Among a number of issues faced by cities and metropolises worldwide is the

increased individual usage of cars. This issue has had detrimental effects in urban areas,
such as increased traffic congestion, air pollution and negligence of mass transit. Public
transport, which ought to be the most efficient alternative to cars, is being challenged by
the increased population growth and rapid urbanization. In this context, the Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) emerges as an effective alternative which combines the service quality
of rail services with the cost savings and flexibility of bus transit.(IUrban Conference,
2014). The BRT was conceived by Jaime Lerner, a Brazilian architect and urban
planner and a consultant of the United Nations on urban issues, who aimed to promote a
sustainable mobility in Curitiba, Brazil. This essay will discuss and evaluate the
effectiveness of the BRT compared with other modes of public transport, and will also
mention some of the factors that could jeopardise its efficiency.
According to The World Bank Indicator of Traffic and Congestion (2013), the
number of cars per 1000 inhabitants in Europe was 593 in 2011. Moreover, it is
predicted that by 2030, there will be 2.08 billion vehicles on the planet, compared with
812 million in 2002; this total is 2.5 times greater than in 2002 (Dargey et al., 2007,
p.19). A survey promoted by TNS Opinion & Social (2013, p.5) has shown that people
believe that reduced costs would improve travelling within cities. More than half of
Europeans believe that better public transport and lower prices would be the best ways
to improve urban travel. On the assumption that improving public transport would
significantly enhance urban mobility, the BRT arises as a cost-effective, socially
inclusive and environmentally friendly alternative.

The BRT is a high capacity bus system, which provides a fast, reliable and
efficient service. It consists of dedicated corridors for circulation, embarking and
disembarking at the same level of the vehicle, modern vehicles with cleaner
technologies, interaction with other transport modes and information in real time,
among other qualities that will be discussed in this essay. This system has already been
successfully implemented in many continents such as Australia, South America, Europe
and North America. The BRT system is considered adequate for cities that have
restricted economic resources to implement and develop mass transit systems, despite
holding a high demand of passengers, and cities that require an integrated transport
network throughout the city.
The Metro and Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems, as well as the BRT, are
considered as high-capacity transport systems, which mean that the vehicles carry more
people at a higher speed and with more frequent and efficient services than traditional
forms of transport. According to the UITP definition (as cited in ERRAC, 2004, p.6,
p.18), the Metro is defined a tracked, electrically driven local means of transport,
which has an integral, continuous track bed of its own (large underground or elevated
sections); and the LRT is defined as a tracked, electrically driven local means of
transport, which can be developed step by step from a modern tramway to a means of
transport running in tunnels or above ground level.
Similarly to rail systems, the vehicles of the BRT system have multiple doors,
facilitating boarding and alighting. However, the cost of implementing the BRT can be
eight to nine times cheaper than the Metro and three to four times cheaper than the LRT
(Irelands NTA, 2012). Moreover, the Metro system has limited flexibility and requires
other types of public transport to feed connectivity services, as it operates in central
areas only. Furthermore, the distance between stations is usually higher in Metros and
2

LRTs, thus passengers are subjected to longer distances in order to access stations.
Another important contrast between the BRT and other rail systems is that the former
do not require massive modifications in the structure of the city. For instance, the metro
requires specific geological soil and foundations, whilst the BRT requires simpler
modifications on the road. In addition, the time spent on the construction of the
structure of rail systems, such as Metro (approximately 3 years), is considerably higher
than the BRT (approximately 18 months). (Wright, 2001)
When compared with general buses, the BRT has distinct advantages. According
to Breakthrough Technologies Institute (2007), while traditional bus service is usually
associated with negative public image, despite being flexible and inexpensive, the BRT
is an option which combines the desirable features of rail with the flexibility and cost
advantages of roadway transit. Due to intense traffic congestions, the bus has its
potential constrained, getting delayed and becoming an unreliable service. Thus, in
order to improve such a situation, the BRT offers a dedicated lane, segregated from the
other road traffic, which facilitates the flow of bus traffic. The BRT vehicles also have
greener technologies, aiming the reduction of air pollutants, and a more comfortable
structure, such as multiple doors and a longer vehicle, providing more seats for
passengers. Moreover, the platforms are projected to be entirely accessible, providing
boarding and alighting at the same level of the vehicles and sheltered stations,
sometimes provided with air conditioning and other features. Furthermore, fares are
collected in the station, before passengers enter the vehicle, in order to reduce the
alighting time.

Despite all the advantages offered by the BRT, there are some factors that could
reduce the efficiency of the system. One important factor that threatens the effectiveness
of the BRT in some cities is the association of the development of the system with
political promotion. For instance, in some cases, governments try to solve their
congestion problems and to promote themselves in an election, by implementing the
BRT; however, they do not previously research if this system will be suitable for their
cities, which might lead the BRT to become an ineffective service or even an abandoned
project. In fact, the suitability of the system is one of the most essential factors to its
success, thus research is extremely important while planning a BRT. Furthermore, the
system must be integrated with other modes of transport, providing a wide network
throughout the city and meeting the needs of the public.
In conclusion, as problems related to traffic congestion increase, the BRT
emerges as an attractive and effective alternative to the use of cars. This mass transit
system offers a reliable and efficient service, as it provides flexibility, green vehicles,
dedicated lanes, frequent services, accessible stations and an integrated network system.
The BRT proves to be a suitable choice for cities with low economic resources when
compared to other means of transport, such as LRT, Metro, and traditional bus systems,
due to its combination of flexibility, efficiency and the low cost of implementation and
management. However, to ensure its maximum efficiency, research and good
management are required, as well as integration with other public transport.

REFERENCE LIST

Breakthrough Technologies Institute (2007) Go BRT! High Quality Rapid Transit For
the
21st
Century.
[Online]
Available
from
th
http://www.gobrt.org/BTIBRTFactSheet.pdf [Acessed: 28 May 2014]

Dargay, J., et al. (2007). Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth, Worldwide 19602030, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds [Online] Available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.168.38
95 [Acessed: 29th May 2014]

ERRAC (2004). Light Rail and Metro Systems in Europe - Current market, perspectives
and research implication. Brussels. [Online] Available from - http://www.vialibreffe.com/PDF/errac%20metro%20y%20fcligero%2004.pdf [Acessed 05th June 2014]

iUrban Conference (2014) Bus Rapid Transit System Curitiba, Brazil. Managing
Urban
Mobility
[Online]
Available
from
http://www.iurbanconference2014.nl/download/21704_iurban_case_studies_curitiba.pd
f [Accessed: 28th May 2014].

National Transport Authority (2012) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Core Dublin Network.
[Online]
Available
from
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Bus-Rapid-Transit-Core-Network-report.pdf [Acessed: 29th
May 2014]

The World Bank. (2013) World Development Indicators: Traffic and congestion. 3.13.
[Online] Available from - http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.13. [Accessed: 28th May
2014].

TNS Opinion & Social (2013) Attitudes of Europeans Towards Urban Mobility.
European
Commission.
[Online]
Available
from
th
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_406_en.pdf [Accessed: 28 May
2014].

Wright, L. & Fjellstrom K. (2003) Mass Transit Options. Module 3a. [Online]
Available
from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/113/1/Mass_Rapid_Transit_guide,_GTZ_Sourcebook,_Final,
_Feb_2003,_Printable_version.pdf [Acessed: 28th May 2014]