The authors of this paper look at the concept and application of Bus Rapid Transit as a planning tool for the development of cities and why public transport plays such an essential role in planning for equity. This paper explores the impacts and success of BRT and a few challenges that it faces in its implementation.
Transportation and City Planning
The planning of cities depends on the mode of transport available, whether it has been for moving military, goods or people, the method of transit was an integral part of any city planning, from the historical Rome to the present-day metropolises. The efficient use of the transportation network defines a city and has a significant impact on its economy and quality of life. Initially, streetcars fueled growth in a city, and later the automobile age of Fordism decentralized the cities and led to suburbanization. Transportation has always been a critical component of a city’s development.
“Transportation is arguably the backbone of urban life; without it, activities in cities grind to a halt.” (Janelle et al.)
Modes of Public Transport and its importance
Post-industrial revolution, public transport has advanced from horse-driven stagecoaches to electric streetcars. The concept of moving workers from their residential locations to the industrial work areas was one of the first few requirements of public transport use. The first electric streetcars operated in Richmond, Virginia, in 1888, which later led to the subway system in America. Buses, Trams, Light Rail Transit (LRT), Monorails, Subways and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) are few options of the modern public transport system presently in use across the globe, each with its advantages and challenges. Public transportation is crucial as it provides a cheaper and sometimes the only option for many societies to access their place of work. Relevant published accounts continue to cite poorly integrated residential and employment location patterns and inadequate public transportation service as critical obstacles to improving the economic and social conditions of low-income persons. (Sanchez)
The automobile has dramatically changed society; it has altered the design of cities and changed how people go about their regular activities (Kennedy). However, private transportation is no longer sustainable due to its detrimental effects on the environment, human health and society as a whole. Cities have a limit to road capacities resulting in increased traffic congestion, stress and wasted man/work hours in transit. The efficient use of road space requires more sophisticated traffic management, which focuses on moving people instead of moving vehicles (Jarzab et al.). The alternative to private automobiles is public transportation, and it is gaining importance in moving people safely and efficiently across the cities. One of the modes of public transit is Bus Rapid Transit or BRT, and it is quite popular in many cities due to its ease of adaptability to existing infrastructure and relatively cheaper cost.
Bus Rapid Transit, what is it?
Bus rapid transit (BRT) gets its name from Light Rail Transit or Rail Rapid transit, which describes a high capacity public transport system within a city, with its right of way. Canadian Urban Transit Association defines BRT as a rubber-tired rapid transit service that combines stations, vehicles, running ways and a flexible operating plan into a high quality, customer-focused service that is fast, reliable, comfortable and cost-efficient. (Canadian Urban Transit Association)
BRT uses buses on a wide variety of rights of way, including mixed traffic, dedicated lanes on surface streets, and busways separated from traffic. Modern technology provides BRT with a smart signalling option, thereby providing faster and efficient access across the city. (Canadian Urban Transit Association)
Wikipedia mentions that BRT goes by many different names. The expression “BRT” is mainly used in the Americas and China. In India, it is called “BRTS” (BRT System); in Europe and Indonesia, it is often called a “busway”. In Australia, it is often called a “T-Way” (short for Transit Way), while in the British Isles, it may be called a “quality bus.”
Critics have charged that the term “bus rapid transit” has sometimes been misapplied to systems that lack most or all the essential features which differentiate it from regular bus services. The term “bus rapid transit creep” has been used to describe severely degraded levels of bus service, which fall far short of the BRT Standard promoted by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and other organizations. (Bus rapid transit)
History of BRT System
The concept of bus rapid transit is not new, with the BRT-type proposals prepared as early as the 1930s. BRT proposals were developed for Chicago in 1937, Washington DC in 1956-1959, St. Louis in 1959, and Milwaukee in 1971. (Moebs, “Exploring Bus Rapid Transit A
Comparison of York Region and Ottawa’s BRT Systems A Master’s Report”)
The first use of the BRT-type concept with a protected busway was the East Side Trolley Tunnel in Providence, Rhode Island, where it was converted from trolley use to bus use in 1948.
In 1973 the first BRT system was introduced belonging to the OC Transpo in Ottawa, Canada, with dedicated bus lanes through the city center having platformed stops. The first exclusive separate busways termed as ‘Transitway” occurred in 1983, and by 1996 all of the envisioned 31 km Transitway system was in operation. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”) The success of this system led to further expansions from 2009 to 2014; eventually, the downtown section being converted into Light rail transit in 2017 as the operation exceeded its designed capacity.
Ottawa’s BRT system carries more people in peak hour peak direction than most Light Rail Transit (LRT) segments in North America. (Moebs, “Exploring Bus Rapid Transit A Comparison of York Region and Ottawa’s BRT Systems A Master’s Report”) The transitway carries approximately 10,000 riders one-way with an average of 100 million trips annually, with about 400,000 trips made on any given weekday. As per Levinson (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Gast), there are 119 transit trips made per person per year, which is the highest in North America for any city of comparable size.
The system that describes the concept and operation of BRT was the second BRT system developed in Curitiba, Brazil. It was established in 1974, called the Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT, Integrated transportation network). This system had dedicated bus lanes in the center of major arterial roads, with a feeder bus network and inter-zone connection introduced later in 1980. Other characteristics of BRT, such as offboard fare collection, enclosed stations and platform-level boarding, were introduced by 1992. Further innovations such as platooning, where three buses enter and leave the bus stops, traffic signals together, passing lanes and express services were added in Porto Alegre and Sao Paulo. (Lindau et al.)
BRT began in the United States in 1977 with Pittsburgh’s South Busway, which operated on exclusive lanes for 6.9 km. Its success led to the Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway in 1983. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)Today the Pittsburgh’s Busway system is over 30 km long with dedicated busways, traffic signal preemption and peak service headway as low as two minutes.
More than 160 cities around the world have implemented 4,200 kilometres of bus rapid transit carrying nearly 30 million passengers daily. (Fig.1 below)
Sustainability, Public Transport, Smart Growth & BRT
Our modern cities are grappling with issues of decentralization, urban sprawl and car-dependent neighbourhoods and societies. These further lead to the problem of traffic congestions wasted working hours, stresses and modern-day health issues apart from contributing to global temperature increase and pollution via Green House Gas emissions. (GHG)
The need to move away from the automobile and car-dependent cities to a more environmentally and sustainable options lies in the ability to use public transport efficiently to move people for their needs. Although public transport options are in use primarily catering to the needs of inner-city dwellers and people from economically weaker sections, it has been more recently in use as an alternative and faster mode to reach the city center or to cut across the city faster.
The demand for public transport that provides sustainable development integrated with Smart Growth Policies is to reduce the number of cars on the roads and yet offer the citizens a better and more efficient option for their travel needs. With the rise in personal incomes, choice of residential and job location increases, causing a decrease in urban density and affecting the relative use of private transportation and public transit. There are policy options related to land use, pricing, and technological factors that can have a far-reaching influence on the long-term sustainability of urban transportation systems around the world. The basic implication of the analysis is that urban-transportation sustainability can be significantly enhanced if there are profound changes in urban structures. Activities that can slow or reverse the growth in the use of private automobiles can make transit and other modes attractive and viable. (Sinha)
Public transport and, in particular, BRT reduces the overall amount of vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) in a city by shifting commuters to high-capacity buses that can carry up to 160 passengers at a time. (Robin King) Fewer vehicles transporting the same number of passengers reduces traffic congestion and presents the opportunity to replace older, more polluting cars. The new research from EMBARQ, Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit Systems, examines global evidence as well as four in-depth case studies of BRT systems. They conclude that BRT improves the quality of life in cities in at least four key ways: saving travel time, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) and local air pollutant emissions, improving traffic safety, and increasing physical activity. (Carrigan et al.)
At the 2012 Rio+20 Conference, international development banks announced a “game-changer” commitment to sustainable transport, pledging substantial financial support to public transport investments over the next decade (World Resource Institute, 2012). UNHabitat’s recently released 2013 Global Report on Human Settlements concludes that public transport must become the highest priority form of motorized transportation worldwide to put cities on a sustainable pathway. Bus rapid transit (BRT) plays a crucial role in creating sustainable futures by providing a cost-effective form of public transport. (Cervero and Dai)
There are many alternatives already in use that provide sustainable urban transportation options, such as buses, light rail transit (LRT), Subway systems, Trams, monorails, and BRT. Better integration with the developments within the city and closer networking of the transport hubs will be needed to encourage people to shift from their private automobiles to using more sustainable and greener alternatives. BRT is one of the options available, that is economical, easier to implement and can be accessible to a broader and equitable user base.
BRT’s and Its Growing Popularity
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is growing quite rapidly in its popularity as a mass public transit option throughout the world. The reasons for this include its high performance, quality, ability to be built quickly, economically viable, and efficient. BRT also manages to provide sufficient transport capacity to meet the growing demands in many corridors due to its quick implementation. The development of BRT Projects in the United States is further propelled by the initiatives taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Despite its advantage for a quick solution, the introduction of BRT and investment in BRT should be the result of a planning process that addresses the needs while solving the problem with an objective examination of a full range of potential solutions. Good Planning practice means matching potential market characteristics with available rights of way. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
BRT involves an integrated system of facilities, services, amenities, operations, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements that are designed to improve performance, attractiveness to passengers, image, and identity. Because they can be steered as well as guided, BRT vehicles can operate in a wide range of environments without forcing transfers or requiring expensive running way construction over the entire range of their operation. Through this flexibility, BRT can provide one-seat, high-quality transit performance over a geographic range beyond that of dedicated guideways. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Cervero Robert explains that BRT offers the flexibility in reaching suburban & low-density markets due to their ability to double up as feeder service. High-quality bus-based systems also better serve the low-density settlement patterns of many suburban markets and small to medium-size cities due to the inherent flexibility advantages of rubber tire systems. The same vehicle that provides speedy line haul services on a dedicated bus lane or busway can morph into a feeder vehicle, collecting and distributing customers on local streets. (Cervero)
BRT and its defining features
Beyond the fact that the BRT program provides a faster, more highly reliable trip than regular bus service, there are practical operational and political reasons to emphasize BRT’s greater comfort and advanced features with the public. The difficulty encountered in conveying these service aspects reflects the minimal physical differentiation between service types when operating in mixed traffic. (Jarzab et al.)
Bus rapid transit is still at its infancy and has many interpretations of what BRT indeed implies. Examples of the implementation of BRT in various cities define it differently. From a more defined right of way with high capacity operations to a more mixed right of access for buses where BRT appears to be nothing more than fancier bus service, the definition of BRT and its characteristics are worth mentioning.
Running Ways: Exclusive running ways or right of ways for BRT Vehicles is one of the key characteristics that provide BRT with its speed, reliability, and identity. BRT vehicles can operate in any traffic environment, mixed or exclusive, and that happens to be its most significant advantage regarding flexibility. BRT running ways can be operated almost anywhere: on abandoned rail lines, within a highway median or on city streets. A few examples of BRT can be dedicated transit lanes, transit streets or malls, queue bypass lanes or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Stations: BRT stops are generally well defined and different from regular and conventional bus stops. They use unique design elements such as streamlined passenger shelter design, realtime vehicle arrival information, specific colours and paints, logos and even elevated platforms with marked door locations for easy and fast boarding. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Vehicles: BRT vehicles can have defining features that improve the comfort, speed and safety of its passengers. With wider aisles for easy movement of passengers, low floor, multiple double & wide doors for fast and convenient boarding, additional spaces for luggage or cycle racks, mobility friendly, and onboard Realtime information system. BRT Vehicles are generally larger than conventional buses and can carry a higher volume of passengers. These vehicles have distinctive colours and graphics to provide for a unique identity for the service. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Service: BRT systems provide for a fast, frequent, reliable with advanced service information and generally have stations at larger intervals than conventional bus stops. These stations could be the connecting nodes or important points on the route. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Fare Collection: BRT systems typically offer to offboard fare collection systems with ticket vending machines at the BRT stations, to speed up the boarding and increase the efficiency and convenience to passengers. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): BRT systems depend on advanced digital technologies to improve the passenger’s convenience, speed, reliability, and safety, etc. Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) and Automated Vehicle Location (AVL), traffic signal priority, passenger information, fleet management, Passenger Wi-Fi, fare collection, and closed-circuit television monitoring of operations are few of the examples of ITS being used in BRT systems. (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, and Rutherford, “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview”)
We can deduce that many of the features identified above need not be unique to BRT, however since they are not widely used or available in conventional bus services, these features uniquely identify BRT from other transit systems.
BRT and Urban Development / Transit-Oriented Development
The city of Calgary defines Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as a walkable, mixed-use form of area development typically within a 600m radius of a primary transit station – a Light Rail Transit (LRT) station or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. Higher density development is typically proposed near these transit nodes or stations to encourage ridership and convenience. TOD promotes the use of existing infrastructure that optimizes the use of the transit network and creates mobility options for the community and residents. Creating vibrant communities by mixed land use and densities with easy access to transit is considered a successful TOD.
Concentrating urban growth along high-capacity transit corridors is increasingly being recognized as a way to moderate climate change and increase the mobility of the poor. (Cervero and Dai)
Skylines of cities with world-class rail systems such as New York City, Hong Kong, etc. speaks volumes about the city-shaping influence of the rail investments. (Cervero and Dai) BRT is also one of the options that can promote TOD, a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development centred around a BRT stop. The scale of such development is highly dependent on the integration of planning principles with BRT systems.
TOD is widely viewed as an inherently efficient and sustainable urban form (Peter Calthorpe)(Curtis et al.), and BRT seems particularly suited to the low-to-moderate density, residentially oriented market niche of TOD (Dittmar et al.)
BRT, compared to the rail service, which is faster and more geographically extensive, delivers fewer regional accessibility and connectivity benefits, thereby limiting its influence on its city-shaping potential. Lack of permanent and high-profile infrastructure creates doubts in the minds of developers about the future of BRT’s operations. The user base of BRT, often the lower-income group, also appears to hinder the prospects of development. Although BRT does hold the potential to have a comparable impact on urban form, apart from offering flexibility and versatility that the rail system does not provide. Locations, where the BRT system mimics the metro rail systems regarding a fixed-guideway, high-quality service with fully grade-separated lanes and exclusive dedicated service, can positively affect the development.
There is limited evidence in proving that BRT shapes the cities, although significant development is observed around BRT stops in Pittsburgh, Ottawa, and Adelaide. It is difficult to distinguish this growth due to the absence of comparison sites and hence cannot be directly linked to the improvement in the transit services. A look at the land price capitalization as a direct benefit of BRT is seen in some cities, with Los Angeles having low impacts and only on commercial lots. In contrast, results in Bogota provides a different picture. Results suggest that for every 5 min of additional walking time to a BRT station, the rental price of a property decreases by between 6.8 and 9.3% after controlling for structural characteristics, neighbourhood attributes and proximity to the BRT corridor. (RodrÍGuez*! and Targa) Land Value and their nearness to BRT stops also appear to have some relationship, with land values being higher near the BRT stations.
There is also some evidence that creating pedestrian-friendly environments near BRT bus stops can further increase land-value benefits. (Estupiñán and Rodríguez)
Many politicians and decision/policymakers believe that transit investments can promote economic growth. Survey of mayors by the Economist Intelligence Unit found that 61 percent thought that the improvement of public transport would make their city more globally competitive than any other form of public investment. (Murray). An example of Eugene – Springfield, Oregon, shows that while the metropolitan area lost jobs between 2004 and 2010, employment grew within 0.25 miles of BRT stations. Shift share analysis finds that BRT stations are attracting jobs in several economic sectors, including management, educational services, health care, entertainment, accommodation, etc. (Nelson et al.)
Transit-oriented development attributed to BRT is best seen in Ottawa and Curitiba, both being the earliest users of this service. It is observed that both the cities channelled their growth along the well-defined liner corridors of BRT. In both these cities, BRT was not only designed as an alternative public transit but also as an opportunity to shape the urban growth in more sustainable and transit-oriented development. Local governments proactively leveraged TOD through zoning reforms, pro-development tax policies, assistance with land assemblage, and supportive infrastructure investments. (Cervero) In the case of Curitiba, the local government had mandated that the BRT corridor should site all medium and large-scale urban development.
These examples prove that BRT does appear to have the potential to shape the urban fabric and promote TOD more sustainably and flexibly, providing equitable opportunities to all sections of the society. Yet, its defining characteristics and its implementation are crucial to such developments.
Example of BRT System in Ottawa, Canada
In the Canadian Capital, Ottawa’s bus transitway or busway is a model and a success story of urban public transport in the developed world for the BRT system and is the direct inspiration for the Brisbane, Australia’s busway program.
Post-World War – II, Ottawa’s regional transport and land-use policies were very similar to the US and Australian cities. Plan for the National Capital proposed by the French architect & planner Jacques Greber focused on a transport system dependent on the automobile. Railways and tramways were proposed to be removed to improve traffic flow with expressways and parkways built instead of them to reduce traffic congestion. (AlDubikhi and Mees, “Bus Rapid Transit in Ottawa, 1978 to 2008: Assessing the Results”)
The original proposal was undermined due to a more rapid increase in population than anticipated, attributed to the ‘baby boom’ along with suggestions of a more ‘balanced’ policies that supplemented the freeway networks with rapid transit. The OttawaHull Area Transportation study in 1965 recommended a more extensive freeway network, including roads through existing neighbourhoods and a bus rapid transit system through the radial freeways.
This BRT system was intended mainly for CBD commuters and was designed as a supplement to the freeway system, not an alternative. (Al-Dubikhi and Mees, “Bus Rapid Transit in Ottawa, 1978 to 2008: Assessing the Results”)
A series of studies assessed the most suitable options and routes for the rapid transit system, following the adoption of the official plan in 1974. The outcome was a modified version of the busway network proposed in 1965 but no longer operating in the medians of the freeways. BRT would follow four major corridors converging on the CBD. The construction started in 1978 and was made operational in stages between 1983 to 1996.
The BRT system has around 31 km of bus-only transitways, which are supplemented by bus lanes on freeways and arterials, including two one-way streets in the CBD. There are options for park and ride, but the primary access to the BRT is the feeder bus service.
There are four types of services operational as shown in Figure 2. (Al-Dubikhi and Mees, “Bus Rapid Transit in Ottawa, 1978 to 2008: Assessing the Results”)
Dedicated Trunk Services – these services run along the transitway arms, similar to a rail service, where commuters are expected to transfer from local routes to transitways at interchange stations.
In Peak Hours or Periods, additional express service operates in the local area but continuing along the transitway, reducing the need for the commuters to transfer.
Local Feeder Services connect the suburban areas to the transitway interchanges. During the peak hours, some of these routes double up as express service connecting directly to the CBD using the transitway.
Base Service, which is a regular inner-city bus service, similar to other cities, also function along with the BRT and sometimes use the transitways for part of their journeys.
Figure 2 Bus service types in Ottawa
York Region BRT Example
With more people commuting from Toronto to York region due to the increase in population, a need for reliable, efficient and sustainable transportation led to the creation of York Region Transit’s VIVA, a BRT system in 2005. York Region is estimating a population growth of 1.5 million by 2031 and is a designated location under Ontario’s Place to Grow Act. VIVA now consists of 90 visibly branded buses, which operate within the existing mixed traffic. The goal of VIVA is to increase the mode share to 33% within the four designated Urban Growth Centers in York region. The investment in VIVA is a tool to further support Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and to prevent urban sprawl (Steer Davies Gleave, 2008).
BRT system in York has defined bus stops with realtime information, automated ticket machines and ticket validating mechanism before boarding. The frequency of service is three and a half minutes to ten minutes in peak hours and every fifteen minutes during non-peak periods.
Five routes with four designated corridors using queue jump lanes, traffic signal priority and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology help the BRT system to move people through the defined urban growth centers efficiently.
VIVA BRT system is a successful system with the total ridership consistently increasing from 1,054,000 passengers in 2005 to 6,807,000 passengers in 2009.
Calgary’s BRT Example
Calgary’s primary transit network consists of the most frequent, well connected and integrated transit services. With the addition of three new BRT routes in 2018 called MAX, Calgary transit now includes seven BRT routes and two LRT lines.
Some of the BRT systems operate on dedicated bus lanes, while others run in mixed traffic. Some of the BRT routes are built into the heart of under-serviced communities, while others provide a more direct connection to LRT stations and major destinations.
The four new BRT projects were first identified in the Calgary Transportation Plan and approved by the council in 2009. With the preliminary studies completed in 2010 and 2011, the projects received funding in 2015, and the service is operational from 2018. The three BRT systems operational called the MAX Purple, MAX Orange and MAX Teal connect key destinations across the city, integrates with LRT and provide more direct and faster connections. The fourth BRT system is expected to be operational in 2019.
Challenges to BRT System
The BRT system is quite impressive, but it has its own set of challenges in planning and implementation. One of the most apparent problems is in the dilution of BRT’s characteristics, allowing critics to call BRT as nothing more than a better bus service.
As Jonn Elledge mentions in his article that there is a high tendency to reduce the costs and lose sight of the goal. Questions such as do the BRT system need to be segregated along the whole route? Wouldn’t part be enough? Perhaps to save space, it can share some of its lanes with private traffic. Does it need new stations? Wouldn’t existing bus shelters do? And then, before you know it, what you’ve got is a bus, after spending quite a lot of money for no good reason. (Jonn Elledge)
This idea of gradually cutting the cost and reducing the functionality of BRT and rendering it pointless has a name, and it is called the bus rapid transit creep. It’s a very practical problem, as can be seen from the East London Transit (ELT), which was originally meant to be a fully segregated system, connecting the Barking Riverside development zone to the city. Eventually, the segregated network remains in the development zone, where the traffic is low anyway, and the ELT shares space with mixed traffic on the busy main road between Barking and Ilford. ELT also happens to have stops similar to any other bus stop, making the BRT system quite ineffective and pointless.
The flexible nature of BRT, which is one of its strengths, happens to be also its weakness. The possibility of future changes due to no fixed infrastructure does not allow healthy development, thereby reducing BRT as a secondary option to LRT. These factors, along with the primary users being from the economically weaker neighbourhoods of the city, create opposition to its implementation.
Despite BRT requiring minimal infrastructural changes and its adaptability to existing city dynamics, it does require detailed planning and alignment of planning policies and possibly integration of transportation and land-use.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system is an effective solution to integrated and smart growth planning principles. It provides a sustainable form of Urban Public transit, which is easy to integrate within the existing Urban infrastructure. BRT appears to balance the Development conflict quite effectively by being sustainable as well as equitable, providing connectivity options to all segments of the society. BRT also appears to have a positive impact on TOD, as can be seen from examples of Eugene and Bogota, but it comes with its own set of challenges.
Ottawa has shown that BRT can be quite successfully implemented, and its desired goals and objectives in Urban Planning are achievable. Dilution of the system and cost-cutting remain as one of the biggest challenges to BRT in providing for its desired goals. The integration of new technologies will make BRT systems more effective and user-friendly, but further research may be required in understanding the commuter experience and need. Will BRT as an option for public transit have an actual impact on making our cities more sustainable and livable will need to be seen.
About the Authors:
Ana Christina Barbahlo and Ravi Siddhartha have co-authored this paper as a requirement for their Post Graduation studies in Planning at the University of Calgary in the year 2018.
Al-Dubikhi, Sami, and Paul Mees. “Bus Rapid Transit in Ottawa, 1978 to 2008: Assessing the Results.” Town Planning Review, vol. 81, no. 4, 2010, pp. 407–24, doi:10.3828/tpr.2010.9.
—. “Bus Rapid Transit in Ottawa, 1978 to 2008: Assessing the Results.” Town Planning Review, 2010, doi:10.3828/tpr.2010.9.
Bus rapid transit. n.d. 25 11 2018. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit>.
Canadian Urban Transit Association. “BRT: A Canadian Perspective.” Canadian Urban Transit Association(2007): Issue 25.
Carrigan, Aileen, et al. “Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: Case Studies from Around the World.” EMBARQ, 2013, doi:10.5405/jmbe.1097.
Cervero, Robert. “The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.” Berkeley Planning Journal, 1998, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Cervero, Robert, and Danielle Dai. “BRT TOD: Leveraging Transit-Oriented Development with Bus Rapid Transit Investments.” Transport Policy, 2014, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.08.001.
Curtis, Carey, et al. “Transit-Oriented Development: Making It Happen.” Transit, 2009, doi:10.1068/a38377.
Dittmar, Hank, et al. “An Introduction to Transit-Oriented Development.” The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit-Oriented Development, 2004.
Estupiñán, Nicolás, and Daniel A. Rodríguez. “The Relationship between Urban Form and Station Boardings for Bogotá’s BRT.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.10.006.
Janelle, Donald, et al. “The Geography of Urban Transportation.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1995.
Jarzab, James, et al. “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit Projects : An Overview.” Journal of Public Transportation, 2002, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/23750901.5.2.2.
Kennedy, Christopher A. “A Comparison of the Sustainability of Public and Private Transportation Systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area.” Transportation, vol.
29, no. 4, 2002, pp. 459–93, doi:10.1023/A:1016302913909.
Levinson, Herbert, Samuel Zimmerman, Jennifer Clinger, and G. Rutherford. “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview.” Journal of Public Transportation, 2002, doi:10.5038/2375-0901.5.2.1.
—. “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview.” Journal of Public Transportation, vol. 5, no. 2, 2002, pp. 1–30, doi:10.5038/2375-0901.5.2.1.
Levinson, Herbert, Samuel Zimmerman, Jennifer Clinger, and James Gast. “Bus Rapid Transit: Synthesis of Case Studies.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2003, doi:10.3141/1841-01.
Lindau, Luis Antonio, et al. “Curitiba, the Cradle of Bus Rapid Transit.” Built Environment, 2010, doi:10.2148/benv.36.3.274.
Moebs, Laura. “Exploring Bus Rapid Transit A Comparison of York Region and Ottawa’s BRT Systems A Master’s Report.” THESIS, 2011.
—. “Exploring Bus Rapid Transit A Comparison of York Region and Ottawa’s BRT Systems A Master’s Report.” Thesis, no. April 2011.
Murray, Sarah. “Liveanomics: Urban Liveability and Economic Growth.” The Economist, 2011.
Nelson, Arthur, et al. “Bus Rapid Transit and Economic Development: Case Study of the Eugene-Springfield BRT System.” Journal of Public Transportation, 2013, doi:10.5038/2375-0901.16.3.3.
Peter Calthorpe. “The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream.” Princeton Architectural Press, 1993, doi:loc? not in merlin.
RodrÍGuez*!, Daniel A., and Felipe Targa. “Value of Accessibility to Bogotá’s Bus Rapid Transit System.” Transport Reviews, 2004, doi:10.1080/0144164042000195081.
Sanchez, Thomas W. “Poverty, Policy, and Public Transportation.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2008, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.011.
Sinha, Kumares C. “Sustainability and Urban Public Transportation.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2003, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733947X(2003)129:4(331).
Steer Davies Gleave (2008). VIVANext Benefits Case. Prepared for Metrolinx. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/general/Benefits_Case_VIVA_final.pdf
Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit