Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has always been a somewhat ambiguous term, applied to everything from grade separated busways, to dedicated bus lanes, to limited stop buses with signal priority. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) is trying to help create standard classifications of BRT systems through the recent release of The BRT Standard. The BRT Standard assigns points to various BRT characteristics (e.g., service, running way, stations, accessibility), and ultimately rates a service as one of four levels using a scorecard:
- Gold =85 points or above
- Silver = 70 to 84 points
- Bronze =50 to 69 points
- Other = Less than 50 points
To be rated Gold, Silver, or Bronze, the system also has to score at least 20 points out of 42 maximum in eight categories that comprise the “BRT Basics.” The table below shows how I have rated COTA’s proposed Cleveland Avenue BRT project based on the public information available and the BRT Standard scorecard. If my assumptions about anything are known to be wrong, please let me know and I’ll update.
Category | Max Score | Score | Notes |
Service Planning | |||
*Off-board fare collection | 7 | 0 | Not included in project |
Multiple routes | 4 | 4 | There will be three local routes (#1, #8, #9), five express routes (#27, #29, #35, #37, #40), one LINK route (#74), and the limited stop BRT route using the line. |
Peak frequency | 4 | 0 | 10 minute peak frequency for BRT route. Must be 7 minutes or better to score points. |
Off-peak frequency | 3 | 1 | 12 minute off-peak frequency for BRT route. |
Express, limited, and local services | 3 | 3 | All three types of services |
Control center | 3 | 3 | I believe COTA has a full-service control center, but do not know for sure. |
Located in top ten corridors | 2 | 2 | Yes, I believe Cleveland Avenue is the second busiest corridor (after N. High Street) |
Hours of operations | 2 | 2 | Yes, operates until midnight and operates on weekends. |
Multi-corridor network | 2 | 0 | No BRT network planned at this time. |
Infrastructure | |||
*Busway alignment | 7 | 0 | Bus will operate in mixed traffic lanes |
*Segregated right-of-way | 7 | 0 | No colorization, no delineators |
*Intersection treatments | 6 | 2 | Assumed signal priority at most intersections and no turn prohibitions |
Passing lanes at stations | 4 | 4 | Cleveland Ave is four or more lanes, so passing should not be a problem. |
Minimizing bus emissions | 4 | 4 | Assumed US 2010 standards will be met by new vehicles |
Stations set back from intersections | 3 | 0 | Seems unlikely that stations will be set back 120 feet from intersections. |
Center stations | 3 | 0 | No center stations |
Pavement quality | 2 | 0 | Not likely to reconstruct roadway with continually reinforced concrete. |
Station Design and Station-bus Interface | |||
*Platform-level boarding | 6 | 4 | Assumed 100% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place |
*Safe and comfortable stations | 3 | 0 | Not likely to have 10.5-foot wide stations as required by category. |
*Number of doors on bus | 3 | 2 | Assumed new buses for BRT line will have two wide doors, but others services will use existing rolling stock. |
Docking bays and sub-stops | 2 | 0 | Not likely to have multiple sub-stops or docking bays per station |
Sliding doors in BRT stations | 1 | 0 | Not likely to be fully enclosed stations |
Quality of Service and Passenger Information Systems | |||
*Branding | 3 | 1 | Some buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand. |
Passenger information | 2 | 2 | Assume both real-time information and static schedules available at stations and on vehicles. |
Integration and Access | |||
Universal Access | 3 | 3 | Yes, required by ADA |
Integration with other public transport | 3 | 3 | Assume full integration with rest of COTA system. |
Pedestrian access | 3 | 2 | Signals are considered good pedestrian access if crossing more than two lanes at once. Assumed that signals are existing or would be provided at all stations, with modest changes throughout remainder of corridor. |
Secure bicycle parking | 2 | 1 | Assumed standard bike racks |
Bicycle lanes | 2 | 0 | No bike lanes on or parallel to corridor |
Bicycle sharing integration | 1 | 0 | None |
Total Points | 100 | 43 | Does not meet minimum requirements for Bronze |
*BRT Basics (Minimum needed 20) | 42 | 9 | Does not meet minimum requirements for Bronze |
There are also some deductions built into the system:
Deductions | |||
Low commercial speeds (minimum avg. commercial speed below 8 mph) | -10 | 0 | Assumed average speed will be above 8 mph. |
Peak passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) < 1,000 | -5 | 0 | Probably close on this one. Assumed it is. |
Lack of enforcement of right-of-way | -5 | 0 | There is no BRT right-of-way. |
Significant gap between bus floor and station platform | -5 | -3 | Assuming slight gap at most stations, but no large gaps. |
Station encroaches on sidewalk or busway | -3 | -2 | Assuming bus lanes will be less than 12 feet in many places due to narrow width of roadway |
Overcrowding | -3 | 0 | Assume it will not be overcrowded |
Poorly-maintained buses and stations | -3 | 0 | Assume good state of repair is maintained |
Distances between stations too long or too short | -2 | 0 | Station spacing falls between recommended 0.5 mile and 0.2 mile range. |
Total Score (after deductions) | 38 | Does not meet minimum requirements for Bronze |
So the Cleveland Avenue BRT Line isn’t up to the Bronze standard. It’s basically an arterial “BRT-lite” kind of system, and it’s really hard for buses in mixed traffic to score the 20 points needed for “BRT Basics.” I don’t think that’s a problem though. As I wrote above, the BRT Standard is meant to categorize BRT systems, not define a minimum level of service for any particular corridor in any given city. The level of investment should obviously vary depending on ridership and needs. In this case, I think a BRT-lite system in mixed traffic will serve Cleveland Avenue well. A higher level system would cost more, possibly reducing the FTA cost effectiveness rating, and in turn reducing the chances of implementing anything at all.
That said, I think if COTA could improve one thing about the proposed line it would be to implement a proof-of-payment fare system. Not having to wait for people to put money in at a farebox really does cut down on dwell times at stops. It also would allow COTA to buy vehicles with at least two large doors so customers can board at two doors at a time. Speeding up service and increasing ridership should be the goals. After all, the ‘R’ in BRT stands for rapid.
Thanks for sharing this! These were my thoughts exactly! Its good to see that there is an actual ranking system.
You should consider writing a letter to the editor of the Dispatch regarding these findings. You might also provide this info as a tip to their news team. Asking someone at the ITDP to do this very same ranking analysis and share it with local leaders might lend credibility to your findings.
[…] to replace their aging fareboxes. One of the larger criticisms this blog has the new proposed Cleveland Avenue BRT project is the lack of a pre-payments which would get people onto the bus […]
I fully agree with setting up pre-pay for this line, as well as perhaps another element or two that would enhance the proposed BRT service. I think COTA should also consider articulated vehicles with more capacity. We don’t have rail, so let’s make this as rapid as feasible.