BRT Standard


The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for bus rapid transit corridors around the world, based on international best practices. The Standard establishes a common definition for BRT and identifies BRT best practices, as well as functioning as a scoring system to allow BRT corridors to be evaluated and recognized for their superior design and management aspects.
The Standard was conceived by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in 2012 to ensure that BRT corridors worldwide meet a minimum quality standard and deliver consistent passenger, economic, and environmental benefits. This is of particular relevance in countries where "BRT"s qualify for special funding from national or provincial governments. In addition to serving as an overview of BRT design elements, the Standard can be used to evaluate existing BRT corridors and certify them as a Basic, Bronze, Silver, or Gold rated corridors. Corridors which fail to meet minimum standards for Basic ratings are not considered to be BRT. The latest edition of the Standard was published in 2016.

History and purpose

First released in 2012, the BRT Standard was created “to establish a common definition of bus rapid transit and ensure that BRT corridors more uniformly deliver world-class passenger experiences, significant economic benefits, and positive environmental impact”. The Standard was developed in response to a lack of consensus among planners and engineers as to what constitutes a true BRT corridor. Without a clear definition, the term BRT was used for corridors that provided only minor improvements in bus service and lacked the elements of BRT that make it competitive with light rail or metro alternatives. This caused a backlash against the BRT "brand", and confusion as to its benefits.
bus on the dedicated bus lane, an exclusive right-of-way separated from heavy trafficThe 2014 edition made some improvements to the methodology, including adjustments to the corridor definition, infrequent-service penalties, and increased emphasis on basics. In order to allow BRT corridors in downtown areas to qualify as BRT, the definition of a BRT corridor has been reduced to a minimum of in length. The peak and off-peak frequency design metrics have been removed, and penalties for low peak and off-peak frequencies have been added. An additional point was added to each of the BRT basic elements, to put greater emphasis on the basic elements of a BRT corridor.
The 2016 edition proposed six major changes, including greater focus on safety and system operations, separation of the design score and the full score, improved dedicated right-of-way definition, new types of busway alignments, and partial points for onboard fare validation.

Technical committee and endorsers

The BRT Standard was developed and continues to be updated by a technical committee, with strategic direction and guidance from several organizations. The current Technical Committee consist of: Aileen Carrigan *, Aimee Gauthier, Angelica Castro *, CarlosFelipe Pardo, Dario Hidalgo, Gerhard Menckhoff *, Leonardo Canon Rubiano *, Lloyd Wright *, Manfred Breithaupt, Paulo Sérgio Custodio, Pedro Szasz, Ricardo Giesen, Wagner Colombini Martins, Walter Hook, Xiaomei Duan *. The Standard further incorporates advice from, and has the institutional endorsement of ITDP, Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit, ClimateWorks Foundation, UN Habitat, Barr Foundation, UNEP, ICCT, World Resource Institute Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Unless indicated by an asterisk, each committee member also represents his or her institution.

Definition of BRT

The BRT Standard creates a concrete “minimum standard”, identifying several critical design elements that must be present for a corridor to qualify as BRT. For each element, a best practice is identified, along with benchmarks for partial achievement of the feature.

Basic characteristics

There are five essential characteristics of a BRT corridor.
Points are awarded for those elements of BRT corridors that most significantly improve operational performance and quality of service. The points act as proxies for a higher quality of customer service. For each element identified in the BRT Standard, a maximum point value is assigned. A given BRT corridor is then rated based on how closely it achieves the best practice of this element.
The BRT Standard created a “minimum definition” for BRT corridors. To qualify as BRT, a corridor must:
The BRT Basics, as outlined in Section 3 above, have the following maximum scores:
BRT Basics


In addition to the BRT Basics, five additional categories of BRT design and planning elements are scored. These categories and elements have the following maximum scores:
Service Planning —
Infrastructure —
Station Design and Station-Bus Interface —
Communications —
Integration and Access —
Once qualified as a Basic BRT, a corridor can earn up to 100 points. After the score for the BRT Basics, Service Planning, Infrastructure, Stations, Communications, and Integration and Access is complete, points can be subtracted from the total score to account for operational weaknesses. These deductions prevent awarding high quality recognition to BRT corridors that have significant operational, management, or performance problems. The operations deduction elements include the following maximum deduction:
To recognize superior performance, the Standard awards corridors scoring between 85-100 a Gold rating, between 70-84.9 a Silver, and 55-69.9 a Bronze. Many bus corridors with some BRT-like aspects fail to qualify as true BRT. Corridors which fail to meet minimum BRT standards are classified by the ITDP as "Not BRT". :34

Scored BRT corridors

The following cities have had their BRT corridors evaluated and scored using the BRT Corridor Standard. Each corridor is ranked at either Gold, Silver, Bronze or Basic level of quality.
In 2011, two US corridors evaluated, the Silver Line in Boston and Chelsea, Massachusetts, and the Select Bus Service in New York City, were rated "Not BRT".
In 2014, only six US corridors were ranked as true BRT corridors, two Silver and four Bronze level.
In 2016, no new systems reached Gold standard. Rio de Janeiro and Uberaba in Brazil; Cartagena and Bucaramanga in Colombia; and Hartford, Connecticut in the United States each had one Silver status corridor; also the Delhi Bus Rapid Transit System in India was dismantled.
In 2017, Albuquerque Rapid Transit in Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States, received Gold status for its design, the first such corridor in the United States. Approximately six months after the system becomes operational, the ranking is scheduled to be reassessed.
In 2019, MAX in Fort Collins, Colorado and the South Dade Transitway in Miami-Dade County, Florida, both in the United States, although not formally assessed, received preliminary rankings of at least Basic BRT.
ITDP Bus Rapid Transit Rankings, continually updated on the ITDP website:
CityCountryBRT System: CorridorBRT Standard VersionRating
Belo HorizonteBrazilMOVE: Cristiano Machado2014Gold
CuritibaBrazilRede Integrada de Transporte: Linha Verde2013Gold
Rio de JaneiroBrazilTransCarioca2014Gold
GuangzhouChinaGBRT: Zhongshan Avenue2013Gold
BogotáColombiaTransMilenio: Américas, Calle 80, Calle 26,
NQS, Suba, El Dorado
2013Gold
MedellinColombiaMetroplús2013Gold
Guatemala CityGuatemalaTransmetro: Eje Sur2014Gold
GuadalajaraMexicoMacrobús2013Gold
LimaPeruMetropolitano2013Gold
Buenos AiresArgentinaMetrobus: 9 de Julio2014Silver
Brisbane, QueenslandAustraliaBrisbane BRT: South East Busway2013Silver
Belo HorizonteBrazilMOVE: Antônio Carlos2014Silver
CuritibaBrazilRede Integrada de Transporte: Corridor North, Corridor South,
Corridor East, Corridor West, and Corridor Boqueirão
2013Silver
Rio de JaneiroBrazilBRT Rio: Transolímpica2016Silver
Rio de JaneiroBrazilBRT Rio: TransOeste2014Silver
Sao PauloBrazilExpresso Tiradentes2013Silver
UberlândiaBrazilEstrutural Sudeste2014Silver
UberabaBrazilVetor Leste-Oeste2016Silver
ChengduChinaChengdu BRT: Erhuan Lu2014Silver
LanzhouChinaLBRT: Anning Road2013Silver
XiamenChinaXiamen BRT2014Silver
BarranquillaColombiaTransMetro2013Silver
BogotáColombiaTransMilenio: Autonorte and Caracas2013Silver
CaliColombiaMIO2013Silver
CartagenaColombiaTranscaribe: Portal - Bodeguita2016Silver
PereiraColombiaMegabús2013Silver
QuitoEcuadorMetrobusQ: Ecovia, Trolebus, and Central-Norte2013Silver
Île-de-FranceFranceTrans-Val-de-Marne : Antony-La Croix de Berny - Saint-Maur-Créteil2014Silver
RouenFranceTEOR: Line 1, Line 2, and Line 32013Silver
Guatemala CityGuatemalaTransmetro: Eje Central2014Silver
AhmedabadIndiaJanmarg: Narol-Naroda2013Silver
JakartaIndonesiaTransJakarta: Corridor 1 2014Silver
Mexico CityMexicoMetrobús: Line 1, Line 2, and Line 32013Silver
Mexico CityMexicoMetrobús: Line 52014Silver
Mexico MexicoMexibús: Line 32013Silver
MonterreyMexicoEcovia: Lincoln-Ruiz Cortines2014Silver
JohannesburgSouth AfricaRea Vaya Phase 1A2013Silver
IstanbulTurkeyMetrobüs: Avcılar - Söğütlüçeşme2014Silver
Cleveland, OhioUnited StatesGreater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority: HealthLine2013Silver
Hartford, ConnecticutUnited StatesConnecticut Transit: CTfastrak2016Silver
CaracasVenezuelaBusCaracas: Line 72014Silver
Buenos AiresArgentinaMetrobus: Juan B Justo2013Bronze
BrasíliaBrazilExpresso DF Sul2014Bronze
GoiâniaBrazilEixo Anhanguera2014Bronze
RecifeBrazilVia Livre: Via Livre Norte/Sul2016Bronze
São Paulo BrazilCorredor Metropolitano, São Mateus – Jabaquara 2013Bronze
Ottawa, OntarioCanadaOC Transpo: Transitway2013Bronze
SantiagoChileTransantiago: Avenida Grecia; Avenidas Las Industrias - Seirra Bella/Carmen; Pedro Aguirre Cerda - Exposicion Buscunan Guerrero; Santa Rose Norte; Santa Rosa Sur2014Bronze
BeijingChinaBeijing BRT: Line 1: Nanzhongzhou, Line 2: Chaoyang Road,
Line 3: Anding Road, Line 4: Rucheng Road – Fushi Road
2013Bronze
ChangzhouChinaChangzhou BRT: Tongijang Road – Laodong Road – Lanling Road –
Wuji Road – Mingxin Road,
Huaide Road – Yanling Road – Dongfangxi Road
2013Bronze
JinanChinaJinan BRT: Xierhuan2014Bronze
JinanChinaJinan BRT: Lishan Lu, Beiyuan Daije, Erhuandonglu, Gongyebeilu-Aotizonglu2013Bronze
LianyungangChinaLianyungang BRT: Xingfu - Hailian - Xiangangcheng - Gangcheng2014Bronze
UrumuqiChinaUrumuqi BRT: Corridor 1 2014Bronze
YanchengChinaYancheng BRT: Kaifang Dadao - Jiefang Nanlu2014Bronze
YinchuanChinaYinchuan BRT: Huanghe East - Nanxun - Qinghe2014Bronze
ZaozhuangChinaZaozhuang BRT: B12014Bronze
ZhengzhouChinaZhengzhou BRT2014Bronze
ZhongshanChinaZhongshan BRT: Zhongshan 2nd-5th Rd - Jiangling Rd2014Bronze
GuayaquilEcuadorGuayaquil BRT: Guasmo-Río Daule and Bastión-Centro2013Bronze
QuitoEcuadorMetrobus: Corredor sur occidential, Corredor sur oriental2014Bronze
NantesFranceSemitan: Nantes Busway Line 42013Bronze
AhmedabadIndiaJanmarg: RTO - Maninagar2013Bronze
AhmedabadIndiaJanmarg: Sola - AEC2014Bronze
IndoreIndiaiBus Trunk Corridor2016Bronze
SuratIndiaSitilink: Udhna - Sachin GIDC2014Bronze
Mexico CityMexicoMetrobús: Line 42013Bronze
PueblaMexicoRUTA: Linea 1 Chachapa - Tlazvalacingo2014Bronze
Islamabad-PindiPakistanMetro Bus: Twin Cities2014Bronze
Cape TownSouth AfricaMyCiTi: Phase 1A2013Bronze
BangkokThailandBangkok BRT: Sathorn - Rama III2014Bronze
CambridgeUnited KingdomThe Busway: Route A2013Bronze
Eugene, OregonUnited StatesLane Transit District: Emerald Express Green Line2013Bronze
Los Angeles, CaliforniaUnited StatesLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: Orange Line2013Bronze
Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaUnited StatesPort Authority of Allegheny County: Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway2013Bronze
Richmond, VirginiaUnited StatesGRTC: Pulse2016Bronze
San Bernardino, CaliforniaUnited StatessbX: E Street2014Bronze
RecifeBrazilVia Livre: Via Livre Leste/Oeste2016Basic
São Paulo BrazilCorredor Metropolitano, Diadema – Morumbi 2014Basic
ChangdeChinaChangde BRT2014Basic
DalianChinaDalian BRT2014Basic
HefeiChinaHefei BRT2014Basic
ZaozhuangChinaZaozhuang BRT: B32014Basic
ZaozhuangChinaZaozhuang BRT: B52014Basic
Pune/Pimpri-ChinchwadIndiaRainbow Bus Rapid Transit System2016Basic
LahorePakistanLahore Metrobus2014Basic
SeoulSouth KoreaSeven BRT lines2014Basic
Las Vegas, NevadaUnited StatesRTC Transit: Strip and Downtown Express 2013Basic
Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaUnited StatesPort Authority of Allegheny County: South Busway2013Basic
Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaUnited StatesPort Authority of Allegheny County: West Busway2013Basic

Note: If a transit system is named, but no specific corridors or lines, the entire system is implemented in BRT technology.

Criticisms

The BRT Standard has been criticized by some because the potential unintended consequences it may have on transport policies in some cities, which may include the Standard leading to inappropriate infrastructure in places that do not require the level of infrastructure and service that BRT offers. Additionally, the BRT Standard has been noted as a one-size-fits-all tool that is not context sensitive. This may be especially noted with BRT Standard elements such as passing lanes, sub-stations requirements, and excessive use of express services which can unduly raise the time that passengers have to wait for their bus.  Also, overambitious standards may result in higher construction costs and, in particular, greater land acquisition needs. In one recent case, the technical design team insisted on aiming for Gold classification, resulting in high cost and land acquisition needs which could have been avoided with a lower classification; as a consequence the project was cancelled by political decision-makers.
In response to that criticism, those in favor of the Standard point out that the overwhelming majority of the Standard elements work well and would also benefit lower demand systems. Above all, BRT designers should take advantage of the flexibility inherent in bus systems and consider lower-standard busway sections to avoid physical or political constraints, especially where such sections can later be upgraded to address future demand increases.
There are many situations where lower-grade BRT or non-BRT bus schemes are the appropriate solution to upgrade public transit. The Standard should not be a reason to forgo such improvements. However, in many cases, the Standard provides a scoring tool that can motivate cities to develop high quality mass transit corridors where possible under the city's prevailing financial and spatial conditions.