Home » Public Transport » BRT
Category Archives: BRT
How about a pop-up BRT along Commonwealth Avenue?
I posted this map on social media showing a possible route for a pop-up BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) along Commonwealth Avenue. This was inspired by the reports this week of the horrendous experience of commuters along this corridor due to the current fuel crisis. It seems that a lot of people have reduced their use of private vehicles in favor of what they thought was adequate public transportation only to find out how lacking the supply was.
While this route can be extended (all the way to Fairview via Regalado, for example), I think the one in the map below would be able to capture a majority of the commuters along the corridor with the end at Dona Carmen being a drop-off/pick-up area for those residing to the north. Quezon City Hall and the Elliptical Road is a no-brainer since the Quezon City Bus service terminates here and people can transfer to one of the other lines that will allow them to travel elsewhere covered by the bus network. Quezon City or DOTr can lease buses and come up with a service contracting scheme to sustain operations. The idea is to first run this pop-up BRT while the crisis in Iran is ongoing. Data collection and assessments should coincide with this to refine the service and perhaps, make recommendations for sustaining this service at least until MRT 7 gets online.
The idea of a pop-up BRT is not really new as there were “proof of concept” runs along Commonwealth and at BGC many years ago. Unfortunately, the BRTs never came to be in both cases; both now missed opportunities as we have come to realize. It’s still a long way before the MRT 7 is up and running. The recent announcement from the proponent that they will probably start operations next year is perceived by many as too late. Government, both national and local, need to be decisive if they want people to be able to go to their workplaces and schools. Maybe this is another opportunity for the more than 70% public transport users to be provided with the services they need while taking advantage of road space being freed up from car dominance?
–
At long last, the Cebu BRT is finally running
After more than two decades, the Cebu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is finally operational (partly). I think I wrote about the BRT numerous times here. I was involved in the social marketing of the BRT to major cities almost 2 decades ago. At that time, only Cebu City was receptive to the idea as Metro Manila was more engrossed with railway projects that also took much gestation time. I was also involved in the pre-FS for Metro Manila BRT’s so I can say this has a lot of history and political economy about it.
Here is a report from Rappler via their official Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1J3Fpmar16/
I already look forward to the next trip to Cebu to have a first hand experience of the BRT there. I wanted to share photos from the internet here but perhaps I can wait til I have my own photos to share.
–
Article share: What Is Good Transit?
Here’s an article share on transit and what should be the attributes of a good transit system:
Source: What Is Good Transit?
To derive the main points from the article:
- Good transit is frequent
- Good transit is reliable
- Good transit is (reasonably) fast
- Good transit feels safe
- Good transit is equitable by nature
This is a good read whether you’re a regular commuter taking public transportation or perhaps one looking into topics for research or advocacy.
–
Is there really a shortage of public transportation in Metro Manila? – Part 1 – Introduction
I will be doing a series of articles here on public transportation. More specifically, I will try to answer the question in the main title of the series – Is there really a shortage of public transportation in Metro Manila?
The quick answer probably is “yes” but we need to examine this concern from different perspectives and reasons so we can be objective about the “why” part of the shortage. Shortage may mean a real lack in terms of the number of public utility vehicles (PUVs) with approved franchises or perhaps the number actually operating on any given day. These two are actually different because it is possible to have fewer PUVs operating compared to the approved number or to have more PUVs operating than the approved number. The latter means there are “colorum” or illegal operations (i.e., vehicles providing public transport services without franchises).
Among the reasons why there is a perceived shortage of public transportation are as follows:
- Fewer than the number of franchises approved are operating.
- PUVs are not able to make a reasonable turnaround (e.g., due to traffic congestion).
- PUV drivers and operators refusing to operate their vehicles.
- Other factors.
- Any combination of the above including “all of the above.”
I hope I can write about these in a manner that can be easily understood – in layman’s terms.
–
To B(RT) or not to B(RT)?
I kind of expected questions or comments from my ‘students’ after my lecture last Wednesday about “Traffic Congestion.” Among my slides were those featuring solutions to transport and traffic problems. I presented both soft and hard approaches including travel demand management schemes and infrastructure that we should have built decades ago. The uniformed officers who were there had a very simple take on congestion – it’s basically because of a lack of discipline. While theirs may also be valid observations based on their experiences, ‘discipline’ is not the most critical problem that we have especially considering the ever increasing demand for travel. One government official present was very direct in his question about what I thought about the MMDA’s pronouncement that they plan to remove the EDSA Bus Carousel. I thought my reply and the following explanation was clear – it was a wrong move.
The EDSA Bus Carousel is simple. Bus lang sa bus lane (Only buses along the bus lane). Pag may private or pa-VIP, bawal at huli dapat (If there are private vehicles or those who regard themselves as VIPs using the lane, then they should be apprehended. An HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lane is more difficult to implement. Mas pahirapan ang pag monitor and enforce (It is very difficult to monitor and enforce). So this proposal to phase out the EDSA bus lanes don’t make sense from this perspective. In fact, I don’t agree with a couple of more senior transport experts who say that the MRT Line 3 is sufficient and that it hadn’t reached capacity yet. It has but in the time that the carousel has been operational, the carousel had absorbed much of the demand along the corridor. There is also the fact that it will take much time before Line 3 is upgraded. Are the new train sets here? Are the stations designed for these trains and more passengers? If the answers are no, then MRT3 will not have its capacity increased in such a short time. That also means the carousel is very much relevant not just to supplement MRT3 capacity but as a needed alternative mode for commuters.
–
On BRT being the solution to many cities’ public transport problems
Here is a very informative article about the benefits of a bus rapid transit (BRT) to a city:
Renn, A.M. (June 17, 2024) “The Bus Lines That Can Solve a Bunch of Urban Problems,” Governing, https://www.governing.com/transportation/the-bus-lines-that-can-solve-a-bunch-of-urban-problems [Last accessed: 6/25/2024]
To quote from the article:
“One benefit of BRT is that it is much more capital-efficient and faster to implement than light rail. For many years, urban advocates have promoted light rail over bus transit, impressed by the success of light rail systems such as the one in Portland, Ore. But today’s light rail lines are extremely expensive. One proposed in Austin, Texas, for example, is projected to cost $500 million per mile. Also, most of the cities that have desired light rail are low-density cities built around cars and with little history of extensive public transit ridership. Converting them to transit-oriented cities would be a heavy lift.
BRT is much cheaper. The 13-mile Red Line BRT in Indianapolis, opened in 2019, cost less than $100 million — not per mile, but in total. The much lower financial lift required for building bus rapid transit makes it more feasible for cities to raise the required funds.
Because they typically run on city streets, BRT systems also offer the chance to perform badly needed street and sewer repairs during construction. Sidewalks can be rebuilt or added. Traffic signals can be replaced, along with new features such as prioritizing buses over auto traffic and additional pedestrian safety measures. The reduction of traffic lanes itself is sometimes a worthwhile street redesign project.”
It’s been more than a decade (almost 2 decades to be more accurate) since a BRT was proposed in Cebu City and in Metro Manila. So far, there is still none operating in the Philippines. The EDSA Carousel probably wants to be one but is far from being a BRT based on operations and performance. Cebu’s is supposed to be currently in implementation but it seems Davao might just beat them to it with its high priority bus project. The Philippines requires a proof of concept of the BRT in one of its cities that could be the inspiration for similar projects in other cities especially those that are already highly urbanized.
–
Article share: What Is Bus Rapid Transit?
I found this short article defining and describing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). I include this as a topic under public transportation in one of the graduate courses that I teach. Fortunately, I have materials for lecture coming from previous engagements concerning BRT including lectures by my former adviser who is an expert on public transportation and has studied the BRT in Curitiba, Brazil. Here is the article appearing in Planetizen:
Source: What Is Bus Rapid Transit?
Quoting from the article:
“Bus rapid transit, known as BRT, is a form of transit widely seen by transportation planning professionals and transit officials as a less costly alternative to light rail that offers a significant improvement over other fixed-route bus services that share lanes with regular traffic and makes bus service faster and more reliable.
BRT generally includes dedicated transit-only lanes or busways for at least part of the route, as well as prioritized traffic signal timing. BRT lanes are often located in the center of the roadway to limit interaction with cars, bikes, and pedestrians. In some cases, busways are elevated or underground.”
Definitions are good in that they provide us with a characterization of the system. There are many good examples of BRT particularly in South America (e.g., Curitiba and Bogota). These should be the models to replicate or adopt in Philippine cities rather than what local officials and their consultants propose and/or implement that are basically aberrations of the BRT concept.
–
On priority lanes for public transport
I am currently part of an International Research Group (IRG) involved in studies on bus priority. Yesterday, we had a meeting where one professor mentioned the importance of being able to clearly explain the advantages of having priority lanes for buses in order to improve their performance (i.e., number of passengers transported and improved travel times). There was a lively discussion about how the perception is for bike lanes while transit lanes have also been implemented for a long time now though with mixed results.
There are very familiar arguments vs. taking lanes away from cars or private motor vehicles and allocating them for exclusive use of public transport and bicycles. It may sound cliche but ‘moving people and not just cars’ is perhaps the simplest argument for priority lanes.
EDSA carousel buses lining up towards a station
Bike lane along Katipunan Avenue – is this a temporary thing? a fad because traffic is really not back to the old normal? Katipunan is infamous for being congested with cars generated by major trip generators in the area such as schools/universities and commercial establishments.
The bike lane along Commonwealth Avenue proves there’s just too much space for private motor vehicles. And with the Line 7 in the horizon, perhaps more lanes can be taken and made exclusive to road public transport. [Photo credit: Cenon Esguerra]
–
On the BRT gaining popularity
Bus rapid transit or BRT has been around at least since the 1970s when the first ‘real’ BRT systems went into operation in Curitiba, Brazil. Here’s an article presenting the current state of deployment of these systems in the US:
Duncan, I. (July 23, 2021) “Cities are turning to supercharged bus routes to more quickly and cheaply expand transit services,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/07/23/bus-routes-public-transit-brt/
“There are indications that BRT lines can promote some of the density long associated with rail routes. A new analysis of job and residential growth by researchers at the University of Arizona examined areas around BRT stations in 11 cities between 2013 and 2019. In each case, they found areas close to the stations accounted for a significant share of regional growth.”
The Philippines should have had its first BRT line more than a decade ago if the government had been decisive about it. The first opportunity was under the administration of Macapagal-Arroyo when it was first conceptualized for Cebu City under a UNDP project and picked up by the WB for implementation.* The next opportunity came under the Aquino administration when the Cebu BRT could have been one of those low-hanging fruits for public mass transportation. Now, the same project is nowhere near completion as the Duterte administration has less than a year before it bows out. Meanwhile, there are proposed BRT’s in Metro Manila and Davao that have yet to see the proverbial light of day. The EDSA carousel is supposed to morph into a BRT but has not become so and requires more tweaking for it to be one.
*[Note: The BRT that was supposedly implemented by the MMDA under its then Chair Bayani Fernando was not a BRT or even a BRT light. It is not even at the scale of the current EDSA carousel.]
Some observations and thoughts about the EDSA carousel
Much has been written or said about the EDSA Carousel. This is the express bus service the government implemented along Metro Manila’s busiest thoroughfare, EDSA or Circumferential Road 4. I feel that it is a decent effort from government to address the lack of supply to address the huge demand for public transport along EDSA considering that it serves to also distribute trips collected from major roads connecting to it. Is it an admission of something wrong in terms of the transport infrastructure along EDSA? Perhaps and from the current administration and DOTr. The admission of flaws certainly did not or will not come from the previous administrations that failed to address problems pertaining to Line 3 including maintenance and operations issues.
Buses queued before the Trinoma/North Avenue Station of the carousel. Overhead is the junction to the EDSA-MRT depot underneath Trinoma.
The overhead junction is the MRT’s branch to/from the depot
Buses queuing towards the North Avenue Station
The carousel stations are basically part of the MRT station with the platform located at ground level at the otherwise underutilized space that is the median island of EDSA. Access to the express buses are via the MRT stations as there are no other means for crossing to/from the carousel berths.
The carousel is an attempt to have a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along EDSA. It is perhaps the most practical solution to supplementing the already limited capacity of elevated Line 3 despite the continued operations of regular buses. The express bus service is not a new idea along EDSA since Line 3 had to compete with a BRT proposal (though it didn’t use the term BRT then) back in the 1990s. Insiders at NEDA relate that it was then President Fidel V. Ramos himself who allegedly ‘lobbied’ for the MRT instead of an elevated bus transit system. Unfortunately, the MRT proposed, constructed and now in operation is a light rail system like Line 1 and could not easily be upgraded to a heavy rail system like Line 2 or the future Line 7. The line is already problematic due to maintenance issues and the aging rolling stock. And there are questions regarding interoperability with Line 1 (definitely not interoperable with Line 7). So the grand central station currently under construction will really be a terminus for 3 lines as trains will not be able to pass through to other lines like how it is in other countries.
Will the carousel be a permanent fixture along EDSA? Perhaps. But it should be improved further for the convenience of commuters as well as for more efficient operations. The current buses being used are the not the right vehicles if capacity is to be maximized. Articulated buses would be necessary for this purpose. The current barriers should also be replaced with more appropriate and perhaps more clever designs partly for aesthetics but for the system to be safer and more functional in terms of spaces for passengers and vehicles.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 