Bus Rapid Transit: Picking Out the Pieces

American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR) 2025
A J H S S R J o u r n a l P a g e | 256
American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR)
e-ISSN : 2378-703X
Volume-09, Issue-04, pp-256-267
www.ajhssr.com
Research Paper Open Access
Bus Rapid Transit: Picking Out the Pieces
James T. Jarzab
(International Development, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, USA)
ABSTRACT: Various African, Latin American, and other cities have embraced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a key
component of their transit operations and infrastructural investments. Conceptually, BRT was operational in several cities
during the 1990s, with components deployed by transit operators worldwide. The BRT systems have reduced urban travel
times, transport costs and other social and economic aspects of the built urban environment. Despite implementation and
operational difficulties BRT expansion is underway in several metropolitan areas in the face of institutional and financial
constraints. Rapid urbanization plagues many developing countries, and urban infrastructure expansion generally lags
population growth in all but the most developed polities. In general, current resources need to be used more efficiently and
effectively. BRT has shown that the service form can successfully improve urban mobility and make inroads toward
mitigating congestion as well as, possibly, promoting energy conservation as well as reducing vehicular emissions. The
relatively high capital and operating costs of full specification facilities as are heavily promoted by purported BRT standards
appear-- in many instances-- unwarranted and capital excessive. An opportunity exists to identify alternative ways of
serving the needs of public transit customers. Historically, the burgeoning population in cities created value and spurred
economic development with urbanization and economic growth proceeding apace; urbanization in the “Global South” is
unfolding differently with populations and the demand for urban services exploding in advance of economic development.
Many polities and their urbanized areas can neither raise sufficient domestic revenue nor borrow adequate capital of any
source, thus being unable to make the investments needed to respond to inadequate urban infrastructure and services. These
metropolitan complexes require cost-effective and efficient commuting opportunities to better serve their constituents.
KEYWORDS: Bus, Effectiveness, Infrastructure, Operations, Traffic, Transit, Priority
I. INTRODUCTION
In retrospect, it is surprising that results of an earlier analysis should have taken so long to be brought
to publication. The delay was purely accidental; prepared to accompany a presentation at a major Intelligent
Transportation System conference, the initial paper covering bus signal priority (BSP) for rubber-tired vehicles
in transit revenue service in “Silicon Valley” never was published as intended. The sponsoring organization for
the conference determined that publishing full proceedings was not financially prudent and, as a result, only
presentation files were distributed to attendees.
The research on bus signal priority remains of interest, as BRT development has proceeded. Though
dated, the results continue to be valid. Technology has progressed to the point that, if anything, the actual
benefits today compared to those reported earlier are likely to prove functionally superior to the capabilities of
the current generation of traffic signal control and vehicle monitoring equipment. Therefore, this document has
been prepared taking into consideration some intervening research and addresses other aspects of BRT
technology while formally publishing the bus signal priority results.
The primary bus signal priority results reported in this paper with respect to mixed-traffic transit
operations are over twenty years old. However, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has been deployed extensively on a
worldwide basis, particularly in the "Global South". With capital still relatively scarce, efficiency and
effectiveness of government expenditure are the rules. BRT has fulfilled much of its promise to, in effect,
stretch the public sector transportation budget.
Early in the progression of economic thought, economists focused on the concept of society benefiting
from the cumulative behavior of the market. In other words, the cumulative selfish behavior of individuals
would result in the maximization of societal benefits. “Welfarism in this sense therefore requires making a
distinction between the information needed to establish the welfare of individuals (which might, of course,
depend on the welfare of others if people are altruistic), on which social welfare is assumed to depend, from
other information, which should be ignored on the ground that it does not affect any one, or at least does not
affect them in any relevant way”[1]
.
However, it became clear that the market— composed primarily of transactions for private goods—
while accounting for most economic activity did not, indeed, could not account for some goods and services as

well as related extra-market issues. Pure public goods have difficulty yielding revenue in a traditional manner
for retail and so private markets do not attain generally reach optimality[2]
. That said, pure public goods are
relatively rarely encountered. Public transit-- at least from the standpoint of most economists without a political
agenda-- is not in any sense a pure public good; the public good is generally available to all individuals whether
they have paid for it or not, and public transit operations traditionally charge fares.
Public transit was initially employed because urban development proved superior for most sectors of
economic activity except agriculture, and job creation drew populations to the cities. The overwhelming need
proved to be the expansion of the effective size of the urban area. Walking to distant intraurban destinations was
difficult and time consuming, other modes of transportation proved uneconomic for the masses, and
technological advancements made the economies of scale of public transportation attractive for investors, and
public transit utilities resulted.
Progressive political policies increasingly called for regulation of utilities, especially as industries that
were “natural monopolies” underwent wholesale consolidation[3]
. Over time the technologies for private
transportation allowed even lower middle-class households to own automobiles, often reducing the
attractiveness of urban public transit systems. Declining demand reduced the profitability of privately owned
public transit operators facing the contributing factor of inefficient regulatory practices delaying financial relief
for struggling operators, and the prospect of public transport service shutdown instigated government
involvement in efforts to resuscitate services perceived as lifelines for various segments of the population.
There are always members of society that will use a public good and will pay for it but there are also
members of society that will use the good though unable or unwilling to help pay for it; these are considered
“free riders”. There are others that pay for it but are unwilling or unable to use it. It may be appropriate to
consider this last group as customers as well. This final group of customers-- taxpayers and/or those otherwise
beyond the reach of the operator-- have quite different expectations for the service, especially with respect to
cost-effectiveness and efficiency, than those that regularly commute on public transit.
II. Infrastructure: Role of Investment
Infrastructure is often defined as something akin to the fundamental physical systems of an organized
unit of private or public enterprise; the term is commonly invoked when referring to the production of public
goods and quasi-public goods. Investment in infrastructure is often costly and capital-intensive but can be vital
to economic development. Projects related to infrastructure improvements may be funded publicly, privately, or
through a combination or hybrid construction. These projects may be diverse in nature, as well as vary in scale,
but they are commonly heavily publicized by their sponsors and promoted by those benefiting because of the
size of investment that is devoted to these projects and the commitment these projects represent[4]
.
This is true of most infrastructure and not limited to transportation; communication and power
transmission networks, sewage and potable water treatment facilities and-- to some extent-- school system
components and public investments of similar ilk are typically included. More than half of the world's
population now lives in cities. Cities are progenitors of growth and need to be livable and inclusive. Cities
attract and foster the further development of businesses while offering the prospect of efficient delivery of
acceptable transport, housing, potable water, and sanitation. These businesses generate jobs and often,
consequently, tend to provide an improved quality of life for citizens.
One of the most interesting aspects of infrastructure is that-- even in developed economies-- the
infrastructural project scope is often characterized by numerous small project elements undertaken by qualified
contractors for a prescribed price. Historically the public sector is the primary benefactor of highly visible
infrastructure[5]
, though the actual delivery of infrastructure can involve many resources and multiple providers
over an extended period. These tend to use technology commensurate with the contractor’s capabilities, having
oversight and coordination handled by project management firms specifically engaged for the task; the results
are intended to yield a complete project of value to the sponsor and its clients within the resource limits of the
project. Financing infrastructure directly or with one or more public–private partnerships (PPPs) of various
types for utilities are generally subject to public oversight (exercised by reviewing appointed or elected
authorities)[6]
.
Infrastructures provide networks both physical and ephemeral and can generate unanticipated
outcomes. There are many constituencies that might be adversely affected by infrastructural project
implementation along with those that benefit both in the short- and long-term; all must be given due
consideration in the planning, programming, implementation and operation processes. For the most part,
beneficiaries are predominately in urban areas and enjoy improved access to public services, while those more
adversely affected live and work in rural communities[7]
.
As an example, a rationale for discussing public goods is that one element-- the Global Positioning
System (GPS)-- is a significant component of an application potentially beneficial to BRT and a public good.

The GPS project was initiated by the United States in 1973 to overcome the limitations of previous navigation
systems. Ironically influenced by a military program known as TRANSIT, since then it has developed into a
worldwide radio navigation system with a practical capability of permitting users to locate positions on Earth
with an error in accuracy of less than one meter.
GPS is freely available for civilian use as a common good and is owned and operated by the United
States government, which reserves the right to modify the service or its availability at any time for any reason or
no reason at all. Though there is generally a capital cost associated with the acquisition of equipment used to
access and process GPS data, this equipment often provides multiple functions to the user. The transmissions
from GPS satellites are freely available worldwide; these transmissions cannot generally be received in tunnel
sections, though electronic technologies exist that can provide artificial signals in most “broadcast blind”
environments. GPS information has allowed the development of low-cost fleet and traffic management tools far
beyond mere positional status.
Change is continuous. Despite persistent change over time, much of the land form and many of the
natural core characteristics and values remain and are expected to appear unaltered. Thus, the contradictions of
change and consistency cause some to ponder the value of development even though the historical record is
clearly in favor of change.
2.1 Public Transit
Most public-- not necessarily in terms of ownership but with respect to intended clientele-- transport
systems operate along predetermined routes with set boarding and alighting points corresponding to a
prearranged timetable, though these boarding and alighting locations have been established possibly absent
physical improvements[8]
. The timetable is generally thought of being for the convenience of potential users, but
its primary purpose is for the service operator to schedule personnel and equipment. Public transport trips, in
general, include the customer partaking in multiple modes of travel like initially accessing or transferring
between services on foot with timetables providing information essential for attracting customers; often these
transfers result in unappealing travel delays to customers while sometimes inflating operating revenues.
Public transit operators tend to focus on several criteria to estimate the usability of different types of
public transport and its overall appeal. The criteria applied are speed, comfort, safety, cost, proximity of service
to points of travel origin, timeliness and/or frequency of service and point-to-point efficiency. Operating speeds
are often predetermined and enforced by labor contracts; bus operations in mixed traffic on arterial streets, for
example, travel at speeds about half that of accompanying general traffic flows[9]
.
Motive power for public transport has varied over time. Waterborne services used wind and biological
power sources including human, equine and bovine effort. Electric motors continue to provide power to
ferrous-tired vehicles (and some buses) from wayside electrified rails and wired sources. Hydrocarbon fueled
engines are currently the primary source of energy for public transit operation, while some fuel cell pilot
programs have been implemented and a variety of prototypes using alternative fuels or energy storage have been
attempted.
Today, many public transit services worldwide are provided by diesel powered motor coaches or buses,
with most of these operating on highways in mixed traffic. These vehicles stop at designated service points,
usually disgorging and accepting passengers at curbside if operating on highways. Other services include the
earliest public transport types, ships and ferries, operating on water courses; in urbanized areas, these vessels
dock at dedicated terminals.
Though not generally recognized, such ferrous-tired operations-- the hallmark of rail services-- of
various types also stop at designated service points, and if electrified and grade-separated most having fully- or
partially improved stations that provide level boarding opportunities and limited passenger amenities; many
streetcar operations forego level boarding. Electric streetcars-- in fact, most ferrous-tired vehicles-- are often
capable of carrying heavier passenger loads than buses, primarily because their passenger cabin is larger;
whether these load factors materialize has a great deal to do with market area characteristics, service efficiency
and effectiveness and hence the long-term viability of the service. Ferrous-tired vehicles tend to take more time
to start and stop than rubber-tired vehicles and are infamous for the devastating effects of their collisions.
2.2 Rapid Transit
Rapid Transit is generally understood to provide public transportation at overall speeds faster than available
transit alternatives; often, the same can be said of all practical alternatives. It should be noted that, for certain
trips in some market areas like lower and midtown Manhattan of New York City, walking may be faster than
using rapid transit for travel between origin and destination pairs[10]
. Rapid transit systems are often on
exclusive rights-of-way that are designated as being or are physically inaccessible to through traffic by
pedestrians and/or other vehicles. The designation of a service as rapid transit is neither technology specific nor
dependent; however, certain types of rapid transit have elicited archetypal responses from the public and are
reflected in the success for attracting capital[11]
.

Cost-effective services in one environment may prove prohibitively expensive if deployed in another;
there is no technology application that is appropriate under all circumstances, no matter the assurances of
industry salespeople. Line haul service provision can benefit from exclusive right of way in one instance but
may not subsequently prove either cost-effective or efficient in general. Nostalgia is a poor reason to choose
technology.
Rapid transit service was established to provide efficient and cost-effective high-capacity public
transportation within cities and metropolitan areas, moving large numbers of people quickly over relatively short
distances[12]
; rapid transit was particularly attractive to residents and public officials in chronically overcrowded
urban areas. Although anachronistic in some respects, rapid transit not only served existing high density urban
areas but in some metropolitan areas helped create them. Several urban areas that experienced significant
population growth-- and some, decline-- after the Second World War pursued the construction of rapid transit.
Technologies initially considered state-of-the-art and developed in the 19th
Century continue to enjoy advocates
in the Twenty-first, and support industries have thrived accordingly[13]
. Innovation in the public transit industry
is often vendor drive, perhaps an indication of the inherent conservative nature of management in what might be
considered a large “cottage industry”.
2.3.1 Rail Rapid Transit (RRT)
Rail rapid transit (RRT) is a type of public transit service that gives the appearance-- or actually is-- operating on
connected lengths of iron or steel within an urbanized area that has exclusive right of way below, above, and/or
on the surface and so is capable of relatively high average operating speed; the capability is subject to
modification based on operational rules. As with most transit, the name may— under certain circumstances--
prove to be a misnomer. For functional reasons, RRT can be distinguished from BRT based on adopted
technology, though many similarities exist[14]
. For example, in “Silicon Valley” Caltrans sometimes found it
expedient to use bus signal priority software subroutines to manage light rail signal priority requests with traffic
signals in its jurisdiction.
As noted, RRT can have some characteristics like BRT; Paris, Montreal and Mexico City use rubber
instead of ferrous tires and vehicle guidance may be provided by adjacent features of the infrastructure. The
distinguishing aspect appears to be that vehicles in RRT configuration are limited to the support infrastructure as
usually provided by ferrous tires and vehicle guidance trackage as well as the ability to access electric power of
appropriate characteristics; BRT vehicles may be operated much like motor coaches outside the environment of
the rapid transit facility while RRT vehicles are typically technological captives to the facility. Adopting this
definition variant puts all monorails-- including, for example, the types exemplified by the Seattle Monorail and
Wuppertaler Schwebebahn-- in the rail category.
2.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Research on BRT as the solution to urban transport problems in developing countries— particularly
urban transport problems in the “Global South”-- it is obvious that a well-connected consortium of organizations
is pushing an agenda, although unclear for what purpose. The Institute for Transportation & Development
Policy {ITDP} has adopted one of the latest standards— that is, one among many proposed for the purpose--
with respect to BRT. The ITDP “standard”[15]
is also a definition of what could comprise features of an effective
BRT facility, at least as endorsed by an international advisory group. It cannot be claimed that strict adherence
to the standard will guarantee a successful transportation facility operation, nor that failure to implement all
aspects of the standard will preclude successful transportation facility operation. However, the ITDP standard
provides a reasonable starting point for evaluating features of BRT.
The BRT Standard has been criticized as a planning tool lacking context sensitivity. There are divided
opinions on its use. It may be unfair to criticize the "Standard" out of hand; the document carries no legal
standing and is, at best, a guideline with many elements having general applicability. Many professionals have
noted that there are a variety of appropriate solutions to upgrade public transit service, and the publication of a
"Standard" is no reason to forgo such improvements. The "Standard" may motivate some urban areas to
enhance transit within prevailing financial and geo-political conditions.
2.2.3 Fundamentals
As noted above, the ITDP "Standard" has much to offer as guidance and should be utilized as a
reference tool by practitioners and the public; however, it does not necessarily represent a set of hard and fast
rules for BRT facility development. One of the interesting aspects of the ITDP position is that spending more
will generate superior benefits. There is a plethora of caveats that comes with that pronouncement; there is a
basic assumption in the standard that a project sponsor has more to spend as an option and that such expenditure
will result in sufficient benefits to justify the expenditure. In this case the investment capital in the "Global
South" is particularly dear, and investment in BRT is still an expenditure of scarce resources and only one of

many competing demands for capital resources. In addition, the "Standard" considers the long-term
maintenance costs of capital improvements; life cycle costing-- the procedure of compiling all the expenses the
asset will incur over its lifespan-- allows for a better understanding of the cost to operate, and possibly renew,
investments made in infrastructure[16]
.
Treating these components as suggestions is an appropriate approach to urban infrastructure provision
in the metropolises of the "Global South"; this position is likely prudent in all applications. If feasible, many of
the “Standard’s” features can enhance the customer travel experience, but– if considered-- their provision must
be supported by evidence of positive benefit/cost relationships prior their inclusion as a parameter of a BRT
facility. Fiscal integrity can be a paramount consideration; sponsors should determine whether a decision is
worthwhile by aggregating the potential rewards expected from an installation and deducting the associated
costs.
Right of way management is very important and redolent with trade-offs. Dedicated bus-only lanes
may make for faster travel but cannot ensure that buses are never delayed due to traffic congestion.
Enforcement of BRT access exclusivity is expensive and in certain instances may be unavoidable.
Technological improvements in traffic signal management can be employed to provide virtual bus lanes for BRT
operation where property acquisition is difficult, and options are limited. It is helpful to the public to rely on
commonplace traffic control devices and signage to avoid accidental right-of-way violations as well as the
confusion resulting from unfamiliar traffic management techniques that lead to traffic congestion.
Providing exclusive corridors away from vehicle curb-side parking areas minimizes opportunities to
coordinate advanced traffic management techniques and is a somewhat puzzling aspect of the "Standard".
Space for passenger facilities are at a premium in most urban areas. BRT alignments that incorporate far-side
boarding areas at traffic signals with bus bulges allow space for shelters, in addition to sales machinery for fare
instruments as well as passenger information devices. In addition, space needs to be available for transfers
among vehicles and ancillary activities like shopping. The service design should be reflected in the station
layout, not the reverse.
Prohibiting turns for traffic across the bus lane reduces delays caused to buses by turning traffic;
prohibiting such turns is a measure for moving buses through intersections although possibly an interruption of
general traffic flow. It is important to recognize that mixed traffic operations often suffer when such schemes
are implemented. Prohibiting delivery drivers from blocking traffic benefits all vehicles in the traffic platoon.
This, of course, may not be a consideration in exclusive facility operation, though at grade crossings may not be
fully eliminated depending on the facility design and available financial resources. However, queue jump lanes-
- apart from those distant from boarding areas-- have generated mixed experiences and are of relatively low
cost-effectiveness.
Where practical, the station platform should be at level with the floor of the bus for quick and easy
boarding. This may also make BRT more accessible for wheelchairs, disabled passengers, strollers and carts,
facilitating boarding and alighting with minimal delays. It must be noted that such a modification may make it
difficult for the BRT vehicles to service “last mile” destinations. A major advantage of BRT is the ability of
vehicles to leave the exclusive facility and serve local destinations in “branch” configurations. Given the
financial difficulties experienced in the urban "Global South", branch infrastructures is hardly a cost-effective or
efficient improvement strategy to pursue.
2.2.4 Fare Treatment
Transit fares are problematic, and peculiar to local norms. Access to transportation in urban areas
everywhere, but particularly in the "Global South", needs to be affordable, reliable and safe. While
transportation access can enhance opportunities for employment and other public services, the viability of these
services needs to be addressed[17]
. Using public transport as a mechanism for income redistribution is rife with
difficulties and an ill-advised welfare strategy that often distorts labor markets; it is also possible to seriously
distort economic development objectives and better mechanisms exist and are more effective. To be clear: for
the most part, the fare structure will in a large measure define the BRT system income; however, advertising and
sponsorship agreements have been proven to raise revenue. Careful consideration must be taken when defining
the fare structure to have a cost-efficient system that considers the purchasing capacity of the users. Fare
structures have been used as mechanisms of income redistribution; such use is quite inefficient and though
sometimes politically appealing are ineffective mechanisms for attempting to achieve social equity.
This is particularly true of the "Global South". Urban areas often lack adequate transportation
infrastructure as well as basic services like potable water, sewer, environmentally sensitive waste disposal and
inferior housing[18]
. Even so, the private sector has often supplemented public investment when market
opportunities exist; more importantly, private capital is often linked to entrepreneurial activity. For polities
experiencing the commodity trap-- where managerial skills and investment opportunities tend to be similarly
scarce-- public-private partnerships that suit local circumstances are attractive approaches to public service
provision.

Fare payment at the station, instead of on the bus, can minimize the delay caused by passengers waiting
to pay on board, though technologies are substantially reducing delays attributable to fare collection activities.
However, any prepayment mechanism will likely be similarly effective, particularly if accompanied by efficient
fare payment verification. Discounted pass programs fall into that category of fare purchases. Unfortunately,
fare evasion is commonplace; it is advisable to ensure that neither service provision nor financial security suffer
due to fare enforcement actions or the lack thereof. The ability of a public entity to act as revenue and safety
guarantor brings benefits to many aspects of public transportation operations.
Fare levels are a separate issue[19]
. LAMTA set their rapid bus fares equivalent to local bus fare levels,
reasoning that that the Board believed basic services should function as well as does the “Rapid” service. In
most instances, price differentials as for premium services can be implemented for BRT if the customer values
the difference it offers from basic service— product differentiation-- and the value distinction can be exploited
by the service provider; much like produce, the value of the service disappears if not used by a customer
because unsold seats have zero value. In simple terms, the cost function is a straight line since virtually all the
costs to produce the service has been incurred; that is, once placed in service, the marginal cost for the service is
zero.
2.2.5 Technology and Design
ITDP appears to consider the above to be the “BRT Basics”; and to a great extent these foundational
elements for BRT are consistent with other standards or guidelines proposed by different organizations, though
other components ensuring that BRT is well designed for both transit operations and passengers benefit certainly
exist. BRT corridor designs are best predicated by defining the specific services that should function with the
assistance of the BRT infrastructure. BRT capacity and performance is a balance between supply of service and
capacity of the roadway, stations, fare systems, policing and emergency services and--importantly-- demand for
transportation between service points. If passengers do not know how to use the system and cannot stay
informed about the operating status of the BRT, then no manner of good design will enhance its operation.
Communicating with passengers about the system is vital for a BRT corridor to be effective. BRT cannot be
considered a standalone project; it must be perceived as an integral component of the transportation system and
function accordingly.
BRT exists within the realm of many other infrastructural systems in urbanized areas (transportation
and otherwise) and it must interact with them to increase transportation and, hence, job access for the public and
ensure people can reach the BRT and, through it, their destinations. Though costs for the various project
elements are relatively commonplace, and can be programmed accordingly, technological risks are greater and
play an increased role in the uncertainty associated with the financial aspects of the implementation of the
infrastructure. There is an even more confounding aspect of the interplay, some of which arises from the
realization that certain features for enhancing the value of BRT are not unique to rapid transit applications but
can be applied to public transit in general.
Interestingly, there is plenty of evidence that BRT can function effectively without overt reliance on
any specific technology[20]
. This provides opportunities for the competitive bidding of equipment, both mobile
and stationary. What is important for a successful BRT implementation is that it functions in a way beneficial to
customers while being financially and operationally sustainable for the sponsoring organization.
2.2.6 Guided Buses
The ITDP included various features in its BRT "Standard". It also identifies certain subsidiary features.
While the ITDP BRT standard considers the features beyond the basic, they may prove critical to the viability of
the BRT operation. There are many features that go beyond the basics, like control centers and long-range
plans. These are important for all public transit operations, not just BRT. While their cost may be more easily
buried in a BRT budget, any metropolitan area capable of supporting BRT can make excellent use of a regional
transit operations center.
Similarly, if a metropolitan system uses multiple service providers-- public and/or private-- facilities
should be open to the use of these providers and managed by a central control facility. Logically that center
should avoid operating in a parochial manner. A successful model for several aspects of this type of operation
might be considered Great Britain’s “Network Rail”.
Buses that operate in mixed traffic move slowly in urban environments because the services they
provide were designed-- not for speed maximization-- but to shorten passenger walking distance, increase
service coverage, and avoid buses bunching along the route; most transit services providing transportation in
mixed traffic operate at speeds significantly below the general traffic flow, not purely out of convenience but as
a result of historic choices among alternatives or misplaced priorities embedded in labor agreements. Rail
vehicles operating similar services perform in similar fashions. Service designs are not intrinsically tied to
vehicle operating characteristics, except that older technologies tend to exhibit greater limitations. Rail based

services-- either self-propelled or otherwise-- have no intrinsic advantage over rubber tired, self-propelled
vehicles operating on concrete pavement under similar traffic conditions, as technology has intervened.
There are also a few applications of guided buses; the technology has been used where the transit
vehicle might encounter tight horizontal clearances. Variations of these mechanical and electronic types have
been in revenue service with amusement park attractions as well as for certain European and Australian services.
Guided buses can share road space with general traffic along most conventional roads. Guidance systems can
be physical (Adelaide, Australia and Cambridgeshire, England) or electronic (a Global Positioning System
(GPS) system in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, United States and an optical guidance system formerly in Caen,
France); GPS has widely been used in demonstrations of lane assist technology, particularly where the vehicles
are to be operated in lanes barely wider than the vehicles themselves and signal reception is optimal. There are
four global satellite navigation systems currently in operation: Beidou (China), Galileo (EU), GLONASS
(Russian Federation) and GPS (USA). Many rely on similar frequencies, and receivers capable of using
multiple systems have been produced. While these and other regional systems vary in expected accuracy, all
provide positional information of sufficient accuracy to locate a transit vehicle.
It should be noted that communications with such transmissions may be lost under certain
circumstances, and satellite-guided vehicles often require additional technological assistance to operate at
tolerances obtainable with mechanical guidance. Even so, the overall expense of such GPS technologies has
proven superior to the somewhat higher maintenance costs associated with mechanical systems and considerably
more flexible in accommodating route adjustments. Given the number of manufacturers in the marketplace,
guidance and location functions as noted below should be attainable from several vendors[21]
.
2.2.7 Bus Signal Priority (BSP)
Because of the limited industry experience with technology, a major purpose for this paper-- in fact, a
primary concern-- is to highlight twenty-year-old findings-- at the time, groundbreaking-- of potential utility for
BRT in the "Global South" and elsewhere. These findings are of potential interest because the findings are only
of import if acted upon, and the same dearth of infrastructural capital that effect BRT deployment restricts the
number of traffic signals operating in the "Global South". The ITDP BRT "Standard" considers the operational
aspects of bus signal priority to be of little practical value or, perhaps, unproven. Regardless, it is important to
explore the findings of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and other transit applications
with respect to BSP operations on arterial streets under revenue conditions along major arterial corridors[22]
.
Technological improvements, though most not initially intended for transit, abound in the marketplace.
There are numerous technologies that allow the tracking of vehicles, access control, and fee collection; these
technologies or variants thereof can facilitate access to BRT facilities by both private and public service
providers and enhance facility safety and management in the bargain. Guided vehicles, as such, are neither
necessary nor sufficient attributes for a BRT designation, though they offer considerable enhancements to public
transportation operations in general if conditions are appropriate. Regardless of the operating procedures
employed, all communications— wired and wireless-- should be encrypted and otherwise protected in public
transport operations. The latency introduced to the communications stream by encryption-- typically minor in
duration-- is far outweighed by the significant security wired and wireless encryption provides.
As previously noted, buses that operate in mixed traffic tend to be slow in urbanized environments
because the services they provide were designed in a manner that was intended to shorten passenger walking
distance and to minimize bus bunching; most transit vehicles operating in revenue service offer transportation in
mixed traffic operating at speeds significantly below that exhibited by the general traffic flow as a result of
choosing options that reduce gross operating speeds. A scheme like connection protection uses real time data to
examine the operating status of transit vehicle, holding one transit vehicle in order for a traveler on another to
make a successful transfer; this and other practices of the transit industry slow service delivery at the expense of
revenue and ridership and become a practice simply because transit historically cannot maintain schedules with
the stochastic aspects of traffic flow and passenger demand[23]
.
In the 1990s there was a substantial planning initiative to hold transit vehicles to facilitate customer
transfers, so long as closely timed transfers were possible according to published schedules. Obviously, if
services run on time connection protection is not needed. Indeed, research indicates that many existing and
potential customers find lack of schedule adherence and slow operation to be major obstacles to transit use.
Connection protection would only further delay transit travel and as such the program fails to address at least
one major problem from the customer standpoint.
The actual problem is inherently the inability to increase transit vehicle operating speed while
promoting schedule adherence. As proposed with connection protection the functional aspects of the solution
remain in control of the transit provider, despite the negative effect of the Connection Protection on service
performance and overall customer satisfaction. Connection Protection quietly disappeared from the U.S.
Federal Transit Administration planning agenda as alternative technological approaches began to show promise,
particularly when wireless communication advances continued to offer opportunities for improving transit

operating efficiencies. Most transit sponsors fail to see speed deficiencies as a problem needing to be addressed
for their long-term survival, a glaring management omission. Numerous transit operators viewed speed
enhancements as minor benefits from the technology, and saw minimal time, revenue, and ridership
enhancements as a result.
The purpose of employing BSP for buses is to allow the transit vehicles to maintain their position in the
traffic signal generated platoon without harming general traffic operation. From an application standpoint traffic
control signals are used to assign vehicle or pedestrian right-of-way in a manner that is equitable and facilitates
overall traffic operations; properly designed, BSP need not interfere with that objective. However, the traffic
signal operating software in a BRT application is integral to the BSP process.
There is an important distinction to be made with respect to modifying traffic signal cycles. BSP, like
emergency vehicle preemption (EVP), does not require a dedicated transit lane to be effective. Transit vehicles
can operate successfully in a mixed traffic environment with BSP-- as explained in the following paragraphs--
and do so without adversely affecting general traffic or other transit operations; EVP is a lesser concern because
of societal priorities. Obviously, with capital funding for traffic control equipment in short supply, priority can
be effective if provided by personnel directing traffic; there is substantial evidence that priority for transit and
preemption for first responders and important personages was a historic responsibility for traffic personnel.
The two most common and beneficial BSP treatments follow. The normal vehicle identification
mechanism (as only authorized vehicles generate calls for priority) is to have a transponder identify the BRT
vehicle’s presence to the traffic controller prior to its arrival at the intersection. If detected during the green
phase, and the green phase is nearing termination, then the green phase is extended. If the detection occurs
prior to a green phase the green time is recalled more quickly than normal. Though there are other means of
providing priority through the modification of signal cycles, situationally they occur less frequently and are thus
less beneficial. BSP can also be employed to facilitate service operations at transportation centers.
According to some traffic engineers, it is possible that EVP may be more disruptive to traffic signal
operations than BSP. However, the policy decisions accompanying the application of EVP and BSP are of
obvious importance to the public regardless of operating environment. For the tests in Silicon Valley the
determination was made before any implementation to avoid BSP interference with pedestrian signal operations
or EVP. Regardless, traffic control software in common use can mitigate the most adverse effects attributable to
BSP on general traffic operations. Of course, were BSP to be ineffective for transit operations the discussion
would be moot.
VTA tested two technologies for BSP in the early 2000s-- and even earlier tested optical systems in
preemption on the County expressway system-- on the arterial roadway known as the El Camino Real in Santa
Clara County using traffic signal operating Caltrans’ C8 software. These technologies were chosen by Caltrans.
The first technology tested was based on point detection, where existing traffic signal advanced
detection loops and buses were equipped with short-range radio frequency identification (RFID) technology
based on short range radio wave transmission to identify buses that were to be granted priority; RFID
technology has been commercially available since the 1970s, and the technology had been deployed in revenue
service previously in both Los Angeles and suburban Chicago.
Approximately 200 meters-- actual distance varied by traffic signal installation, and the coaxial cable
used for the loops is rated at a maximum effective range of 330 meters-before reaching the signalized
intersection buses equipped with an undercarriage mounted transmitter would trigger a request for priority with
the traffic signal being approached, which would then check its operating parameters and, if appropriate, would
modify traffic signal operation to provide the bus with priority.
The second detection technology in the test-- with the same C8 controller software-- used GPS-based
technology that creates user defined detection trapezoids of approximately 300 meters by thirty meters activated
by suitably equipped buses. As the installation of equipment in both instances was intended as a proof of
concept, data collection was proactively monitored but limited to the corridor under evaluation; system
performance was monitored using prevailing VTA procedures.
It should be noted that optical systems have been tested and proven effective. Though effective, optical
systems are not efficient; that is, at typical detection ranges optical systems are relatively inaccurate with respect
to distance.
VTA already used an Orbital GPS-based vehicle management system independent of the bus BSP
systems that allowed verification of the operating data reported. It is important that independent performance
verification existed, as vendor integrity was frequently questioned by competitors. Only transit operations were
used to modify signal operation except for EVP and pedestrian requests being protected; arterial conditions were
otherwise unchanged and all other traffic signal functions used existing traffic signal hardware and software.
Traffic signal control hardware commonly has electronic inputs that separately identify EVP and BSP requests;
the traffic signal software handles competing requests for attention based on its own operating parameters.
In the first test corridor BSP improved operating speeds from 12.3 miles per hour to 15.1 miles per
hour. In the second test corridor BSP improved operating speeds from 10.5 miles per hour to 13.6 miles per

hour. These corridors were typical for arterial operations though differed from each other markedly in terms of
traffic volume, transit patronage and other characteristics. In both test corridors the return on investment from
operating savings was less than two years, including system maintenance expenses; arterial mixed traffic
operating speeds in both corridors were unaltered because of BSP as were overall traffic incident rates. Transit
ridership increased in each corridor though system revenue changes were not significant. The passenger
response was positive, and complaints from other vehicle operators failed to materialize.
At minimum, arterial BRT operation was benign with respect to rapid transit success or failure. There
is strong evidence that the staged completion of major BRT facilities could be a practical alternative to project
delays caused by right-of-way acquisition difficulties and other facility development reasons. The value of BSP
can hardly be considered inconsequential, although the details of each application and the magnitude of benefit
are unique.
However, this is not to say that all BSP applications are equal in effect; a traffic signal strategy that
facilitates the movement of either buses or streetcars through traffic signal-controlled intersections is available
in many configurations. Note that, although priority and preemption are often used synonymously, they are in
fact different processes applied for different purposes. Utilizing similar equipment, BSP modifies the normal
signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicle operations, while EVP interrupts the normal
traffic signal cycle progression for special purposes like approaching trains at grade crossings or to allow “first
responders” relatively unhindered travel to the site of an emergency.
Affected vehicle operators commonly report subpar detection range performance from optical EVP and
BSP equipment-- a traditionally used technology-- and lack of detection range consistency; point detection and
GPS- initiated preemption and BSP applications tend to provide superior performance.
It is essential to recognize that current computer-aided intersection modeling tools will understate BSP
system benefits if totaled over the full extent of a BRT corridor. Depending on many factors including-- though
not limited to-- length of traffic corridor, signal interconnects, number of stops, boardings/alightings, number of
signalized intersections, the BSP treatments and their benefits applied by the traffic signals as well as vehicle
detection systems deployed in the BRT corridor may be understated twenty-five to 200 percent as opposed to
benefits resulting from BSP at corridor intersections alone.
The synergy of corridor-wide BSP deployment with respect to bus speed is considerable; however, the
actual experienced synergy depends on the length of corridor, service demand with respect to boardings and
alightings, the features of the controller software paradigm and the detection technology employed in the
corridor. Many of the earliest applications of BSP were designed to maximize adherence to exogenously set
schedules and thus were less likely to generate indicators of speed benefits and, ultimately, the attraction of
additional demand for the service. Interestingly, the increase in speed combined with the schedule adherence
capabilities were determined to result in substantial operating cost savings.
2.2.8 Last Mile
Generally, “last mile” refers to the design and provision of travel services from a public transportation
node to a passenger’s destination. The last mile for public transit describes the final delivery of customers to the
acceptable proximity of their destinations after completing the line haul portion of their trip.
Stop spacing, network structure, travel time, service reliability and frequency depend on assumptions about how
far customers will be willing to walk. Last mile services tend to be costly to transit providers as they are to
delivery services; historically, the “last mile” for transit was a walk of much less than a mile, often a distance of
approximately one quarter of a mile. This distance is a function of perceived customer convenience, as potential
customers often have alternatives to transit use. Generally, “last mile” refers to the design and provision of
travel services from a public transportation node to a passenger’s destination.
As in several industries, the cost of installing and maintaining associated capital infrastructure with
respect to the last mile can only be amortized over that small group of customers in a neighborhood, compared
to a plethora of customers served by the main service "trunks" of the network. There are many obstacles to cost-
effective service delivery including cost recovery, operational efficiency and infrastructure adequacy. This
difficulty has often caused mature rail rapid transit services to reduce branch line operations as cost saving
measures. Bus systems tend to react in a similar fashion; in most cases, the last mile bus service can be effective
with minimal support infrastructure if operating on schedule.
In theory, buses heading to BRT facilities can collect passengers in neighborhoods and supplement
mainline capacity on the BRT facility itself, avoiding much of the friction of passenger transfers between bus
and rail. If allowed to use a BRT facility, independent operators can therefore concentrate on serving
neighborhoods where they may have natural operating advantages and/or fewer competitors.
Where privately owned transit operators compete with publicly owned service providers, the publicly
owned service providers tend to frown on such action as private operators tend to select as being the best or
most desirable service areas; that is, they have an incentive to serve more lucrative areas. This is not a problem
unique to BRT services.

III. SIGNAL PRIORITY MODELING RESULTS
The data generated by BSP equipment functioning on El Camino Real in Santa Clara County provides
interesting evidence of the peculiar benefices of signal priority[24]
. At the time-- the first decade of the Twenty-
first Century-- there still were many unanswered questions about BRT and the role the mode might play in the
mix of services available to the transit industry.
Santa Clara County comprised the core of “Silicon Valley”. It had a population of over one million,
was home to numerous high technology companies, hosted three major universities and a broad range of
communities including those of highest income and lowest income (often in proximity). The tests were run on
arterials with some of the highest Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in the region.
The determination was made to present the data analysis as daily bidirectional benefit to operations for
an average trip. The traffic signals in the analysis areas were coordinated, and signal operation was optimized
prior to assessing bus signal priority operation in revenue service. Zones I and II were equipped with RFID
technologies where vehicles were detected as they traversed existing coaxial cable detection loops. Zone III
utilized GPS detection paired with two different signal controller models running different-- but functionally
similar-- priority subroutines.
Both Caltrans and the City of San Jose, California managed signal corridors within their respective
jurisdictions. Caltrans managed traffic signals were generally operating beyond downtown San Jose, while the
City of San Jose managed traffic signals within the downtown area, using more advanced signal hardware and
software. Not surprisingly, BSP proved effective regardless of any operational differences among the systems.
3.1 Statistical Analysis: Zone I and Zone II Combined
These zones extend from east to west along El Camino Real; the corridor runs along the far western
end of El Camino Real in Santa Clara County, and all but the easternmost intersections are outside the corporate
limits of San Jose. The corridor extends from Race Street to Castro Street, and abutting development becomes
predominantly commercial moving from east to west. The arterial cross-section of El Camino Real varies but at
the time of the demonstration the roadway configuration was of minimum design volume of 40,000 ADT. Bus-
only lanes were not incorporated in the roadway design; except for BSP functionality traffic signal operation and
hardware configurations were unaltered, even at the queue jump lane location. Dual function detector cards
replaced single function detector cards in controller cabinets, but detector loops were otherwise unaltered.
Traffic signal management was performed by Caltrans District 4; the hardware and software employed in each
zone were identical. Zone One has two queue jump lanes that were found to provide little benefit to time
savings, and Zone Two had no queue jump lanes.
Vehicles serving VTA Route 22 were not provided with priority, while vehicles serving VTA Route 522
were given priority. The following statistical model presents the results of a simple linear regression. Note that
the variable names have been altered from those found in the original analysis to ease understanding, and while
TET is a continuous variable BSP is a binary variable:
Dependent Variable: Trip Elapsed Time (TET)
Independent Variable: Priority (BSP)
Sample Size: 1356
R2
: .11713856
(TET) = 3726.4058 – 689.25385(BSP)
T and F statistics are significant with P values <.0001 although it is likely some key variables have not been
included in the model. While multivariate applicability is indicated, at the time of demonstration resources for
more detailed modeling were unavailable.
3.2 Statistical Analysis: Zone III
The corridor from west to east extends from Race Street along Santa Clara St. through downtown San
Jose to Capitol and south to, and abutting development becomes predominantly commercial moving from east to
west. The arterial cross-section varies but at the time of the demonstration the roadway configuration was of
minimum design volume of 20,000 ADT, increasing as the corridor extends eastward. Bus-only lanes were not
incorporated in the roadway design; apart from BSP functionality, traffic signal operation and hardware
configurations were unaltered. Traffic signal management was performed by Caltrans District 4 and the City of
San Jose Department of Transportation, each maintaining their own equipment. San Jose used dissimilar
hardware and software from Caltrans in Zone III although functional parameters were similar; regardless, the
detector equipment was identical. Zone III has no queue jump lanes.

Vehicles serving VTA Route 22 were not provided with priority, while vehicles serving VTA Route 522
were given priority. The following statistical model presents the results of a simple linear regression. Note that
the variable names have been altered from those found in the original analysis to ease understanding, and while
TET is a continuous variable BSP is a binary variable:
Dependent Variable: Trip Elapsed Time (TET)
Independent Variable: Priority (BSP)
Sample Size: 1394
R2
: .33793625
(TET) = 1406.3572 – 323.42392(BSP)
T and F statistics are significant with P values <.0001 although it is likely some key variables have not been
included in the model. While multivariate applicability is indicated, at the time of demonstration resources for
more detailed modeling were unavailable.
IV. CONCLUSION
BRT is considered a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and efficient service. Like
rail rapid transit, facilities vary based on local needs, including financial capabilities to handle both capital and
operating expenses. There are many ways to evaluate infrastructure, and interested individuals have an opinion
on the purpose, effectiveness and limits of any aspect of such projects. BRT, as an infrastructural element, is
operating or in development in cities large and small[25]
. Some are components of networks; many are smaller,
corridor-based projects. BRT is offering hope to the residents of the urban "Global South". Clearly, “Silicon
Valley” is not typical of the conditions found in the “Global South”; however, as a test bed for the technology
the location is quite appropriate.
Interestingly, BRT harkens back to the aspirations of many professionals that were urged to get the
most benefit possible from public expenditures. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) is a term that was
once a mantra for transportation professionals in the United States, at least for a short period of time. A set of
strategies focused on operational improvements to maximize the safety, mobility, and reliability of existing
transportation infrastructure without adding significant new capacity, TSM was later to bear the undeserved
sobriquet of “too small to matter”. When investment funds are difficult to come by, the opportunity to apply
BRT and use BSP as TSM should rather be interpreted as “too substantive to miss”. Most metropolitan areas are
faced with antiquated or otherwise inadequate infrastructure and services as the population exceeds the ability to
deliver services that urban centers need for economic development.
Several researchers have been intrigued with the potential of signal priority to benefit the public transit
industry. Though not conclusive, there is evidence that benefits calculated through intersection modeling may
significantly under forecast benefits from BSP in corridor deployments. Not all aspects of BRT are supported
by interested parties; indeed, certain individuals have campaigned openly against improving public
transportation in any way. However, improvements that foster development with minimal adverse consequences
are few and far between and should be promoted.
Developed nations can afford to take a chance on unproven technology. Less developed nations have
little to no such flexibility. Less developed nations are sure to have fewer traffic signals as well, which will
likely affect the overall magnitude of benefit from BSP. Regardless, BRT and BSP appear to have much more
upside to most other transit technologies.
Certainty is not a hallmark of infrastructural programming. It may be prudent to heed the advice of
Hugh Keogh—with apologies to the Old Testament-- contained in the adage: “the race is not always to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet”.
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A lengthy professional career brings with it an obligation to recognize many colleagues who have
contributed to the development of this paper, in one form or another. The following individuals deserve
recognition: Tunde Balvanyos, Bill Belmont, Randy Blankenhorn, Terry Brannon, Paul Chiu, Alan Danaher,
Casey Emoto, Kevin Fehon, Nuria Fernandez, Ed Fok, Shanthi Ganji, Kal Goldberg, Brendon Hemily, Randy
Iwaski, Matthew Jue, Tom Klimek, David Kobayashi, James Lau, Jim Lightbody, Leroy Kos, Wally Kos, James
Lau, Cory LaVigne, Kai Leung, Eugene Maeda, David Man, Chuck Metalitz, Ho Nguyen, Shamus Misek,
Robert Paaswell, John H. Paige, Robert Pauly, Dusty Powell, Bill Reynolds, Joseph St. Marie, Ashish Sen, Ron
Shimizu, Mel Sierakowski, Sean Skehan, Siim Soot, Z. Sonja Sun, Kesti Susinskas, John Stokowski, Karthik
Swamy, Sid Weseman, David Zavaterro and Wei-Bin Zhang. Even though this list is extensive the names of
some deserving individuals are certain to be absent; rest assured, the omission is inadvertent.

Isaac Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. It has been a pleasure to stand shoulder-to-shoulder
with these giants.
REFERENCES
[1] Backhouse, Roger E., Antoinette Baujard, Tamotsu Nishizawa. (2020). Revisiting the History of
Welfare Economics. Lyon FR: HAL. p. 22.
[2] Just, Richard E., Darrell L. Hueth, and Andrew Schmitz. (2008). Applied Welfare Economics.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. p. 707.
[3] Hannah, Leslie. (2009). “100 Years of Government Control over Utilities”. Conference proceedings.
Canberra: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. p. 4.
[4] Mouton, Morgan. (2021). “Worlding Infrastructure in the "Global South": Philippine Experiments
and the Art of Being ‘Smart’”. Urban Studies. 58/3. pp. 621–638.
[5] Wu, Weiping. (2024). “Infrastructure Investment and Finance in the "Global South": Private
Participation and Its Determinants”. Public Finance and Management. 23/3. pp. 99-112.
[6] Jamasb, Tooraj, Rabindra Nepal, and Govinda R. Timilsina. (2017). “A Quarter Century Effort Yet to
Come of Age: A Survey of Electricity Sector Reform in Developing Countries”. The Energy Journal.
38/3. pp. 195–234.
[7] Davis, Morris, and Sol Levine. (1967). “Toward a Sociology of Public Transit”. Social Problems.
15/1. pp. 84–91.
[8] Rizzo, Matteo. (2015). “The Political Economy Of An Urban Megaproject: The Bus Rapid Transit
Project In Tanzania”. African Affairs. 114/455. pp. 249–270.
[9] Anderson, Michael L. (2014). “Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on
Traffic Congestion”. The American Economic Review. 104/9. pp. 2763–2796.0). Revisiting the
History of Welfare Economics. Lyon FR: HAL. p. 22.
[10] Pushkarev, Boris Sergeevich & Jeffery M. Zupan. (1977). Public Transportation and Land Use
Policy. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. p. 242.
[11] Haynes, Kingsley, Carlos Ariera, Sarah Burhans and Nitin Pandit. (1995). “Fundamentals of
Infrastructure Financing with Respect to ITS”. Built Environment (1978-) 21/4. pp. 246–254.
[12] Ling, Shuai, Wandi Hu and Yongjie Zhang. (2016). “The Impact of Bus Priority Policies on Peak
Commuters Behavior: An Agent-Based Modelling Perspective”. Filomat. 30/15. pp. 4101–4110.
[13] Ryan, Sherry. (2005). “The Value of Access to Highways and Light Rail Transit: Evidence for
Industrial and Office Firms.” Urban Studies. 42/4. pp. 751–764.
[14] Koling, Adam, Wei-Bin Zhang, Kun Zhou and Huadong Meng. (2018). BRT Toolbox. Sacramento
CA: Caltrans. p. 35.
[15] Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). 2016. About the Standard: What’s New
in 2016? (White Paper).
[16] Deb, Kaushik. (2000). “Private Investment and Policy Developments in Transport Sector”. Economic
and Political Weekly. 35/15. pp. 1277–1282.
[17] Basso, Leonardo J., and Hugo E. Silva. (2014). “Efficiency and Substitutability of Transit Subsidies
and Other Urban Transport Policies”. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 6/4. pp. 1–33.
[18] Mercier, Jean. (2009). “Equity, Social Justice, and Sustainable Urban Transportation in the Twenty-
First Century”. Administrative Theory & Praxis. 31/2. pp. 145–163.
[19] Chang, M., et. al. (2004). CHARACTERISTICS OF BUS RAPID TRANSIT FOR DECISION-
MAKING. Washington DC: Federal Transit Administration. p. 301.
[20] Jue, Matthew and James T. Jarzab. (2013). “Detection Range of Optical Emergency Vehicle
Preemption System under Typical System Maintenance Conditions”. ITE Journal. 83/06. pp. 40-44.
[21] Galicia, Luis D., et al. (2009). “Bus Rapid Transit Features and Deployment Phases for U.S. Cities”.
Journal of Public Transportation. 12/2. pp. 23-38.
[22] Li, Yue, et.al. (2008). Transit Signal Priority Research Tools. Springfield VA: National Technical
Information Service. p. 178.
[23] Advanced Traffic Management Systems Committee and Advanced Public Transportation Systems
Committee of the ITS America. (2002). An Overview of Transit Signal Priority. Washington DC: ITS
America. p. 25.
[24] Jarzab, James T., et.al. (2009). Bus Signal Priority in Santa Clara County California (unpublished
White Paper). p. 19.
[25] Watson, Vanessa. (2013). “Planning and the ‘Stubborn Realities’ of ‘Global South-East’ Cities: Some
Emerging Ideas”. Planning Theory. 12/1. pp. 81–100.

Bus Rapid Transit: Picking Out the Pieces

More Related Content

Similar to Bus Rapid Transit: Picking Out the Pieces

More from AJHSSR Journal

Recently uploaded

Bus Rapid Transit: Picking Out the Pieces