Annex 5 Case Studies and Lessons

The following sheets provide case studies of HCRT schemes that have been implemented internationally around the world.

These case studies provide models on which to prepare similar designs and provide lessons on factors causing success or failure. A summary of lessons from such case studies is provided below.

City Country System Name Comment
Curitiba Brazil BRT The first BRT system in the world and still one of the world’s best-regulated bus systems
Bogota Colombia TransMilenio Bus system similar to that of Curitiba with a few improvements, emerging over a period of three years
Quito Ecuador MetroBusQ One of the first successful modern bus system projects in Latin America
Kunming China BRT The first BRT system in the People’S Republic of China
Jakarta Indonesia Transjakarta The first BRT system in south Asia (opened in 2004)
Nagoya Japan BRT The first and most well-known BRT system in japan

Lessons to be learned from International BRT Experience

  • Mass transit system with a high frequency service can capture ‘repressed demand.’
  • Trunk and feeder systems with terminals are essential elements of a high capacity BRT system.
  • Coordination of BRT development with land use planning enables commercial development along the busways. As a result, the system becomes convenient for commuters and economically viable.
  • The establishment of a company for planning and administration largely owned by the municipality can significantly contribute to a successful implementation of BRT system, as exemplified by Curitiba.
  • The establishment of a single authority in transport planning and management is critical to building a successful integrated system. For example, a Transport Planning and Management Unit was set up in Quito and staffed by young professionals with assistance from international experts. This unit successfully guided the introduction of the BRT scheme.
  • Segregated bus lanes can actually improve the flow of traffic in the remaining carriageway. In the Quito BRT scheme, despite the loss of the carriageway for general traffic due to bus lanes, traffic flow was observed to improve in the remaining carriageway due to the removal of stopping buses from the general flow. This also contributed to public acceptance of the scheme.
  • BRT can be built in a relatively short time. A typical time frame for the design, building and operation of a BRT Route is around one to two years, while metro tends to take around 10 years to design, build and put into service. This reduces the risk of work stopping when the city administration changes hands.
  • In terms of capital cost, BRT presents a very strong advantage over other modes. Also, given the right incentives and organization, private bus companies can finance the bus fleets and cover operating costs through adequate fare collection. The table below shows the cost per kilometer of several transit systems often quoted in BRT studies.

Table 1 Unit Capital Cost for Constructing of MRTs

Type of system Average Cost per km (US$ million/km)
BRT 2.1
LRV 23.8
Elevated Rail 65.6
Metro 94.4

Source: BRT Planning Guide, Institute for Transport Development and Policy, September 2007.

Next page Page top