Jump to content

BRT Standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Document defining the 2016 BRT Standard

The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors around the world, based on international best practices.[1] 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.[2][3]

The Standard was conceived by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 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 "BRTs 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.[4] The latest edition of the Standard was published in 2024.[5]

BRT systems which do not meet the BRT standard ("Not BRT" by the ITDP), but is marketed as BRT, meet the phenomenon known as "BRT creep".

History and Purpose

[edit]

First released in 2012, the BRT Standard was created “to establish a common definition of bus rapid transit (BRT) 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.[6]

Transjakarta BRT bus and station
A Transjakarta bus on a dedicated bus lane, an exclusive right-of-way separated from heavy traffic.

The 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 3 km (1.9 mi) in length.[7] 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.[7]

The 2016 edition proposed six major changes, including greater focus on safety and system operations, separation of the design score and the full score (i.e. including both design and operations), improved dedicated right-of-way definition, new types of busway alignments, and partial points for onboard fare validation.[8]

The latest BRT Standard, 2024 edition, is the product of feedback from BRT practitioners around the world. Suggestions were formulated into concrete proposals and evaluated by the BRT Standard Technical Committee, a group of leading BRT engineers, designers, and planners. The Standard has been refreshed by adding, combining, and revising elements based on expert feedback and increasing deductions for operations. The most significant changes include an expanded focus on gender, safety, and access; more attention to climate, greening, and resiliency; an improved passenger and customer experience; and a new focus on business operations.[9]

Technical Committee and Institutional Endorsers

[edit]

The Technical Committee of The BRT Standard comprises experts on BRT. This committee serves as a source of technical advice with respect to BRT and is the basis for establishing the credibility of The BRT Standard. The Technical Committee certifies corridors and recommends revisions to The Standard as needed.

The Institutional Endorsers are an integrated group of institutions in the fields of city building, public transport systems, and climate change with decision-making abilities over the BRT Standard certification process. The endorsers establish the strategic direction of the BRT Standard, ensure that BRT projects ranked by the scoring system uphold the goals of the BRT Standard, and promote the BRT Standard as a quality check for BRT projects.[9]

Definition of BRT

[edit]
Center of roadway or bus-only corridors keep buses away from the busy curbside, as seen here in San Francisco, USA.
BRT stations should be at level with the bus for quick and easy boarding, as seen here in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

BRT is a high-capacity bus-based transit system that delivers fast, reliable, high quality, safe, and cost-effective services at relatively low cost, metro-level capacities. It achieves that through dedicated bus lanes that are median aligned, off-board fare collection, level boarding, bus priority at intersections, and fast and frequent operations.[10][11] Because BRT contains features similar to a light rail or metro system, it is much more reliable, convenient and faster than regular bus services. The three main delays facing public transport are 1) boarding and alighting, 2) intersections, and 3) traffic congestion. BRT solves for all three. With the right features, BRT is able to avoid the causes of delay that typically slow regular bus services, while also improving service quality, safety and security, and passenger experience.[11]

Basic characteristics

[edit]

There are five essential characteristics of a BRT corridor.[12]

  • Dedicated right-of-way: Bus-only lanes make for faster travel and ensure that buses are never delayed due to mixed traffic congestion.
  • Busway Alignment: Center of roadway or bus-only corridor keeps buses away from the busy curbside where cars are parking, standing, and turning
  • Off-board fare collection: Fare payment at the station, instead of on the bus, eliminates the delay caused by passengers waiting to pay on board
  • Intersection Treatments: Prohibiting turns for traffic across the bus lane reduces delays caused to buses by turning traffic. Prohibiting such turns is the most important measure for moving buses through intersections – more important even than signal priority.
  • Platform-level boarding: The station should be at level with the bus for quick and easy boarding. This also makes it fully accessible for wheelchairs, disabled passengers, strollers and carts with minimal delays.

Standard Scoring

[edit]

The BRT Standard has defined 5 main categories for design with 32 metrics totaling 100 points and an operational deductions category that has 13 metrics totaling 77 points. Together, these form the total score for the corridor. Both design and operations are critical to creating a high quality BRT corridor. Design decisions are often locked in planning and construction. We often see corridors score well here, getting a bronze or above in design, but then do poorly in operations, dropping their overall score.

While operational deductions may bring the overall score down, these are aspects that can be easily improved in order to improve the score. From there, the updated scoring details can be found in the 2024 BRT Standard with detailed guidance on how to score. The Standard only evaluates a corridor and not a whole system, since different corridors can vary widely in design and quality. Certifying a BRT corridor as Gold, Silver, Bronze, or Basic sets an internationally recognized standard for the current best practices for BRT and can only be done with the full score (Design + Operational Deductions) six months after opening to allow usage and operations to be more representative of longer-term patterns. The combination of the design evaluation (positive points) and operational evaluation (negative points) gives the final score from the BRT Standard.[13]

Below is a list of all BRT corridors that have been scored and verified by The BRT Standard technical committee, listed by year scored and country.[14]

BRT Standard Version Country City System-Corridor Corridor Length (km) Year Scored Design Score Total Score Rank
2014 Argentina Buenos Aires Metrobus - 9 de Julio 3.5 2014 70 70 Silver
2013 Argentina Buenos Aires Metrobus - Juan B Justo 12.5 2013 62 61 Bronze
2013 Australia Brisbane (no BRT system name) - South East Busway 16.5 2013 80 77 Silver
2024 Brazil Niteroi TransOceânica 9.0 2024 55 36 BRT certified
2014 Brazil Belo Horizonte MOVE - MOVE - Antônio Carlos 16.0 2015 91 79 Silver
2014 Brazil Belo Horizonte MOVE - MOVE - Cristiano Machado 7.1 2014 89 86 Gold
2014 Brazil Brasília Expresso DF - Expresso DF Sul 36.2 2015 71 59 Bronze
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Linha Verde 7.0 2013 92 92 Gold
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Leste 12.4 2013 82 82 Silver
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Oeste 10.4 2013 82 82 Silver
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Norte 8.9 2013 82 82 Silver
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Sul 10.6 2013 82 82 Silver
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Boqueirão 10.3 2013 82 82 Silver
2013 Brazil Curitiba Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT) - Circular Sul 14.5 2013 82 82 Silver
2014 Brazil Goiânia (no BRT system name) - Eixo Anhanguera 13.5 2015 68 56 Bronze
2016 Brazil Recife Via Livre - Via Livre Leste/Oeste 8.2 2017 68 52 BRT certified
2016 Brazil Recife Via Livre - Via Livre Norte/Sul 22.8 2017 76 64 Bronze
2014 Brazil Rio de Janeiro BRT Rio - TransOeste 52.0 2014 89 77 Silver
2014 Brazil Rio de Janeiro BRT Rio - TransCarioca 39.0 2014 89 86 Gold
2013 Brazil Rio de Janeiro BRT Rio - TransOeste 52.0 2013 90 88 Gold
2016 Brazil Rio de Janeiro BRT Rio - TransOlimpica 23.0 2017 88 75 Silver
2013 Brazil São Paulo (no BRT system Name) - Expresso Tiradentes (Eixo Sudeste) 12.0 2013 80 80 Silver
2013 Brazil São Paulo Corredor Metropolitano ABD - ABD Diadema 33.0 2013 60 60 Bronze
2014 Brazil São Paulo Corredor Metropolitano ABD - ABD Extensão Morumbi 10.8 2015 52 47 BRT certified
2016 Brazil Uberaba VETOR - VETOR Leste-Oeste 5.1 2016 82 72 Silver
2014 Brazil Uberlândia (no BRT system name) - Corredor Estrutural Sudeste (Av. João Naves de Ávila) 7.5 2015 70 70 Silver
2013 Canada Ottawa, ON Transitway - (All corridors) 30.0 2013 64 64 Bronze
2016 Canada York Region, Ontario Viva - Highway 7 Corridor 10.3 2019 71 64 Bronze
2014 Chile Santiago Transantiago - Avenida Grecia 10.0 2014 56 56 Bronze
2014 Chile Santiago Transantiago - Avenidas Las Industrias - Seirra Bella/Carmen 9.2 2014 57 57 Bronze
2014 Chile Santiago Transantiago - Pedro Aguirre Cerda - Exposicion/Bascunan Guerrero 11.5 2014 57 57 Bronze
2014 Chile Santiago Transantiago - Santa Rosa Norte 7.2 2014 57 57 Bronze
2014 Chile Santiago Transantiago - Santa Rosa Sur 8.5 2014 57 57 Bronze
2013 China Beijing Beijing BRT - Entire Network 59.0 2013 57 57 Bronze
2014 China Changde Changde BRT - Changde Dadao 18.9 2014 58 53 BRT certified
2014 China Chengdu Chengdu BRT - Erhuan Lu 28.8 2014 72 72 Silver
2013 China Changzhou Changzhou BRT - Entire Network 51.9 2013 68 68 Bronze
2014 China Dalian Dalian BRT - Zhangqian Lu - Songjiang Lu - Huabei Lu - Xi'an Lu 9.0 2014 51 51 BRT certified
2013 China Guangzhou Guangzhou BRT - Zhongshan Avenue 22.5 2013 91 91 Gold
2014 China Hefei Hefei BRT - Hefei Line 1 (Changjiang) 7.2 2014 57 52 BRT certified
2014 China Jinan Jinan BRT - B7 corridor Xierhuan 7.1 2014 65 60 Bronze
2013 China Jinan Jinan BRT - Beiyuan dajie 15.0 2013 67 67 Bronze
2013 China Jinan Jinan BRT - Lishan Lu 4.8 2013 67 67 Bronze
2013 China Jinan Jinan BRT - Erhuandonglu 8.0 2013 67 67 Bronze
2013 China Jinan Jinan BRT - Gongyebeilu-Aotizonglu Line 6 6.6 2013 67 67 Bronze
2013 China Lanzhou Lanzhou BRT - Anning Lu 8.6 2013 84 84 Silver
2014 China Lianyungang Lianyungang BRT - Xingfu-Hailian-Xingangcheng-Gangcheng 32.0 2014 64 61 Bronze
2014 China Urumuqi Urumuqi BRT - Corridor 1 (Beijinglu-Xibeilu-Yangzijianglu) 15.5 2014 70 60 Bronze
2014 China Xiamen Xiamen BRT - 0 51.0 2014 77 74 Silver
2014 China Yancheng Yancheng BRT - Kaifang Dadao - Jiefang Nanlu 16.0 2014 58 55 Bronze
2014 China Yichang Yichang BRT - Yixing Ave-Dongshan Ave-Jucheng Rd 23.0 2015 85 85 Gold
2014 China Yinchuan Yinchuan BRT - Huanghe East-Nanxun-Qinghe 17.0 2014 62 56 Bronze
2014 China Zaozhuang Zaozhuang BRT - B1 33.5 2014 60 57 Bronze
2014 China Zaozhuang Zaozhuang BRT - B3 32.2 2014 57 49 BRT certified
2014 China Zaozhuang Zaozhuang BRT - B5 18.5 2014 58 50 BRT certified
2014 China Zhengzhou Zhengzhou BRT - 0 30.5 2014 65 59 Bronze
2014 China Zhongshan Zhongshan BRT - Zhongshan 2nd-5th Rd - Jiangling Rd 13.0 2014 67 62 Bronze
2013 Colombia Barranquilla Transmetro - (no name) 13.2 2013 82 77 Silver
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - Autonorte 11.6 2013 86 83 Silver
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - Suba 9.6 2013 92 89 Gold
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - Caracas 7.3 2013 86 83 Silver
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - Calle 80 7.5 2013 89 86 Gold
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - Americas 12.7 2013 91 88 Gold
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - NQS 8.6 2013 92 89 Gold
2013 Colombia Bogota TransMilenio - El Dorado 10.8 2013 89 86 Gold
2016 Colombia Bucaramanga Metrolinea - Lagos - Quebradaseca 7.5 2018 84 75 Silver
2013 Colombia Cali MIO - 1st phase (all corridors) 39.0 2013 86 82 Silver
2016 Colombia Cartegena 0 - Transcaribe 10.5 2017 87 81 Silver
2013 Colombia Medellin Metroplús - (no corridor name) 12.5 2013 85 85 Gold
2013 Colombia Pereira Megabús - (no corridor name) 19.2 2013 77 77 Silver
2013 Ecuador Guayaquil Metrovia - Troncal 3: Bastion-Centro 16.5 2013 74 67 Bronze
2013 Ecuador Guayaquil Metrovia - Troncal 1: Guasmo-Río Daule 13.9 2013 75 68 Bronze
2014 Ecuador Quito Metrobus - Corredor sur occidental 13.4 2014 67 62 Bronze
2013 Ecuador Quito Metrobus-Q - Trolebus, Central-Norte and Ecovia 65.4 2013 78 74 Silver
2014 Ecuador Quito Metrobus - Corredor sur oriental 11.1 2014 73 66 Bronze
2014 France Île-de-France (Greater Paris) Trans-Val-de-Marne (TVM) - TVM (Antony-La Croix de Berny - Saint-Maur-Créteil 16.2 2014 71 71 Silver
2013 France Nantes Nantes Busway - Line 4 6.9 2012 69 69 Bronze
2013 France Rouen TEOR (Transport Est-Ouest Rouennais) - (All Corridors) 13.0 2013 74 73 Silver
2014 Guatemala Guatemala City Transmetro - Eje Sur 13.0 2014 85 85 Gold
2014 Guatemala Guatemala City Transmetro - Eje Central 11.7 2014 73 73 Silver
2013 India Ahmedabad Janmarg - RTO-Maninagar 21.5 2013 74 68 Bronze
2013 India Ahmedabad Janmarg - Narol-Naroda 13.2 2013 78 72 Silver
2014 India Ahmedabad Janmarg - Sola-AEC 3.1 2014 74 65 Bronze
2013 India Delhi Delhi BRTS (closed) - Moolchand-Ambedkar Nagar (closed) 5.8 2013 42 30 BRT certified
2016 India Indore iBus - iBus Trunk Corridor 11.5 2017 71 68 Bronze
2016 India Pimpri-Chinchwad Rainbow BRTS - Corridor 2 14.5 2017 55 43 BRT certified
2014 India Surat Sitilink - Udhna - Sachin GIDC 10.0 2014 66 58 Bronze
2013 Indonesia Jakarta Transjakarta - Corridor 1 12.9 2013 71 61 Bronze
2014 Indonesia Jakarta Transjakarta - Corridor 1 12.9 2014 74 71 Silver
2024 Mexico Mexico city Insurgentes - Line 1 27.9 2024 88 85 Gold
2024 Mexico Mexico city Trolebús Elevado - Line 10 (TE-L10) 7.9 2024 83 73 Silver
2024 Mexico Merida IE-Tram Plancha Kanasín 27.0 2024 76 68 Bronze
2024 Mexico Guadalajara MiMacro Periférico 41.5 2024 84 76 Silver
2013 Mexico Guadalajara Macrobus - Línea 1 16.0 2013 93 93 Gold
2013 Mexico Mexico City Metrobus - Line 1 27.4 2013 76 73 Silver
2013 Mexico Mexico City Metrobus - Line 2 20.0 2013 75 75 Silver
2013 Mexico Mexico City Metrobus - Line 3 17.0 2013 78 78 Silver
2013 Mexico Mexico City Metrobus - Line 4 28.0 2013 61 55 Bronze
2013 Mexico Mexico City Mexibus - Line 1 16.0 2013 83 83 Silver
2014 Mexico Mexico City Metrobus - L5 Río de los Remedios - San Lazaro 10.0 2014 82 82 Silver
2014 Mexico Mexico City Mexibus - L3 Pantitlán-Chimalhuacan 14.5 2014 78 72 Silver
2014 Mexico Monterrey Ecovia - Lincoln-Ruiz Cortines 30.0 2014 75 75 Silver
2014 Mexico Puebla RUTA - Linea 1: Chachapa -Tlaxcalancingo 18.5 2014 73 69 Bronze
2014 Pakistan Islamabad-Pindi Metro Bus - Twin Cities 22.5 2015 67 64 Bronze
2014 Pakistan Lahore Metro Bus - Green Line 27.0 2015 56 52 BRT certified
2016 Pakistan Peshawar Zu Peshawar - Chamkani-Hayatabad 27.0 2021 97 97 Gold
2013 Peru Lima El Metropolitano - (only 1 line) 26.6 2013 89 88 Gold
2013 South Africa Cape Town MyCiTi - Phase 1A 17.0 2013 63 63 Bronze
2013 South Africa Johannesburg Rea Vaya - Phase IA 25.5 2013 81 75 Silver
2014 South Africa Johannesburg Rea Vaya - Phase IB 16.7 2014 74 61 Bronze
2016 South Korea Sejong Sejong Express Intercity (B0) - Express Intercity 23.4 2022 76 75 Silver
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Yeouidaebang-ro/Siheung-daero 9.5 2014 57 51 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Gyeongin-ro 5.6 2014 55 49 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Gangnam-Daero 4.7 2014 57 51 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Dongsomun-ro/Dobong-ro 14.3 2014 57 51 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Susack BRT 20.0 2014 59 53 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Cheonho-Daero - West 5.4 2014 57 51 BRT certified
2014 South Korea Seoul 0 - Cheonho-Daero - East 9.2 2014 59 53 BRT certified
2014 Thailand Bangkok Bangkok BRT - Sathorn Station to Rama III Station 11.5 2014 59 59 Bronze
2014 Turkey Istanbul Metrobüs - Avcılar - Söğütlüçeşme 52.0 2015 78 70 Silver
2013 United Kingdom Cambridge Cambridgeshire Busway - Route A 26.0 2012 66 66 Bronze
2013 United States Cleveland, OH (no BRT system name) - Healthline 6.9 2013 76 76 Silver
2013 United States Eugene, OR Emerald Express (EmX) - Green Line 12.5 2013 58 55 Bronze
2016 United States Hartford, CT CTfastrak - Hartford-New Britain Busway 15.0 2016 84 79 Silver
2013 United States Las Vegas, NV (no BRT system name) - Strip & Downtown Express (SDX) 2.0 2013 57 54 BRT certified
2013 United States Los Angeles, CA (no BRT system name) - Orange line 22.9 2013 65 65 Bronze
2013 United States Pittsburgh, PA (no BRT system name) - Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway 15.0 2013 56 56 Bronze
2013 United States Pittsburgh, PA (no BRT system name) - West Busway 8.1 2013 51 51 BRT certified
2013 United States Pittsburgh, PA (no BRT system name) - South Busway 7.0 2013 50 50 BRT certified
2016 United States Richmond, VA GRTC - Pulse 4.2 2019 70 57 Bronze
2014 United States San Bernardino, CA sbX - E Street 8.3 2014 66 63 Bronze
2024 United States Richmond, VA Pulse 4.2 2024 77 63 Bronze
2024 United States San Francisco, CA Van Ness 3.2 2024 75 73 Silver
2014 Venezuela Caracas BusCaracas - Línea 7 5.2 2014 75 72 Silver

Criticisms

[edit]

The BRT Standard has been noted as a one-size-fits-all tool that is not context sensitive. Also, pro-car politicians' opposition to public transit may result in higher construction costs and greater land acquisition needs whenever a public transit agency sets a Gold Standard goal. In one recent case in Indianapolis, State Senator Aaron Freeman, a former auto industry lobbyist and an aggressive opponent of public transit, threatened to introduce a bill that would kill the IndyGo Blue Line project that was aiming for Gold classification unless IndyGo agreed to share lanes with private civilian cars for at least 70% of the BRT route. Freeman's hostility towards public transit resulted in high costs and land acquisition needs for IndyGo to meet his demands so he would withdraw his anti-transit bill. Freeman withdrew his bill when IndyGo complied with his demands, but by complying, IndyGo faced such difficulty constructing the Blue Line right-of-way that the project was cancelled by city-level political decision-makers.[15] Aaron Freeman's opposition to public transit has been praised by notable anti-transit activist Randal O'Toole, who has attacked BRT proposals on his "Antiplanner" blog.[16]

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.[8]

See also

[edit]
  • Bus rapid transit creep — alleged application of the term "BRT" to bus systems that fall short of its design and performance standards

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "About the Standard: What's New in 2016?". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). 2016. Retrieved 2019-04-11.
  2. ^ Goldmark, Alex. BRT Systems Getting an International Rating Standard WNYC 01 May 2012. http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2012/may/01/brt-systems-getting-an-international-rating-standard/
  3. ^ Weingart, Eden (2023-12-07). "Could Better Buses Fix Your Commute?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  4. ^ "Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: A Survey of Select U.S. Cities". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  5. ^ "The BRT Standard - Institute for Transportation and Development Policy". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. 2024-03-01. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  6. ^ Greenfield, John (2013-03-12). "Taking the Guesswork Out of Rating BRT: An Interview With Walter Hook | Streetsblog Chicago". Chi.streetsblog.org. Retrieved 2013-08-19.
  7. ^ a b "The BRT Standard: 2014 Edition". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  8. ^ a b "The BRT Standard". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. 21 June 2016. Retrieved 17 July 2017.
  9. ^ a b "About the BRT Standard". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  10. ^ Kimmelman, Michael (2023-12-07). "How One City Tried to Solve Gridlock for Us All". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  11. ^ a b "What is BRT?". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  12. ^ "Institute for Transportation and Development Policy: BRT Basics". ITDP. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
  13. ^ "The Scorecard". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  14. ^ "BRT Scores". Institute for Transportation and Development Policy - Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. 2024-03-14. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  15. ^ "What Drives Republican Opposition to Transit?". 13 March 2024.
  16. ^ "Why do Democrats Support Transit? – the Antiplanner". 15 March 2024.
[edit]