecard
The BRT Standard scoring system was created as a way o protecting the BRT brand and offering
recognition to high-quality BRT systems around the world. Certiying a BRT corridor as gold, silver,
bronze, or basic sets an internationally recognized standard or the current best practice or BRT.
Awarding PointsPoints are awarded or the elements o corridor design that most significantly improveoperational perormance and quality o service. The ull point system is shown on page 12
and described in detail throughout the rest o this document. The criteria used to determine
the point system are as ollows:
• The points should act as proxies or a higher quality o customer service (speed, comort,
capacity, etc.).
• The points should be awarded based on a general consensus among BRT experts on what
constitutes best practice in system planning and design, and the relative importance o
those actors.
• The points should reward good, ofen politically challenging design decisions made by the
project team that will result in superior perormance rather than rewarding characteristicsthat may be innate to the corridor.
• The metrics and weightings should be easily and equitably applicable and scalable to a wide
range o BRT corridors in different contexts—rom lower-ridership, smaller corridors to larger,
high-volume corridors.
• The basis or the score should be reasonably transparent and independently verifiable without
recourse to inormation that cannot readily be obtained.
The maximum number o points a system can earn is 100. On the next page is an overview o the
our BRT Standard point categories. Bronze, silver, and gold rankings all relect well-designed
corridors that have achieved excellence. A ranking o Basic BRT means that the corridor meets the
minimum criteria to qualiy as BRT but has not quite reached the same level o excellence as those
that have received awards.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
12/60
10Introduction
Silver-standard BRT– points
Silver-standard BRT includes most o the elements o
international best practice and is likely to be cost-effective
on any corridor with sufficient demand to justiy BRT
investment. These systems achieve high operational
perormance and quality o service.
Bronze-standard BRT
– points
Bronze-standard BRT solidly meets the definition o BRT
and is mostly consistent with international best practice.
Bronze-standard BRT has some characteristics that elevate
it above the BRT Basics, achieving higher operational
efficiencies or quality o service than basic BRT.
Gold-standard BRT
Points or above
Gold-standard BRT is consistent in almost all respects
with international best practice. These systems achieve
the highest level o operational perormance and efficiency
while providing a high quality o service. It is achievable
on any corridor with sufficient demand to justiy BRT
investments, but may cost a little more to achieve. These
systems have the greatest ability to inspire the public,
as well as other cities.
BRT Standard Rankings
Basic BRT
Basic BRT reers to a core subset o elements that the Technical Committee has deemed
essential to the definition o BRT. This minimum qualification is a precondition to receiving
a gold, silver, or bronze ranking, yet a corridor may only qualiy as Basic BRT.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
13/60
11Introduction
Design versus Performance
The BRT Standard relies on observable design characteristics that are associated with high
perormance rather than on perormance measurements. This is currently the most reliable and
equitable mechanism or recognizing quality in different corridors. The main reasons or this
approach include:
• The ability to assess both planned and existing corridors: The BRT Standard intended to help
guide planning and design decisions prior to corridor implementation. The scoring tool is usable
both or planned and built corridors, whereas perormance standards are only applicable when
assessing existing corridors.
• Good data is rare and expensive: While the effect o the BRT corridor on a passenger’s door-
to-door travel time is the ideal perormance appraisal metric, this data is extremely difficult,
expensive, and time-consuming to collect and nearly impossible to independently corroborate.
Other Project Appraisal Tools
The BRT Standard is intended to complement cost-effectiveness measurements and system-
perormance evaluations. Using only cost-effectiveness appraisal tools without The BRT Standard
could lead to underspending on the capital investments that would actually increase operating
costs or overspending on measures that cannot really be justified under certain circumstances. For
these reasons, The BRT Standard should be used in tandem with cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit
evaluation.
Similarly, The BRT Standard may be a useul element o project appraisal as a way o testing the
credibility o claimed speed improvements or other perormance claims made as part o a more
systematic “perormance-based” appraisal, such as the U.S. Federal Transit Administration’s cost-
effectiveness analysis or the internal rate-o-return analysis required by the development banks
during project appraisal.
Process
The BRT Standard is reviewed and updated annually by the Technical Committee. Corridors will be
evaluated by individual members o the Technical Committee over the course o the year, and their
scores will be submitted to the ull committee to certiy at the end o each year. Only corridors that
have not previously been scored will be eligible or scoring; previously scored corridors, however,
may request to be rescored. In addition, the Technical Committee may request that a corridor
be rescored i it has experienced significant design changes or operational improvements or
degradation. When the new score is released, the justification or rescoring the corridor will also
be included.
Scores will be released each year and used as a means to compare and celebrate those cities that
have implemented true BRT, making the politically courageous and technically difficult decisions
necessary to get there.
The BRT Standard Technical Committee and the Institutional Endorsers look orward to making this
an even stronger tool or creating better BRT systems and encouraging better public transport that
benefits cities and citizens alike.
For any questions on the scoring process, please contact us at [email protected].
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
14/60
12Introduction
SCORING IN DETAIL
The 9 de Julio BRT, in
Buenos Aires,
Argentina, reclaimed
multiple lanes of traffic
for transit use.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
15/60
13Introduction
CATEGORY
BRT Basics (. 14 – 23)
Dedicated Right-of-Way
Busway Alignment
Off-board Fare Collection
Intersection Treatments
Platform-level Boarding
Service Planning (. 24 – 30)
Multiple Routes
Express, Limited, and Local Services
Control Center
Located in Top Ten Corridors
Demand Profile
Hours of Operations
Multi-corridor Network
Infrastructure (. 31 – 36)
Passing Lanes at Stations
Minimizing Bus Emissions
Stations Set Back from Intersections
Center Stations
Pavement Quality
Stations (. 37 – 41)
Distances Between Stations
Safe and Comfortable Stations
Number of Doors on Bus
Docking Bays and Sub-stops
Sliding Doors in BRT Stations
CATEGORY
Communications (. 42 – 43)
Branding
Passenger Information
Access and Integration (. 44 – 49)
Universal Access
Integration with Other Public Transport
Pedestrian Access
Secure Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle-sharing Integration
Point Deductions (. 50 – 54)
Commercial Speeds -
Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd)Below , -
Lack of Enforcement of Right-of-Way -
Significant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platform -
Overcrowding -
Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations,
and Technology Systems -
Low Peak Frequency -
Low Off-peak Frequency -
The BRT Standard ScorecardThis scorecard shows the criteria and point values that make upThe BRT Standard, ollowed by a detailed description o each.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
16/60
14Scoring in Detail
Minimum Requirements for aCorridor to be Considered BRT . At least km length with dedicated lanes
. Score or more points in dedicated right-of-way element
. Score or more points in busway alignment element
. Score or more points across all five BRT Basics elements
Definition of a BRT Corridor
The BRT Standard is to be applied to specific BRT corridors rather than to a BRT system as a
whole. This is because the quality o BRT in cities with multiple corridors can vary significantly.
For the purposes o The BRT Standard , a BRT corridor is defined as:
“A section o road or contiguous roads served by a bus route or multiple bus routes
with a minimum length o 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) that has dedicated bus lanes.”
The primary reason or defining the corridor in this way is that in some cities BRT is not
prioritized over automobile traffic, an essential element in rapid transit that improves both
efficiency and cost. To avoid rewarding systems that don’t make this political choice, the
corridor needs to be defined as including dedicated bus lanes.
The BRT Basics
The “BRT Basics” are a set o elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to
defining a corridor as BRT. These five elements most critically contribute to eliminating sources o
delay rom congestion, conlicts with other vehicles, and passenger boarding and alighting, thus
increasing efficiency and lowering operating cost. They are o critical importance in differentiating
BRT rom standard bus service. The five essential elements o BRT are:
Dedicated right-of-way: points*
Busway alignment: points*
Off-board fare collection: points
Intersection treatments: points
Platform-level boarding: points
*O the five essential elements, a corridor must score at least on both busway alignment and
dedicated right-o-way AND must achieve a minimum o points across all five categories to be
identified as BRT.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
17/60
15Scoring in Detail
Examples ofBRT Corridors
Note: To qualiy as BRT, a corridor must also meet the BRT Basics
( )
Example : A km Corridor
Example : NOT A Corridor
( )
Example : A km Corridor
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
18/60
16Scoring in Detail
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
19/60
17Scoring in Detail
Transoeste, in
Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil illustrates
full segregation.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
20/60
18Scoring in Detail
EXAMPLE OF A VI RTUAL BUSWAY
POINT
Virtual busways can be utilized in restricted or
narrow road widths to provide dedicated right-o-
way or BRT. A virtual busway is a single bus lane
in the middle o a roadway that is non-reversible
but is shared between the two directions o travel.
The direction o travel within the bus lane depends
on the need or queue jumping within the corridor.
At the intersections, a separate public-transport-
vehicle phase will allow the BRT vehicles to leave
the virtual lane and access the general traffic lane,
afer which it will proceed in the general traffic
lane until the virtual lane is once again dedicated
to the BRT vehicles’ direction o travel.
-
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
21/60
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
22/60
20Scoring in Detail
A kiosk sells tickets or
the proo-o-payment
system used in
Las Vegas, USA.
Turnstiles control access
into TransJakarta's
stations in Jakarta,
Indonesia.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
23/60
21Scoring in Detail
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
24/60
22Scoring in Detail
Lef turns are not allowed
at this intersection along
the BRT corridor in Las
Vegas, USA.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
25/60
23Scoring in Detail
Platorm-level boarding
speeds boarding and
alighting in Ahmedabad,
India.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
26/60
24Scoring in Detail
BRT Corridor
Service Planning
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
27/60
25Scoring in Detail
Mexico City’s Metrobús added
an additional 20,000 daily
passengers by adding a direct
route connecting Corridor I
(Insurgentes) with Corridor II
(Eje 4), eliminating the transfer
penalty between the two.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
28/60
26Scoring in Detail
Guangzhou has multiple
services that run on the
same corridor, as seen in the
passenger information sign.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
29/60
27Scoring in Detail
The control center in
Medellín, Colombia
allows the operator
to monitor BRT
service across the
system.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
30/60
28Scoring in Detail
This map showing thedemand rom road-
based transit highlights
that the first corridor o
Johannesburg’s BRT (in red)
is one o the top corridors.
The higher the demand
the wider the green and
red lines.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
31/60
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
32/60
30Scoring in Detail
This map shows allexisting and potential
BRT corridors in Jakarta,
Indonesia.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
33/60
31Scoring in Detail
Infrastructure
TransMilenio, Bogotá,
Colombia was the first to
introduce passing lanes
at stations, increasing the
system’s capacity.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
34/60
32Scoring in Detail
Rea Vaya in Johannesburg
introduced Euro IV buses
or the first time to South
Arica.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
35/60
33Scoring in Detail
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
36/60
34Scoring in Detail
Janmarg, in Ahmedabad,
India has stations that are
not immediately adjacent
to the intersection.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
37/60
35Scoring in Detail
A center platorm
station in Quito,
Ecuador allows or
convenient transers.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
38/60
36Scoring in Detail
Lima, Peru uses
reinorced concrete
over its entire busway.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
39/60
37Scoring in Detail
Stations
Guangzhou, China
has well-spacedBRT stations.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
40/60
38Scoring in Detail
Stations in the
El Mio BRT system
in Cali, Colombia
are comortable
and attractive.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
41/60
39Scoring in Detail
Articulated BRT buses in
Nantes, France have four
doors for boarding and
alighting quickly.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
42/60
40Scoring in Detail
-
Example of Sub-stops with Multiple Docking Bays
-
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
43/60
41Scoring in Detail
Lima, Peru has slidingdoors where the bus
docks at the station.
Guangzhou, China’s
BRT has sliding doors
at the gates.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
44/60
42Scoring in Detail
Communications
Las Vegas, USA has a good brand
and strong identity that appeals to
its customers—rom the stations to
the buses.
Las Vegas, USA, used old casino
signs at stations, which reinorced
the city’s identity.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
45/60
43Scoring in Detail
Guangzhou, China
has real-time passenger
information systems.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
46/60
44Scoring in Detail
Access and Integration
Eugene, USA provides
universal access for
passengers.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
47/60
45Scoring in Detail
Guangzhou, China has
physical integration, like
this tunnel connecting
the BRT to the Metro.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
48/60
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
49/60
47Scoring in Detail
Secure bike parking
is provided at a
TransMilenio terminal
in Bogotá, Colombia.
A bike locker along the
Orange Line in Los Angeles,
USA, provides secure bicycle
storage.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
50/60
48Scoring in Detail
A bikeway is located
parallel to MyCiTi,
in Cape Town,
South Arica.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
51/60
49Scoring in Detail
A bike-share station is
located along a BRT
corridor in Nantes, France.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
52/60
50Point Deductions
Point DeductionsPoint deductions are only relevant to systems already in operation. They have been introduced as a
way o mitigating the risk o recognizing a system as high quality that has made significant design
errors or has significant management and perormance weaknesses not readily observable during
the design phase. The penalties rom improperly sizing the inrastructure and operations or rom
poor system management are as ollows:
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
53/60
51Point Deductions
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
54/60
52Point Deductions
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
55/60
53Point Deductions
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
56/60
54Point Deductions
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
57/60
55Application to Rail Corridors
Application to Rail Corridors
The BRT Standard was specifically designed by BRT experts to be applied to BRT corridors.
However, almost all o the elements in The BRT Standard could easily be applied to rail transit
corridors (including streetcar, tram, light rail, and metro) with minimal modification. Using The BRT
Standard to evaluate rail transit corridors would allow users to assess the general quality o rail
transit services and compare them to other transit corridors, including BRT. It could also provide
a more standard definition o rapid transit and determine which rail transit corridors meet that
definition. The ollowing section briely describes a preliminary concept o how The BRT Standard
might be applied to rail transit corridors.
BRT BasicsThe BRT Standard defines the BRT Basics as a set o elements essential to a service’s being called
BRT. These elements all aim to minimize passenger delay, thus ensuring the “rapid” component o
a bus rapid transit system. These same criteria can be applied without modification to rail transit
corridors to assess whether they meet a more general definition o rapid transit as well.
Terminology The BRT Standard ofen reers to “busways”, “BRT”, and “buses.” When using The BRT Standard to
assess rail transit corridors, these should be substituted with “transitways”, “rapid transit”, and“transit vehicles” throughout the text. The definitions o a corridor would also need to be modified
to account or rail.
Pavement Quality The BRT Standard metric o pavement quality should be modified to evaluate rail quality. ITDP is
engaging with rail transit experts who understand how railbed and tracks are designed or more
guidance on this section. In the meantime, the evaluation o the railbed and tracks can be scored
based on whether they are designed to a 30-year lie span or not.
SignalingThe distance between rail vehicles is largely governed by the type o signal system that is used.
Better signals can allow or increased headways and improved service. Since BRT systems are not
limited by signal systems, this is not a part o The BRT Standard . Ideally, to evaluate rail transit
corridors, a separate section would be added to address signal systems. BRTs would automatically
score maximum points in this section, since buses are not constrained by signaling systems and
can operate at closer spacings than are permitted by most signal systems. ITDP is consulting rail
experts to determine how this section might be developed. Until that work is completed, signaling
considerations could simply be ignored, as the effects o low-quality signal systems are likely
captured by some o the point deductions or operations (e.g., overcrowding).
Elements Specific to BRT Some elements o The BRT Standard are more common in BRT systems. For example, very ew
metro and light-rail systems offer express, limited, and local services or multiple routes operating
on the same corridor. There are, however, prominent rail examples o both, such as the New York
City Subway or the Lyon Tramway. These elements provide a higher quality o transit service or any
mode and should be retained, even i they seldom result in points or rail systems.Grade Separated SystemsFully grade-separated electric rail transit systems, such as metro, will likely receive maximum
points in a number o categories, including Transitway Alignment, Off-Board Fare Collection,
Intersection Treatments, Minimizing Emissions, Stations Set Back rom Intersections, and Platorm-
Level Boarding. This is logical, as grade separation removes many o the sources o delay that a
transit system might encounter, making them more likely to achieve gold standard.
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
58/60
Notes
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
59/60
57Introduction
www.itdp.org
www.gtz.de www.theicct.org
www.rockeelleroundation.org
www.climateworks.org www.unep.org
www.barroundation.org
8/20/2019 BRT Standard 2014
60/60
CATEGORY
BRT Basics (. 14 – 23)
Dedicated Right-o-Way
Busway Alignment
Off-board Fare Collection
Intersection Treatments
Platorm-level Boarding
Service Planning (. 24 – 30)
Multiple Routes
Express, Limited, and Local Services
Control Center
Located in Top Ten Corridors
Demand Profile
Hours o Operations
Multi-corridor Network
Infrastructure (. 31 – 36)
Passing Lanes at Stations
Minimizing Bus Emissions
Stations Set Back rom Intersections
Center Stations
Pavement Quality
Stations (. 37 – 41)
Distances Between Stations
Sae and Comortable Stations
Number o Doors on Bus
Docking Bays and Sub-stops
Sliding Doors in BRT Stations
CATEGORY
Communications (. 42 – 43)
Branding
Passenger Inormation
Access and Integration (. 44 – 49)
Universal Access
Integration with Other Public Transport
Pedestrian Access
Secure Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle-sharing Integration
Point Deductions (. 50 – 54)
Commercial Speeds -
Minimum Peak Passengers per Hour per Direction (pphpd)
Below , -
Lack o Enorcement o Right-o-Way -
Significant Gap Between Bus Floor and Station Platorm -
Overcrowding -
Poorly Maintained Busway, Buses, Stations,
and Technology Systems -
Low Peak Frequency -
Low Off-peak Frequency -
BRT Standard Scorecard
Minimum Requirements for aCorridor to be Considered BRT . At least km length with dedicated lanes
. Score or more points in dedicated right-of-way element
. Score or more points in busway alignment element
. Score or more points across all five BRT Basics elements