Policy Significance Statement

Bus Rapid Transit is one component of the mass transit development toolbox. The number of cities adopting BRT grew fast in the first 15 years of the twenty-first century but then stagnated, following a similar deployment pattern as tramways at the beginning of the twentieth century. This paper explores issues faced by BRT systems, particularly in Latin America. Several problems with BRT are common across several applications, and most of them seem to be the result of financial and institutional limitations and political debates that hindered progress, rather than the mode itself. The paper provides recommendations to improve service quality and increase public acceptance of this component of multimodal transit networks, facing broader issues of transit decline, particularly after the pandemic.

2. Methodology

This study reviews key characteristics of BRT across different geographies from a complete database on these systems (Global BRT Database, 2023). The data is used to review progress over time and establishing trends. Progress is then compared to the expansion and further decline of tramways in first half of the twentieth century. While the conditions for expansion of these two types of transit systems are quite different, tramways had a renaissance by the end of the last century, which may provide some lessons for the improvement of BRT.

The study then reviews global evaluations of BRT to identify contributions to sustainable mobility and common issues. Data of BRT across Latin America and five short case studies, conducted across Curitiba, Quito, Bogotá, Mexico City and Santiago, are then used to find elements that created problems in expanding and maintaining systems in these cities. The selected cities have been recognized as very relevant in the development of BRT (Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, Smith, Cracknell and Soberman2003; Munoz and Paget-Seekins, Reference Munoz and Paget-Seekins2016): Curitiba has been regarded as the first to implement large-scale bus corridors; Quito was the first city outside Brazil that replicated the BRT; Bogotá was the first very high-capacity BRT; Mexico City has shown continued expansion over two decades; and Santiago is a relevant case study on large-scale transit transformation, including bus corridors. The information from global studies and the selected case studies is then used to discuss the technical, financial, institutional, and political elements that may be preventing the evolution of BRT. The discussion is then used to provide recommendations on the way forward for BRT as part of integrated transit systems.

3. The BRT Global Database

This public database is a very complete repository of information, maps, images, and videos about bus corridors around the world. It is maintained since 2012 by several organizations working in sustainable mobility and public transport. It keeps up-to-date data on BRT implementation and system characteristics at a system and corridor level around the world. The database records 73 indicators, including socioeconomic data (GDP, population), design characteristics (length, stations, type of preferential treatments), vehicle fleet (type of buses and their characteristics), and performance (passenger demand, maximum loads). Each data point has links to original sources, making it an adequate resource for this analysis.

4. BRT Status and Progress

As of August 2023, the BRT Global Database reported 469 bus corridors in 187 cities along 5,618 km, serving more than 34.9 million passengers every day (Global BRT Database, 2023). The largest number of cities, kilometers, and passengers is found in Latin America, with one third of the cities and corridor length, and 60% of the passengers, followed by Asia (Table 1).

Table 1. Bus Rapid Transit corridors by region

Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023)

This high concentration in Latin America is expected since the BRT concept was first introduced in Curitiba (Lindau et al., Reference Lindau, Hidalgo and Facchini2010) and adopted as a relatively low-cost and rapid implementation solution for medium- to high-capacity transport corridors in multiple cities. There are notable applications of Quito (1995), Bogotá (2000), and Mexico City (2005). Cities in Brazil replaced basic bus priority corridors with BRT and introduced new corridors in preparation of the FIFA World Cup 2014 and the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of interest are the new corridors in Belo Horizonte (2014) and Rio de Janeiro (2014–2016).

The idea was adopted in multiple geographies and with different scopes: low- to medium-demand corridors in Northern America, Europe, and Oceania, bus priority and some advanced applications in India and China and other countries in Asia, and some applications in Africa (Wright and Hook, Reference Wright and Hook2007; Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, Reference Hidalgo and Gutiérrez2013).

Global growth of BRT seemed to reach a tipping point in the year 2000 with the implementation of the TransMilenio system in Bogotá, but the number of cities added in the last 5 years presents a strong declining trend (Figure 1), as well as the number of kilometers added (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Evolution of the number of cities with BRT corridors per year. Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Figure 2. Evolution of the kilometers of BRT per year. Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023).

These curves follow the most common pattern of innovation adoption (Briscoe et al., Reference Briscoe, Trewhitt and Hutto2011), and somehow resemble the rapid growth of tramways during the first half of the twentieth century as indicated in Figure 3 (Martínez, Reference Martínez2012; Schmucki, Reference Schmucki2012; Guarnieri, Reference Guarnieri2020). Tramways had a decline after World War II (Doménech-Carbó, Reference Doménech-Carbó2019), but faced a renaissance in the form of light rail transit by the end of the century, especially in Europe, Australia, and Northern America. A focus on service quality, well-designed vehicles and stations, and integration with the urban fabric (Topp, Reference Topp1999) helped a new wave of light rail transit implementations. More recently, light rail resurgence has been associated with environmental benefits, as well as improvements in effectiveness, efficiency, economy, and equity (Van Der Bijl et al., Reference Van Der Bijl, Van Oort and Bukman2018). While the conditions in which tramways were initially adopted are quite different to the conditions in which BRT has been implemented, the decline of tramways and the recent experience with LRT growth may help in identifying ways to help BRT progress as part of multimodal transit networks.

Figure 3. Evolution of electric tramways in the UK, Germany, and Spain 1881–1925. Source: authors based on data by Schmucki (Reference Schmucki2012), Martínez (Reference Martínez2012), and Guarnieri (Reference Guarnieri2020).

5. Common Issues with BRT

Multiple reviews regard BRT and its European counterpart, Buses of High Level of Service (BHLS), as innovative concepts to complement rail systems in large cities or provide the backbone of public transport in medium-sized and small cities (Levinson et al., Reference Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger, Rutherford, Smith, Cracknell and Soberman2003; Wright and Hook, Reference Wright and Hook2007; Diaz and Hinnebaug, Reference Diaz and Hinnebaug2009; Finn et al., Reference Finn, Heddebaut, Kerkhof, Rambaud, Sbert Lozano and Soulas2011; Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, Reference Hidalgo and Gutiérrez2013; Munoz and Paget-Seekins, Reference Munoz and Paget-Seekins2016). BRT has been showcased as an alternative to improve mobility, reduce harmful emissions, and improve access to low-income areas (Carrigan et al., Reference Carrigan, King, Velasquez, Raifman and Duduta2014; Venter et al., Reference Venter, Jennings, Hidalgo and Valderrama Pineda2018). Some studies indicate that BRT deployment is associated with positive effects on land values and development patterns (Cervero and Kang, Reference Cervero and Kang2011; Rodriguez and Vergel-Tovar, Reference Rodriguez and Vergel-Tovar2018), while others highlight positive impacts on road safety (Duduta et al., Reference Duduta, Adriazola, Hidalgo, Lindau and Jaffe2012).

BRT is not always understood in the same way by practitioners and decision makers, and faces three especially contentious issues: (a) institutional arrangements requiring the coordination of multiple agencies and, in many countries, reorganization of private transit service operators (i.e., not an issue concerning just BRT, but transit systems at large); (b) competition for road space traditionally assigned to general traffic; and (c) the misperception of buses as a low-quality mode (Hensher, Reference Hensher2007).

As a result, several bus systems confront challenges in planning, implementation, and operation. A review of 13 bus systems in Latin America and Asia (Hidalgo and Carrigan, Reference Hidalgo and Carrigan2011) indicated that projects brought social, economic, and environmental improvements, but

• • “No project was perfectly executed, due to a combination of institutional, technical, financial and/or politically induced time constraints.

• • Initial implementation was generally rushed, causing operational and user problems.

• • Financial and institutional sustainability was not necessarily assured.

• • Bus Rapid Transit routes were often not fully integrated into the rest of the cities’ public transport system.

• • Many projects faced extensive challenges in accommodating regular city traffic.

• • In cities where BRT services were new, or expanded quickly, public information and user education was poor.”

Given the growing interest in BRT, successive Thredbo Conference Series hosted Workshops on Bus Rapid Transit (Muñoz and Hidalgo, Reference Muñoz and Hidalgo2013; Finn and Muñoz, Reference Finn and Muñoz2014; Currie and Hidalgo, Reference Currie and Hidalgo2018). The workshops revised several case studies, mechanisms to improve performance and operations, contracts, and integration with other modes and with the urban structure. While BRT was recognized as a transit option with great attractiveness, it was acknowledged that it also has limitations. Transition to BRT, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, was difficult due to institutional and financial barriers. In these contexts, new bus systems are often asked to solve problems beyond the technical dimension, like the formalization of para-transit services, expansion of the capacity for general traffic, or the reconstruction of utility networks. These issues generate cost escalation, delays, and frustration.

Also, a review on barriers to planning and implementing Bus Rapid Transit systems (Lindau et al., Reference Lindau, Hidalgo and de Almeida2014) concluded that “implementing a successful BRT has never been -and will probably never be- an easy task!”, identifying several barriers:

• • “Local institutions are geared to road construction, not to transit operations. There is not enough capacity in local government and in local consultancies to face the complexity of high-performance transit projects operating on the surface.

• • There is also lack of alignment among stakeholders, which include potential users, businesses, landowners, administrators, politicians, existing bus operators and affected non-users. This lack of alignment causes protracted planning processes, where most of the time and energy is spend in negotiations rather than in conceiving and designing projects.

• • Even when presenting equivalent performance, BRT is still perceived as a lower quality mode than rail systems, as commonly presented in textbooks and industry guidelines. (…)

• • The fact that BRT may reduce road space for cars to travel and park is often used by media, political adversaries, business, and landowners as an argument against its implementation. (…)

• • Advocates for nonmotorized transport, may oppose BRT when planning fails to incorporate improved safety standards.”

Several of these issues are not exclusive to BRT, but of planning and implementation of mobility improvements at large, particularly in developing countries. Problems particular to BRT refer to reallocation of space traditionally assigned to general traffic, lack of guidelines for design and operations, and misperception of buses as a low-quality and cheap mode. Many BRT implementations were also part of transformations on the way buses were regulated, from semiformal to formal arrangements. This institutional change resulted in additional difficulties for system implementation, operations, and funding.

These general observations placed a burden on the expansion of BRT. The concept was well received in several cities that reported initial successes, but have aged unfavorably, as indicated in the following sections.

6. BRT in Latin America and the Caribbean

The region leads BRT implementation in the number of systems, kilometers, and passengers (Figure 4, Table 1). Brazil leads the region with 26 systems (41%), 883 km (44%), carrying 10.7 million passengers per day (Table 2). It is followed by Mexico (12 systems, 416 km, 2.7 million passengers per day), Colombia (7 systems, 225 km, 3.1 million passengers per day), and Argentina (5 systems, 122 km, 1.6 million passengers per day).

Figure 4. BRT by number of cities and length (2023). Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Table 2. BRT systems in Latin America and the Caribbean by County (2023)

Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Abbreviation: n.a., not available.

The top 14 systems in the region have more than 300,000 passengers per day (Table 3). The largest system is in Rio de Janeiro, with 17 corridors combining bus priority and full BRT corridors with a total length of 168 km carrying 3.5 million passengers per day. Its Bus Rapid System BRS corridor in Avenida Brazil has 65,400 passengers per hour per direction (four bus lanes and long bus stops). São Paulo bus priority corridors carry 3.3 million passengers per day, in 129 km (12 corridors).

Table 3. Top BRT systems in Latin America – Key statistics (2023)

Source: (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Abbreviation: M.A., metropolitan area; n.a., not available.

For these 14 BRT systems, there is a strong correlation between system length and passenger demand, controlled by population (Figure 5). On average each kilometer of BRT per million population carries 0.011 passengers per day per capita (R2: 0.8746). Cities in the region tend to have high public transport share and density. Most of these systems are in cities that also have metro and regional rail (Bogotá has a metro line under construction; Cali is planning a regional rail network).

Figure 5. Top BRT systems in Latin America – relationship between system length and daily passenger demand (2023). Source: elaborated by the authors, data from Global BRT Database (2023).

7. Iconic BRT Examples and Problems in Latin America

Short case studies are included to indicate the progress or lack thereof in selected cities. The cases include a brief description of each BRT, issues with service quality over time, and policy changes that had hindered timely maintenance and expansion.

Curitiba – from fast expansion to stagnation.

Recognized as the cradle of BRT (Lindau et al., Reference Lindau, Hidalgo and Facchini2010), the system in Curitiba became a reference to most applications around the world. The connection to land use planning has been highlighted as its main feature, making it also a reference for transit-oriented development (Dunphy et al., Reference Dunphy, Cervero, Dock, McAvery, Porter and Swenson2004). Between 1974 and 2009, Curitiba developed an extensive BRT system, with seven corridors and 74 km, carrying 721,500 passengers per day in 2019 (Global BRT Database, 2023) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Red Integrada de Transporte – Curitiba. Source: EMBARQ Brasil Mariana Gil (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Despite its international recognition and influence, there are multiple challenges with its operation; see, for example (Secco, Reference Secco2017), (Lissardy, Reference Lissardy2012). The capacity of the main corridors was reached long ago. Buses, stations, and terminals feature high occupancy levels. In 2018 the public transportation user satisfaction was 50% for captive users (without car) and 48% for choice riders (Caracas et al., Reference Caracas, Bernardinis and Bastos2018). Real estate around the corridor was highly valued, but most residents are not necessarily transit users. While the city was very progressive in advancing sustainable mobility options (pedestrianization, bike lanes, the BRT and transit-oriented development), it did not implement demand management policies to reduce car travel. Thus, its main automobile corridors face significant congestion and there are issues with parking.

The idea of replacing BRT corridors with light rail transit was proposed in 1990 and took force in the beginning of the 2000s among politicians, academics, and the public. The Metrô de Curitiba project advanced through planning stages and even a tender process for its construction took place in 2007. The project stalled in 2008 after a judicial decision. It evolved with technical studies on a definitive alignment and a window of opportunity opened in 2014, but the project was again stalled due to financial constraints. Currently there are options for advanced BRT (using hybrid electric buses), Light Rail (Vehiculo Leve sobre Trillios, VLT), and monorail (Piva, Reference Piva2017; Curitiba, Reference Curitiba2021).

While the proposed rail technologies may bring positive impacts to the city, the discussion delayed necessary improvements on the existing system, The last expansion was Linha Verde (Green Line) in 2009, which adopted some of the innovations from other cities, particularly passing lanes at stations to increase capacity (Global BRT Database, 2023). It also adopted biofuels to present itself as environmentally friendly. After 16 years, the Linha Verde corridor is still incomplete, due to financial difficulties and contractual issues; it is expected to be completed in 2024 (Silva, Reference Silva2020; g1 RPC e PR, 2022). One of the corridors (Boqueirao) was also overhauled with passing lanes at stations, increasing the throughput from 13,000 passengers per hour per direction to 21,000. But overall improvements of the BRT are still needed.

Quito – success with trolleybuses followed by a decline in service quality.

Quito was the first application of BRT outside Brazil, closely following the example of Curitiba. Implemented in 1995, it innovated with the use of trolleybuses, crisscrossing the historic downtown. It was later expanded to two additional corridors (Ecovía and Central Norte), using conventional buses (Hidalgo and Carrigan, Reference Hidalgo and Carrigan2011; Arias, Reference Arias2021). Currently, Quito has three corridors, with a total length of 71.4 km and moving 745,000 passengers per day (Global BRT Database, 2023) (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Metrobus-Q – Quito. Source: EPMTPQ - SIBRT (Global BRT Database, 2023).

For some time, the trolleybus was regarded a successful project (Ayala and Ibarra, Reference Ayala and Ibarra2019). Nevertheless, its capacity was reached only a few years after initial implementation. The original design included the possibility of expanding the stations, but this expansion was not considered for many years. Only in 2016, with the occasion of the Habitat III Conference, did the city expand the stations and introduce bi-articulated diesel buses. A user survey performed in 2022 indicated a satisfaction level of 50.6% (Oña-Caizaluisa, Reference Oña-Caizaluisa2022).

The preparation and construction of a metro project affected the investment and maintenance of the existing corridors. Quito advanced a metro project, which will greatly improve mobility in the city. It started operations in December 2023 (Arias, Reference Arias2021; Quito, Reference Quito2022). The metro will be integrated with the existing bus corridors.

Part of the justification of the metro project was based on the difficulties with the surface BRT system (Salar-Khan, Reference Salar-Khan2016). During the planning and implementation stages of the metro project, the BRT maintenance and expansion was neglected. Service quality for the BRT corridors, particularly the Central North corridor, is low. Infrastructure requires an overhaul, particularly road surface and stations. A projected BRT line in the north (Trole Norte) was indefinitely postponed (Arias, Reference Arias2021).

Bogotá – high positive impacts followed by service deterioration.

In 2000, Bogotá introduced the first very high-capacity BRT, using large stations with multiple platforms, overtaking lanes and large buses with multiple doors. The system has 11 corridors, is 113 km long, and moves more than 2.2 million passengers per day (Global BRT Database, 2023). Throughput in the main corridor (Avenida Caracas) is above 49,000 passengers per hour per direction, with 7 standing passengers per square meter (Figure 8).

Figure 8. TransMilenio BRT – Bogotá. Source: EMBARQ (Global BRT Database, 2023).

The system received very high user ratings in the first years of operation (satisfaction 96% in 2001 and 82% in 2002 and 2003), but user perception declined (49% in 2008; 28% in 2012; 18% in 2016; 23% in 2019) (Bogota Como Vamos, 2020). The main user complaints involve high occupancy of buses and stations, lack of reliability, and pickpocketing. The BRT system has experienced user protests, blocking operations, and, on occasions, vandalism, damaging buses and stations. Early deterioration of infrastructure due to problems with the design and construction of the initial busways also impacted system performance and user perception (Gómez-Rodríguez et al., Reference Gómez-Rodríguez, Herreera-Puyana and García-Fonseca2017). Over time, fare evasion has also increased, which seems to be a response to bad quality service and relative high fares (Guzman et al., Reference Guzman, Arellana and Camargo2021). Negative statements toward the BRT amid the political debate since 2004, particularly on its private operations model, and the lack of timely replacement of the bus fleet also exacerbated negative public perception and fare evasion (Alberti and Pereyra, Reference Alberti and Pereyra2020).

The TransMilenio system grew quickly in its first years, but the plan devised in 2000 for 388 BRT is still far from being complete (Alberti and Pereyra, Reference Alberti and Pereyra2020). Delays are partially the result of difficulties in funding and political debates around the reallocation of general traffic lanes for bus lanes. There have been seven attempts to build transit improvements in Carrera Séptima, a key corridor. The projects have not been implemented due to neighbors and political opposition, which includes lawsuits against its construction (Mojica and Gómez-Ibáñez, Reference Mojica and Gómez-Ibáñez2011; Hidalgo, Reference Hidalgo2020).

Discussion about the first metro line has also impacted BRT expansion. Bogotá’s metro is a long-awaited and necessary project, with initial proposals in the 1940s and several cycles of studies and evaluations. The first metro line was contracted in 2019, and it is expected to be in operation in 2028 (Empresa Metro de Bogotá, 2021). The protracted debate for a metro in Bogotá absorbed local institutional capacity, delayed plans for BRT expansion, and even resulted in a lack of maintenance of infrastructure and operations of the bus system. The situation is now being reversed as new corridors are under construction or being contracted, as it is the case with Carrera Séptima green corridor, along a second metro line.

Mexico City – continued expansion to complement an extensive metro network.

BRT was first introduced in 2005 along Avenida Insurgentes, with the first 16 km. Expansion of the Metrobus BRT system has been steady since then; there are now seven lines in operation, totaling 140 km, and moving 1.24 million passengers per day (Global BRT Database, 2023). User perception was high by 2013 (Comunicación Social CDMX, 2013); nevertheless, there have been growing complaints due to high occupancy of buses, extreme heat, and sexual abuse (Aldaz, Reference Aldaz2015; Páez, Reference Páez2021). The first corridor has reached its capacity (11,000 pphpd with single lane), but no overhaul has been undertaken or planned. The contractual model also has been subject to criticism (Flores-Dewey and Zegras, Reference Flores-Dewey and Zegras2012) (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Metrobús BRT Mexico City. Source: CTS EMBARQ México (Global BRT Database, 2023).

Quality of service has improved over time according to a user survey by the city agency Metrobus. Between 2013 and 2018, user ratings did not exceed 70%; between 2019 and 2021, the rating exceeded 90% (91.56% in 2021) (Metrobús, 2022).

Despite the continued support by different city administrations, expansion has faced controversies. In January 2017, a federal judge stopped the construction of Metrobus Line 7 following a lawsuit filed by an environmental association, as the project was supposed to affect trees and archeological heritage, and generated air pollution (Mosso and Siettin, Reference Mosso and Siettin2017). By the end of June 2017, the project received a green light from the National Institute of Archeology and History, after adjusting the design (La Jornada, 2017).

BRT is still a strong component of the mass transit plans in Mexico City. The current mobility plan includes five new BRT corridors or extensions, a new elevated trolleybus line, four elevated cable car lines, completing a metro line (Line 12), and recovering existing metro lines (SEMOVI, 2022). Metrobus expansion has benefited from political continuity in Mexico City, with four successive terms under the same political group. The agency in charge of Metrobus had the same director for 13 years (Páez, Reference Páez2021).

Santiago – fall and rise of a citywide transit reform.

Santiago introduced bus corridors as part of its integrated transportation plan Transantiago in 2007. Priority corridors already existed at that time, notably bus lanes on Avenida del Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins, also known as Alameda, which extends to Avenida Providencia. While Santiago lacks a key component of the BRT concept: permanent stations for off-board ticketing, it still has 13 corridors, totaling 90 km of dedicated busways, some of them totally segregated from the rest of the traffic (Global BRT Database, 2023) (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Buses Transantiago. Source: Dirección de Transporte Público Metropolitano DTPM, Santiago, Chile.

The initial implementation of Transantiago in 2007 was chaotic (Muñoz et al., Reference Muñoz, Ortúzar and Gschwender2009). The system, which involves buses and Metro operating under fare integration, improved over time; by 2018 it was considered the best public transport system in Latin America (Van Audenhove et al., Reference Van Audenhove, Rominger, Korn, Bettati, Steylemans, Zintel and Haon2018). Nevertheless, the legacy of the difficulties in implementation remained, and were used for political campaigning (Peña, Reference Peña2017). The bus tenders initiated in 2017 to replace the aging bus fleet of Transantiago were declared void in March 2018 (Ministerio de Transporte y Telecomunicaciones, 2018).

The system was rebranded as Red Metropolitana de Movilidad RED, with new bus standards and services, including a large fleet of e-buses (DTPM, 2021). The national government implemented new bidding processes for bus acquisition and operation which was completed in 2022 (DPTM, 2022). The city has now 2000 battery electric buses, the largest e-bus fleet in any city outside China. User satisfaction has improved in the last 6 years. In a scale from 1 to 7, average rating was 4.3 in 2016 (14% good evaluation), and 5.2 in 2022 (37% good evaluation) (IPSOS DTPM, 31 de enero 2023).

Metro expansions have been prioritized over BRT in Santiago. One iconic case is the Alameda-Providencia project, initiated in 2012 and not implemented yet. It is a new urban corridor including a full BRT (Bosch et al., Reference Bosch, Lyon, Martic, Oloriz and Ramírez2016), which had strong community participation and a well-developed urbanism contest. The project was suspended in 2018 (Olivares and Hormaechea, Reference Olivares and Hormaechea2019); a new version is expected to start construction in 2023 (Valencia, Reference Valencia2023). Metro provides high-quality transport, but integrated services require excellent quality buses as well.