Frequently Asked Questions

BRT is a high-capacity, bus-based rapid transit system. BRT corridors are one of the most cost-effective and high-quality solutions for public transport systems. When well designed, BRT corridors require fewer capital costs to build and maintain compared to other rapid transit corridors because they have simpler infrastructure needs. However, BRT systems offer gains in operational efficiency and cost effectiveness, like other rapid transit systems. BRT systems are highly adaptable and can be designed to fit a city's specific needs and constraints, whether it’s accommodating existing road layouts, adjusting to varying demand levels, or integrating with other transportation systems. Impacts that BRT corridors have:  

• Economic Benefits: BRT stimulates local economies by enhancing access to jobs and education, boosting property values, and encouraging investments along public transport corridors. The time savings that the BRT corridor generates directly impact the users' productivity and, consequently, the economy. Efficient transport also attracts more commercial activity, contributing to economic vitality. 
• Social Impact: BRT systems enhance urban accessibility and inclusivity through universal accessibility, making public transportation feasible for all demographics, including people with disabilities, caregivers, and young and old. Because they are less expensive to build and typically take less time than rail, a bigger network can be built sooner, helping everyone—but especially people who are economically disadvantaged—access more of the system cost-effectively. These systems facilitate equitable access to essential services and opportunities. 
• Environmental and Air Quality: By shifting commuters from private vehicles to public transport and shifting public transport riders from smaller, older, more polluting buses to newer, bigger, cleaner ones, BRT reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Implementing electric or hybrid buses can decrease the environmental footprint, promoting healthier urban environments. 

According to the BRT Standard, to be considered BRT, the corridor needs to be at least 3 kilometers long, with dedicated lanes. This guarantees that the investment in infrastructure has a reach beyond what is walkable and cyclable. To ensure good overall performance, the corridor must also meet at least 20 points across all five key features, known as the BRT Basics. According to the BRT Standard, those five key features are: 

• Dedicated Right-of-Way: Dedicated lanes that are physically separated from regular traffic increase reliability and speed by keeping buses out of congestion and providing an uninterrupted service. 
• Busway Alignment: Bus lane location that minimizes delays and conflicts with other traffic, optimizing speed and efficiency. 
• Off-Board Fare Collection: Passengers pay before boarding the bus, which allows a faster and more efficient passenger flow and consequently less time spent at stations. 
• Intersection Treatments: These can include signal priority for buses, prohibited turns, or even grade separation at intersections. They increase the green signal time for the bus lane and minimize delays, improving service reliability. 
• Platform-Level Boarding: By aligning the bus floor with the platform, the bus needs to be stopped less frequently, allowing for quick and accessible boarding for all passengers. BRT systems provide platform-level boarding.  

While the BRT Basics are the foundational elements, four other components are key to ensuring that BRT is well designed for operations and passengers alike:

• Service Planning: BRT corridor design starts by defining the specific services that should operate inside any planned new BRT infrastructure, and that infrastructure should then be tailored to that service plan; it is an iterative process, but good public transport starts with service.
• Stations and Buses: BRT capacity and performance are determined primarily by BRT stations. BRT stations are also the most visible and visceral part of the system–the main way passengers experience the BRT system.
• Communications: If passengers do not know how to use the system, then no manner of good design will save it. Communicating with passengers about the system is vital for a BRT corridor to be effective.
• Access and Integration: A BRT corridor is not a standalone project. It exists within the city's many other systems, and it must connect to them to increase access for all and ensure people can reach the BRT and then their destinations.

Finally, while the design of the system is important to lock in its potential for meeting high-quality service, how a BRT corridor operates and is maintained will affect ridership, confidence, and trust in the system, and is critical to ensuring the BRT corridor retains and attracts ridership.

Implementing BRT corridors opens substantial opportunities to improve urban mobility, foster equitable access, and reduce congestion in growing cities. While BRT development involves unique challenges, these are often manageable with the right strategies and can lead to long-term gains for cities and residents. Here are some challenges along with strategies to address them: 

• Securing political and public buy-in: Reallocating road space from private vehicles to buses can face resistance from drivers and other road users. To mitigate this, cities should consider long-term urban development goals and engage all stakeholders early through public consultations and awareness campaigns that highlight the broader benefits of BRT for mobility and quality of life. Data can help make the case—for example, measuring travel times before and after—by showing the benefits.  
• Significant upfront investment: Compared to other rapid transit systems, BRT is one of the more cost-effective. While cities often struggle to secure sufficient resources for implementation, they can explore international development grants and land-use value capture and leverage economic opportunities such as transit-oriented development (TOD) to attract investment. BRTs are good financial investments, as there is often a significant return on investment. 
• Land acquisition and infrastructure construction: Acquiring land for BRT stations or lanes and managing construction in densely populated areas can be time-consuming and costly. Cities can coordinate construction schedules with local authorities and the community to identify flexible land-use options, streamline approval processes, and reduce disruptions. 
• Operational challenges: Ensuring operational efficiency—such as maintaining bus frequency, handling peak demand, and providing adequate maintenance—requires robust institutional capacity and a reliable management structure. Solutions include setting up dedicated management agencies, investing in staff training, and implementing monitoring systems to respond to operational issues in real time. 
• Integrating with the urban environment: It is essential to design BRT corridors to ensure accessibility for all, including people with disabilities, women, and lower-income populations. Cities can improve their accessibility by considering the surrounding areas as a key element during construction. Direct access to stations needs to have well-designed sidewalks, crossings, and bicycle lanes to promote comfortable, secure, and universal access. The stations and terminals must also be well-connected to the other modes with complete physical, operational, and fare integration. 
• Ensuring consistent funding for operations and maintenance: Maintaining high-quality BRT services requires reliable, sustained funding. Cities should develop a sustainable financial plan that includes congestion pricing and parking fees, regular budget allocations, fare revenue management, and non-fare revenue sources, such as sales tax, advertising and sponsorships, retail leasing, and land-use value capture. 

• Use of Zero-Emission Vehicles: This helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, aligning BRT systems with broader climate goals. Many cities are now integrating electric buses into their BRT networks, supported by strategies for charging infrastructure and battery management. E-buses are also quieter, reducing noise in communities and making travel more pleasant for passengers. 
• Digitalization and Data Use: Leveraging technology for real-time data collection and digital monitoring enhances service efficiency and reliability, and helps passengers use the system. This includes using apps for real-time tracking and updates, trip-planning for passengers, data analytics for service improvements, and automated fare collection systems, which streamline operations and improve the passenger experience. 
• Gender, Equity, and Social Inclusion Initiatives: Ensuring BRT systems are accessible and welcoming to all, particularly women, elders, people with disabilities, and underserved communities, is increasingly prioritized. This includes implementing design features supporting safety and comfort, conducting inclusive planning consultations, incorporating inclusive hiring, and creating policies prioritizing social equity within the transport network. BRTs are a great way to introduce these measures, which can be universally accessible by design. 
• Business Model Updates: Effective business models for BRT focus on sustainable and quality service delivery. These models often include gross-cost contracting (paying operators per kilometer traveled), performance-based incentives, independent fare collection, data-sharing provisions, competitive tendering, and the use of multiple operators to encourage safety, efficiency, and flexibility. This gives the government better tools for managing service delivery and performance, meaning the revenue risk is not borne solely by the operator. 

The BRT Standard was created in 2012 from a global agreement between leaders and experts in the design and implementation of BRT systems to provide a consistent framework for defining and evaluating BRT corridors based on international best practices. It aims to ensure that BRT corridors consistently deliver world-class passenger experiences, significant economic benefits, and positive environmental impacts. The BRT Standard sets a framework for understanding BRT and then delivers metrics for evaluating the design and operations of a particular corridor. With that, the BRT Standard recognizes best practices worldwide, allows comparisons between different corridors, and can be used to evaluate the project design elements and operational performance.  

The BRT Standard evaluates individual BRT corridors rather than entire systems, as quality can vary significantly between corridors. In the planning phase, the BRT Standard acts as a checklist, guiding the design of new corridors with best practices to maximize their potential performance. Design elements are crucial in reducing delays, increasing service speed, and enhancing passenger experience by minimizing traffic conflicts and streamlining passenger flows. 

For operational corridors, a complete evaluation, including both design and operational metrics, is necessary to analyze and improve their performance, and it will assess operational factors that can impact ridership, confidence, and trust in the system. Typically, the evaluation is done six months after opening to reflect more stable usage and operational patterns. The BRT Quality Standard Technical Committee must validate the score to make it official.

While a new corridor can be assessed fully (Design + Operational Deductions) after six months, ITDP recommends conducting a thorough assessment of a new BRT system after at least one year (preferably in its second year) to address any initial operational issues and gather sufficient data on ridership and performance for a comprehensive evaluation. For more detailed questions, please review the BRT Standard FAQ questions. 

Cities and agencies are welcome to submit their own assessments and request certification. The duration of the assessment and certification process depends on the complexity of the BRT corridor and the availability of the required data. Generally, the process can take four to twelve weeks from the initial request to the final certification. To schedule an assessment, it is advisable to provide ITDP with at least three months’ notice to ensure availability and adequate preparation time. The score will only be considered valid after careful review and final approval from the Technical Committee members. 

A corridor can be rescored upon request if it has experienced significant changes in design or operations (for better or for worse). For example, bicycle lanes are being added to the corridor, improvements are being made to the service operation, and there is no well-maintained infrastructure, cuts to the service, and others. Thus, it is highly encouraging to ensure that BRT corridors maintain high standards and continue to improve over time.

The frequency of rescoring can vary based on the specific needs and goals of the BRT corridor and its stakeholders. While there is no fixed frequency, rescoring a corridor every three to five years is advisable to account for operational changes and upgrades. When a corridor is rescored, the justification for rescoring the corridor will also be noted when the new score is released. 

The cost of assessing and certifying a BRT corridor is designed to cover only the direct expenses involved, such as travel, assessor time, and insurance—the process is not conducted for profit. Costs can vary based on the corridor’s size and complexity, as well as the specific requirements of the assessment. Expenses may include travel and accommodation for assessors, data collection, and logistical arrangements. Determining which metrics can be gathered remotely versus those requiring on-site verification can help optimize costs. More information regarding the evaluation can be found in the BRT Standard FAQ questions. It’s best to consult with ITDP early in the process for a detailed estimate to clarify the scope and logistical needs. 

• Ahmedabad’s Janmarg BRT, India: This corridor serves as a model for subsequent developments across the country. By providing high-quality public transport access throughout the city, Janmarg has transformed travel for residents while also helping to reduce pollution levels. Notably, the system prioritizes affordability and inclusivity, ensuring people from all economic backgrounds can access reliable and efficient public transportation. As a pioneer of intelligent transport systems in India, Janmarg continues to set standards for urban mobility in the country. 
• Dar es Salaam BRT, Tanzania: The BRT corridor is a pioneering project in East Africa. It offers a high-capacity, affordable alternative that dramatically reduces travel times and sets the standard for future BRT developments. The success of this project has encouraged the city to expand its network, with three additional corridors under construction; another has secured financing.  
• Dakar BRT, Senegal: Dakar’s BRT is an ambitious solution to the city’s chronic congestion, designed with ITDP’s support to prioritize reliable and affordable public transport. Expected to serve more than 300,000 passengers daily, this electric-powered BRT corridor will connect underserved areas with the city center, foster more equitable access to jobs and services, and support Dakar’s sustainable urban development goals. This initiative is a pioneer in Africa, combining modern electric buses with comprehensive urban planning to improve mobility and air quality. 
• Guangzhou BRT, China: Known for its direct-service model and high-frequency buses, this BRT corridor serves more than 800,000 daily passengers. The system’s integration with cycling and pedestrian infrastructure exemplifies a holistic approach to urban mobility, supporting multimodal transport options and encouraging vibrant urban spaces. Guangzhou’s success lies in its ability to meet high demand while maintaining efficiency. 
• Mexico City’s Metrobús, Line 1, Insurgentes BRT, Mexico: Mexico City’s Insurgentes corridor, a BRT Gold-rated system, has improved worker commutes, revitalized neighborhoods, and reduced air pollution, and it showcases the city’s commitment to expanding and integrating its BRT network. Station designs preserved trees, used icons for navigation, and featured wheelchair-accessible turnstiles. Well-lit, visually open stations, coupled with CCTV-equipped buses, ensure safety. Insurgentes is one of the few BRT networks globally with a built-out network of seven lines integrated with the city’s metro system. 
• Guadalajara’s Mi Macro Periférico BRT, Mexico: Mi Macro Periférico is a strong example of how multi-level government collaboration can drive efficient BRT implementation while maximizing outcomes. The corridor reduces emissions, strengthens regional and intra-city connections, and provides convenient, accessible mobility options. It integrates gender-focused design features and programs that support women and caregivers, ensuring a safer and more inclusive experience. Additionally, municipalities have expanded cycling infrastructure for first- and last-mile connectivity, which is fully integrated with the BRT. Mi Macro Periférico exemplifies the benefits of well-designed BRT systems, offering better accessibility, reduced travel times, and higher user satisfaction. 
• Belo Horizonte’s MOVE Cristiano Machado BRT, Brazil: The corridor runs along Avenida Cristiano Machado and serves high-demand areas with high-capacity corridors, extending into the city center where demand and space constraints peak. It follows best practices in BRT design, such as center-aligned stations, off-board fare collection, and well-integrated intermodal connections. MOVE’s corridor structure and design maximize capacity and efficiency, handling the busiest city areas while promoting smooth transfers and accessible connections to other public transport modes, enhancing urban mobility for various users. 
• TransJakarta BRT, Indonesia: TransJakarta, one of the world’s longest BRT corridors, prioritizes high-frequency service with dedicated lanes, connecting millions of daily passengers across Greater Jakarta. Its ongoing expansion reflects a strong commitment to sustainability, as it continues to reduce emissions, alleviate congestion, and promote public transport over private car use. The network’s integration with other modes of transport, such as the metro and commuter trains, enhances its resilience and accessibility. 
• Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT, Colombia: TransMilenio has set a global benchmark with innovations in service, contracting, and infrastructure, reducing car use and enhancing public transport efficiency. By 2010, it had served more than 3 billion riders and earned UN recognition for emissions reductions through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Bogotá has since integrated electric buses, cable cars, and the Integrated Public Transport System (SITP) network into a unified public transport system. The city’s restructured procurement model further supports this transition by separating bus ownership from operations, lowering financial barriers, and encouraging fleet electrification. 
• Van Ness BRT, USA: San Francisco’s Van Ness corridor, rated BRT Silver, exemplifies a modern, well-integrated public transport solution, with center-running lanes and priority features that minimize delays. Despite high implementation costs, Van Ness aligns with the city’s long-term strategy of enhancing public transport through bus lanes, signal priority, and strategic investments. This corridor demonstrates a commitment to faster commutes, reduced congestion, and a revitalized streetscape that improves accessibility and the area’s aesthetic appeal. 
• Yichang BRT, China: Yichang’s BRT is a model for midsize cities, achieving a Gold rating because of its high quality and integration with cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Features like direct service routes minimize transfers and improve efficiency. Complementary urban enhancements, such as a bike-sharing system, greenways, and traffic-calmed streets, demonstrate how Yichang has reimagined its public transport and public space to benefit residents. 
• Zu Peshawar BRT, Pakistan: Zu Peshawar BRT is a pioneer of accessible, inclusive public transport in Pakistan. It features 100-percent step-free entry and priority ticket counters, enhancing access for seniors and people with disabilities. The system boosts safety and comfort for female riders, opening up new educational and professional opportunities. Zu Peshawar also integrates sustainable modes with dedicated bike lanes, a bikeshare network, and accessible pedestrian paths, including a 4 km elevated skyway for pedestrians and cyclists. 

A BRT corridor evaluation involves analyzing metrics from the six key categories of the BRT Standard, considering both design and operations dimensions. This evaluation can be done through desktop research, on-site visit, and transport agency outreach.

• Desktop Research: The first step is to establish a baseline by gathering available information. This helps familiarize the evaluator with the corridor and identify data gaps.
• On-Site Visits: After desktop research, fieldwork is necessary to collect missing data and validate findings, ensuring the accuracy of the analysis.
• Transport Agency Outreach: Once you’ve gathered sufficient information from research and field visits, contact the transport agency to confirm final details. This method is the last step, when you have a full overview of the corridor’s operations. Send a formal request to the transport agency to guarantee the registration of the final responses.

Separating the evaluation using these three methods will also help determine the potential time, financial resources, and logistical planning required to assess the corridor as a whole. Before starting with the evaluation, it would be helpful to gather general information from the Transport Agency about: demand profile, corridor peak hours, fleet size, average peak and off-peak speeds and frequencies, highest-demand segment of the corridor, highest-demand stations, routes, and a map of the BRT corridor and stations. It’s helpful to understand these beforehand, because this information forms the basis for scoring across many evaluation metrics—having it ready saves a lot of time and effort.

The table here outlines which metrics to evaluate, the scope of the analysis, the best research method for each area, and the potential resources suggested. The table also points out the minimum number of stations and buses or the minimum length of corridor that needs to be evaluated for the corresponding metric.

The length of a BRT corridor is measured as the total distance along its designated route and can vary depending on the context. The BRT Standard evaluation is defined as the bi-directional segment connecting the first and last stations along a continuous path with at least 3 kilometers of segregated lanes. The corridor's length is calculated as the average of the distances in each direction of the bi-directional route. This standardized approach consistently evaluates the corridor's operational and infrastructural elements, focusing on the dedicated right-of-way used for the service.

The formula to calculate the percentage is: (Length of corridor with feature / Total length of the corridor) x 100 = Percentage. Alternatively, if available, this data can be gathered using on-site measurements or documentation from the transport agency.

When measuring the percentage of a corridor with a specific feature, you are looking at how much of the corridor includes distinct elements like dedicated right-of-way (ROW) or segregated lanes. The BRT Standard includes several features that vary across corridor segments, such as intersections with specific treatments or busway alignment types. To measure the percentage, you would use a tool like GIS or street-level tools like Google My Maps, which allow you to map out the corridor, divide it into segments based on the feature being evaluated, and measure the length of each segment.

The formula to calculate the percentage is: (Length of corridor with feature / Total length of the corridor) x 100 = Percentage. Alternatively, if available, this data can be gathered using on-site measurements or documentation from the transport agency.

Since BRT stations are often standardized, selecting the four highest-demand stations may be sufficient. However, variations can arise because of factors such as busway alignment along the corridor or the right-of-way (ROW). Therefore, first identify the different station typologies and then evaluate at least four stations with each of the different typologies during peak hours. These typologies can be determined through desktop research, including planning or design documents analysis, or during on-site visits.

A representative sample refers to a subset of the BRT system that accurately reflects the overall system’s characteristics. Features may include stations, buses, or other operational elements (e.g., fare collection systems, station amenities). As mentioned in the table, the minimum amount of data to be collected specifies the sample size required for each feature; sometimes this means evaluating the entire corridor or fleet (such as with corridor-wide features or entire bus fleets). A representative sample ensures you capture significant elements by considering factors like confidence level (95 percent) and margin of error (no more than 20 percent). This could mean evaluating 15 to 20 vehicles during peak hours for BRT vehicles.

Since BRT stations are often standardized, selecting the four highest-demand stations may be sufficient. However, variations can arise because of factors such as busway alignment along the corridor or the right-of-way (ROW). Therefore, first identify the different station typologies and then evaluate at least four stations with each of the different typologies during peak hours. These typologies can be determined through desktop research, including planning or design documents analysis, or during on-site visits.

“Access to the station” refers to the path passengers will use to safely and conveniently reach the BRT station, including pedestrian pathways, crossings, and other connections that bring users to the station's entrance. “Surroundings” refers to the area around the station, encompassing the urban environment and infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks, nearby amenities, and safety features.

Both the access and surroundings are critical because they directly impact the demand for the BRT system, user perception, and the sense of security for passengers. For example, the last mile—how easily users can reach the station from their home or work—is especially important for vulnerable groups like women, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities, who may need safer or more accessible routes. When evaluating station access and surroundings, consider a 500 m to 1 km buffer around the station, corresponding to a 10- to 15-minute walk.

Bus frequency should be measured during both on-peak and off-peak hours of a regular business day, as these periods can vary significantly in terms of service levels, especially in sections where the highest number of bus routes pass through. A regular business day is not affected by public holidays or extreme weather and reflects typical travel patterns. It’s essential to collect information about the frequency of the transport agency before the evaluation to have a basis for scoring.

However, this information needs to be reviewed on-site, since discrepancies could arise due to changes in scheduling, such as delays from accidents or weather disruptions. The frequency is measured by observing the number of buses per hour during 15-minute intervals at two observation points along the corridor, typically one-third of the way from each end. The formula to calculate frequency is: Frequency = (Number of buses observed / Observation period) x 60 (to get buses per hour).

First, data from the local transport agency will be gathered for preliminary analysis to determine the average commercial speed of a BRT corridor. On-site, the evaluator can confirm the information by riding the longest non-express route in the peak direction during peak hours, calculating the average speed by dividing the total distance covered along the corridor by the total travel time. For routes extending beyond the corridor, only measure the portion on the BRT corridor to reflect BRT speeds accurately.

Initially, reach out to the transportation agency, as they are often the most authoritative source on the system. If no direct answer is available, consult documentation, such as planning reports, official transport guidelines, or data from reliable sources. Finally, proceed with the best available information while noting any uncertainties, and continue with the evaluation based on what is most reliable at the time. Documenting all efforts made to find the answer is essential—this transparency ensures that future assessments can be better informed.

[Platform-level boarding] How can you measure the vertical and horizontal gaps for platform-level boarding?

The vertical and horizontal gaps refer to the spaces between the bus and the platform that can affect passenger safety and ease of boarding. Significant gaps are generally defined as more than 5 cm vertically and 10 cm horizontally, potentially compromising accessibility. To measure these gaps, observe 20 instances of buses docking at various stations along the corridor during peak and off-peak hours. A ruler or measuring tape can provide accurate measurements. Still, it can be difficult to use depending on the number of people at the station or the situation that you are dealing with. Alternatively, visual evaluation using a comparable pre-measured object, like your foot, will be enough.

[Control Center] What are the four systems of a full-service control center?

• Automated dispatch systems schedule and dispatch vehicles, ensuring they are sent out on time and per a precise timetable.
• An active line management system involves real-time monitoring and management of service frequency and vehicle spacing to minimize delays and avoid bus bunching or service gaps.
• The Automatic Vehicle Location system (AVL) uses GPS and other sensors to track the exact location of each vehicle in the fleet in real time. This technology is critical for operational efficiency and customer service.
• Passenger security mechanisms are a top priority for public transport systems—they monitor activities in stations and on buses, guaranteeing users’ security and supporting incident response. This can be done through technological systems (such as CCTV surveillance) and dedicated security personnel at stations and on select buses. Those mechanisms should be integrated with emergency response systems to follow through with the proper support.

[Multi-corridor Network] How can you evaluate whether the BRT will be truly connected to a planned corridor?

To assess the likelihood of a BRT corridor connecting with a planned corridor, first collect all the information and planning details available through desktop research, and then verify with the transport agency. This will be a judgment call by the evaluator, who should look for indicators like recent demand analysis, secured funding, construction progress, or design approval. Evidence of official agency plans or statements on the corridor’s development can also reinforce the credibility of planned connections.

[Business models] How can you evaluate whether the public sector operates the corridor?

Specific contracting and management elements must be considered to evaluate whether the public sector operates a BRT corridor.

• Separation of Management and Operations: An ideal model involves a government-owned company (independent from the public transport management agency) competing with other independent operators under a unified system. For instance, in Bogotá’s TransMilenio, private operators bid competitively to provide services, even though the public sector oversees planning and infrastructure. When the same government entity manages and operates services, it can limit efficiency, leading to a lack of competitive tendering and robust performance management mechanisms.
• Contracting and Incentives: Evaluate whether the corridor uses gross-cost contracting (operators are paid per kilometer, ensuring reliable service) and includes performance-based incentives or penalties (e.g., for punctuality or speeding).
• Fare and Data Management: Confirm whether fare collection is managed independently from operations, which allows revenue control and quality assurance. Ensure that data-sharing provisions are in place so the transport agency can access operational data for oversight.

This framework helps ensure that even government-operated corridors can adopt elements of best practice, fostering service quality and efficiency while avoiding monopolistic or overly centralized models.

[Pavement Quality] How would you check whether the pavement material is designed for a 30-year life?

To confirm a pavement’s 30-year lifespan, consult the transportation agency about the materials used. Typically, Portland Cement concrete, identifiable by its gray color, lasts 30 to 50 years, while asphalt (usually black) has a shorter lifespan. On-site, you can look for color changes or damage along the corridor, which may suggest inadequate material for heavy BRT use. This evaluation is essential, as shorter-lasting materials, like asphalt, degrade faster with heavy bus traffic, ultimately increasing long-term maintenance costs. Note that some specialized asphalt mixtures can be designed for longer durability, potentially up to 30 years, but these are more expensive. Unless the government provides evidence of such materials, it should not be assumed that they were used.

[Bicycle lanes] What should be considered a network along the corridor and/or connected?

Integrated bicycle lanes alongside BRT corridors enhance access, safety, and connectivity, supporting a range of sustainable travel options. Physically protected bike lanes are separated from pedestrians and vehicle traffic by physical barriers such as curbs, bollards, parked cars, or planters. These lanes should ideally run parallel to the entire BRT corridor (on the same street or the nearest parallel street) and connect with major residential, commercial, and educational hubs.

“Connected” means that there are perpendicular bicycle lanes spaced no more than 1 km apart, connecting the corridor to adjacent blocks within a 1 km radius of the corridor lane. Both should be well-designed and well-maintained, with unobstructed physical protection, at least 2 meters wide, providing adequate space for safe and efficient cycling for all users.

[Personal Security and Gender-based Violence] What are the listed elements in the Standard, and how do you assess them?

• Good Lighting: Visual evaluation of the brightness in key areas such as station entrances, waiting areas, and walkways, particularly in the evening or early morning. A light meter can estimate the brightness in lumens.
• Clear Sightlines into the Station: Visually inspect the station layout to ensure no significant obstacles (e.g., walls, advertising boards, or poorly placed structures) block the view into the station.
• Visually Porous Areas: Walk through the station and assess whether passengers can see their surroundings from key points (entrances, waiting areas, platforms). Check if the station design incorporates transparency and openness.
• Transparent Panes: Inspect the station's windows, walls, barriers, and inside buses. Look for transparency and ensure that glass or other transparent materials are used where feasible to promote visibility and that nothing obstructs them (e.g., signs, graffiti).
• Illumination at Night: Visit the station and ride buses during nighttime to observe the adequacy of lighting. Confirm that lighting levels are well-functioning and provide clear visibility throughout the station and buses.
• CCTV Security Cameras at Stations: Inspect the presence of CCTV cameras in key station areas, such as entrances, platforms, and waiting areas. Check whether the cameras are functional and cover the necessary areas.
• CCTV Security Cameras on Buses: Look for CCTV cameras on buses. Check whether the cameras are functional and cover the necessary areas.
• Safety Mechanisms (panic buttons, emergency phones, apps, SMS services): Look for panic buttons or emergency call boxes at the station and on buses. Verify whether safety apps or SMS services are available for passengers to report incidents.
• Attendants and Public Safety Personnel: Check for the presence of security personnel or attendants at the station and on buses, especially during late hours.

[Overcrowding] How do you assess overcrowding?

To assess overcrowding in BRT systems, observers should focus on the level of movement and personal space passengers have within the bus. A bus is considered overcrowded if passengers have restricted movement when boarding or alighting, or are forced to stand close to or lean against others. Observers should use their best judgment, focusing on whether passengers experience crowding that limits their comfort or prevents a free flow within the vehicle.

[Lack of Enforcement of the ROW] How can you measure vehicle encroachment into bus lanes?

Vehicle encroachment refers to unauthorized vehicles entering the BRT lanes, which disrupts bus operations and affects overall corridor performance. To measure this on-site, position yourself near the front of a BRT bus and observe two points on the corridor for 15 minutes each, recording instances of encroachment. The point with the most encroachments should be used as the measurement. Alternatively, resources can be used to support that information, such as video recordings or traffic monitoring systems, to verify and quantify encroachment.

[Long-signal cycle] How can you measure the percentage of green signal cycle for BRT?

Observe the traffic signals at intersections along the BRT corridor to determine the percentage of the green signal cycle for BRT. First, record the total cycle time for the signal (including green, yellow, and red phases until it returns to green). Then, record the duration of the active green light for BRT buses. Calculate the percentage by dividing the green signal time for only the BRT by the total cycle time. Observations should be conducted during peak hours at two major intersections for 15 minutes each to ensure accuracy. Use this percentage to assess scoring and signal prioritization for BRT in both directions.

[Permitting Unsafe Cycling] How many cyclists in bus lanes would use it unsafely?

Cyclists and micromobility devices in bus lanes pose significant safety risks for cyclists and BRT operations. If, during an on-site evaluation, cyclists are observed using the BRT busway on more than five separate occasions in one day, this would warrant a deduction in scoring. This threshold highlights the importance of providing safe, dedicated infrastructure for cyclists outside the bus lanes, thereby reducing the risk of accidents and ensuring efficient BRT operations.