8 Case Study VI: Sustainable Transportation in Latin America: Bus Rapid Transit Systems in Curitiba, Brazil and TransMilenio in Bogota, Colombia

Chapter Overview

This chapter examines sustainable transportation solutions for medium-sized cities. The first part describes the integrated, transit-oriented development policy implemented in Curitiba, Brazil, which enabled one of the most extensive  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems globally. The second section critically examines the successes of the first phase of the bus rapid transit system in Bogota, known as the TransMilenio. Next, this chapter critically unpacks the equity and efficiency challenges of the second and third phases of the Trans Milenio. Finally, the chapter concludes with a critical analysis of the benefits of bus rapid transit systems and the barriers to effective implementation.

WHAT IS BUS RAPID TRANSIT?

Source: Pojani & Stead, 2015

Strong commitment and support from political leaders and governments are crucial to making bus rapid transit (BRT) systems possible and practical. The best outcomes occur when the public and private sectors collaborate. More than 150 cities worldwide have operational BRT systems, with at least 70 of these cities located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

BRT systems offer numerous benefits. Studies have shown that they significantly improve local travel conditions and the quality of public transit. BRT systems reduce travel time and are generally more reliable than conventional bus systems. When appropriately configured, BRT systems can transport more passengers per hour than many rail systems. Hensher and Golob (2008) found that both metros and BRT systems could offer capacities ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour, comparable to twice the seating capacity of Madison Square Garden. However, there is a stark difference in the upfront costs: BRT systems cost between $5 to $20 million per kilometer, while metros range from $30 to $160 million per kilometer (Ardila-Gomez & Ortegon-Sanchez, 2016; Hensher & Golob, 2008). Users also find BRT systems to be a comfortable and reliable mode of public transport (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

BRT systems are also more sustainable, helping cities address environmental issues. Buses in a BRT system typically use natural gas, electricity, or biofuels, which are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. This shift reduces energy consumption and emissions (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

Another significant advantage of BRT systems is their cost-effectiveness compared to other types of public transit, such as rail, subways, or metros. BRT systems, which are much less expensive, can effectively replicate the functionality and amenities of modern rail-based systems. Generally, a BRT system is four to twenty times less costly than a light rail transit (LRT) system and ten to one hundred times less expensive than a metro system (Hensher & Golob, 2008). Depending on the project’s size and complexity, BRT systems cost between $1 million to $8 million per kilometer. Even in cities with higher labor costs, BRT implementation costs typically remain under $10 million per kilometer. Additionally, BRT systems can operate without subsidies at reasonable fares (around $1 per ride) if well-planned. Other appealing features include quick implementation timelines (1–5 years), adaptability to limited spaces, historical areas, and business districts with narrow route segments (Pojani & Stead, 2015).

The literature highlights two primary factors influencing the attractiveness of transportation projects to governments and the media: infrastructure costs and patronage levels. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 illustrate these factors, respectively.

1. Infrastructure Costs: Figure 8.1 demonstrates the variation in infrastructure costs per kilometer, ranging from $53.2 million/km to $0.35 million/km. The figure indicates that infrastructure costs are generally lower in Asia and Latin America compared to other regions (Hensher & Golob, 2008).
2. Patronage Level: Figure 8.2 depicts the ridership rates as passengers per hour per direction for different cities. This measure is crucial in assessing the efficiency and capacity of the transportation system in serving the public.

These two factors—cost and patronage—are critical in evaluating the feasibility and success of BRT systems and other public transportation projects. They help determine whether governments consider a project a worthwhile investment and an attractive topic for media coverage.

The Benefits of Bus Rapid Transit Systems for Cities

BRT systems offer a range of benefits. Studies have shown that they significantly improve local travel conditions and the quality of public transit in many cities. BRT systems help reduce travel time and are generally more reliable than conventional bus systems. However, there are challenges associated with the development and implementation of BRT systems in many countries. These challenges include “rushed implementation, tight financial planning, excessive occupancy levels, early deterioration of infrastructure, poor supervision of the system, and insufficient user education during initial implementation” (Pojani & Stead, 2015). While these issues often stem from inadequate policy-making and financial planning rather than the BRT system itself, they can negatively impact public and political perceptions of BRT, leading to the view that it is a “second-best option compared to rail.”

One of the most significant advantages of BRT systems over other modes is their lower capital costs. Depending on the planning model and local conditions, including labor, land, and other costs, the cost of BRT lines per kilometer can be one-eighth to one-fourth that of building fixed-route light rail infrastructure. However, while BRT systems often show better numbers on paper regarding operating and development costs, their real-world advantages can be less apparent.

BRT systems are typically implemented in densely populated areas with narrow streets. In these settings, high foot traffic and other modes of transport make securing or preserving right-of-way challenging. This can lead to increased station dwell times and reduced reliability. As ridership grows, BRT systems can also face operational challenges. Overcrowding can increase egress and access times, causing spikes in dwell and boarding times during peak hours. For example, in the case of TransMilenio, travel demand increased by 30% between 2005 and 2010, while bus capacity only grew by 2%. This led to decreased desirability and reliability of the system, causing many middle-class riders to switch to other modes of transport, including motorbikes (Vergel-Tovar & Landis, 2022).

Additional issues in BRT planning include rushed implementation, tight financial budgeting, infrastructure deterioration, and incomplete implementation of fare collection systems, leading to delays. The political economy of cities and regions often does not favor BRT over light rail expansion, as BRT is perceived as less capable of stimulating or redirecting land use development patterns and fostering growth. The use of shared right-of-way with private cars also creates a negative perception of BRT among many people. These factors often position BRT as an alternative approach when light rail expansion is too expensive or not feasible (Hidalgo & Gutiérrez, 2013).

Despite these challenges, BRT systems have become an attractive option for politicians and cities seeking to complete development projects quickly, often before election cycles. For example, in Guadalajara, Mexico, BRT corridors have been built in less than two years, highlighting the relative ease and speed of BRT development compared to rail systems.

Hook et al. (2010) provide an in-depth analysis of the CO₂ impacts of two BRT systems: those in Bogota, Colombia, and Mexico City. Greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of transportation are influenced by four primary factors: the level of travel activity (A), the modal structure (S), the fuel intensity (I), and the carbon content of the fuel used (F) (Hook et al., 2010).

This analysis primarily focuses on the changes in modal structure (S) to understand how BRT systems affect GHG emissions (Hook et al, 2010). The methodology, introduced by Jürg Grütter, a consultant for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), measures this factor. According to this methodology, BRT projects can reduce GHG emissions by encouraging passengers to switch from private cars to buses, by optimizing the type of bus used (e.g., switching from a 12-meter bus to an 18-meter articulated bus), or by increasing the occupancy rate (e.g., increasing the average number of passengers per bus from 60 to 150). These changes contribute to a more efficient use of fuel and lower emissions per passenger kilometer.

The planning and development of the Bogota BRT system began in 1999, and since then, it has been recognized as one of the most successful BRT systems worldwide. The transportation agency, TransMilenio, has established an 84 km bus network with 114 stations and 1,080 articulated buses operating on dedicated lanes. The buses’ average speed is approximately 27 km/h, carrying about 1.5 million passengers daily. TransMilenio was the first project to obtain Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per transported unit (Hook et al., 2010).

According to the CDM methodology, the reduction in GHG emissions is calculated based on the difference between the emissions produced by the project and the emissions that would have been produced if the passengers had used their previous modes of travel. This methodology assumes that the number of passengers and the distance they travel remain constant, with the only change being the mode of transport. Alternatively, it considers that the same transport mode is used, but the number of passengers increases when using the BRT system (in Bogota, bus capacity increased from 60 to 160 after the implementation of the BRT system).

The emissions resulting from the BRT project and the baseline emissions were calculated and compared for different years, as presented in Table 8.2. Scholars found that the GHG mitigation potential of BRT systems depends on the extent to which commuters continue to use buses over time. Table 8.3 compares the estimated and actual GHG emissions associated with the TransMilenio system in Bogota from 2006 to 2010. Although TransMilenio significantly reduced emissions and congestion in its early years, subsequent phases and system expansion have not been as effective. Some users switched to informal transit or cars, resulting in higher actual emissions than estimated from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, GHG assessments of BRT should carefully consider traffic and ridership changes, as Hook and colleagues suggested (Hook et al., 2010).

According to Hidalgo et al. (2013), the implementation of the TransMilenio system has generated various impacts. Labor force participation and employment balance increased after the system was implemented in Bogota. The revenue generated by this system in the form of taxes on income, sales, industry, and vehicles has also increased post-implementation. Crime statistics reported an 85% reduction between the period before (1999-2000) and after (2001-2002) the implementation of TransMilenio (Hidalgo et al., 2013).

Regarding land development and price impacts, results have shown positive impacts (increased land prices) within 1 km of the new BRT service. Moreover, depending on the socio-demographic composition of neighborhoods, the research found positive land price impacts for areas within walking distance of TransMilenio. However, in the immediate vicinity of stations, prices have dropped due to noise pollution and safety issues. The impact of transit systems on land prices is, however, an ongoing debate that requires careful investigation to build robust knowledge (Hidalgo et al., 2013).

TransMilenio’s success in expanding service and providing an attractive transportation option has garnered attention from transportation planners in many other cities facing rapid growth and limited land availability. Asian cities like Taipei (Taiwan), Nagoya (Japan), and Seoul (South Korea) have added BRT lines to their regional public transit systems instead of expanding metro systems. China has also rapidly developed BRT systems in many of its fast-growing cities, which may not have the financial resources to build metro systems.

Source: Hook et al., 2010

Source: Hook et al., 2010

Mexico City, Mexico

The first BRT corridor in Mexico City started its implementation in the 2000s. This system has 262 micro-buses and 90 buses, of which 97 buses are articulated with higher capacity (160 passengers for each bus) and better fuel efficiency. This BRT system operates along 20 km of roadway on a reserved right-of-way. In 2006, Rogers adopted Gretter’s methodology and estimated that the CO2 emissions would be reduced by 25,887 tons per year due to the implementation and use of this new BRT corridor in Mexico City. Accordingly, 18,000 tons would be avoided by replacing many smaller and less fuel-efficient buses with a smaller number of larger and more fuel-efficient vehicles. Also, emissions fell by another 15,000 tons because of improved mixed-traffic vehicle flow along the BRT corridor. Road construction would result in one-time direct emissions of 38,600 tons. Because of conservative modal shift assumptions, only about 5%, or 1,300 tons of CO2 reductions, were expected to result from the modal shift (Hook et al., 2010). Although CDM rejected the results reported by Rogers for Mexico City, after using the Grutter method, the results were quite the same, showing a significant reduction in CO2 emissions (Hook et al., 2010). The results of the decline in CO2 emissions due to Mexico City BRT implementation are shown in Table 8.4.

Source: Hook et al., 2010

Comparison of CO2 Emission Reductions: Bogotá vs. Mexico City BRT Systems

Three main characteristics of BRT systems impact CO2 emission reductions:

1. Projected Modal Shift
2. Load Factor (passenger-km/bus-km)
3. Speed (Hook et al., 2010)

Differences in emissions reductions between the Bogotá and Mexico City BRT systems can be attributed to several factors:

• Modal Split: Bogotá and Mexico City saw a similar percentage of passengers shifting from private automobiles and taxis to the BRT system. However, an additional 13% of passengers in Mexico City shifted from the underground metro system (see Table 8.5). Since Mexico City uses a mix of hydroelectric, thermal, and natural gas energy, the shift from metro to bus may not have achieved the anticipated CO2 reductions. This could explain why the CO2 reduction per kilometer for Bogotá’s BRT system was twice as high compared to Mexico City’s.
• Impact on Mixed Traffic: The BRT system improved mixed-traffic flow in both Bogotá and Mexico City. In both cities, the BRT systems removed mixed-traffic lanes used by buses and informal low-capacity vehicles, contributing to overall emission reductions (Hook et al., 2010).

Source: Hook et al., 2010

Land-Use Planning and the BRT: Learning from Curitiba

The development of BRT systems typically follows two main approaches:

1. Comprehensive Model: This approach is usually led by central governments and involves creating a mobility plan that estimates travel demand for different socio-demographic groups. It proposes various transit facilities and aims to integrate the BRT system with existing transportation networks and development plans. This model is advantageous because it ensures the BRT system is well-integrated with other transport options and development initiatives.
2. Incremental Development Model: This approach involves implementing BRT on a smaller scale, targeting specific areas or corridors with pressing congestion or pollution issues. It provides a quick response but may not integrate as seamlessly with existing conditions. Due to its speed and flexibility, this model is often favored in rapidly growing cities, particularly in Asia (Hidalgo et al., 2013).

We refer to Curitiba, Brazil, to illustrate how long-term land-use planning and transportation integration can create sustainable BRT systems. Curitiba is renowned for its innovative and integrated approach to BRT and land-use planning. Curitiba’s model has been studied extensively for its success as the first city globally to implement a BRT system fully.

Curitiba’s BRT System: A Model of Integration

Curitiba has successfully integrated transportation and land-use planning for over 35 years. Developed with a long-term vision, the city’s BRT system serves as an exemplary case. The development of Curitiba’s BRT system followed three critical phases:

1. Planning Concepts and Aspirations (1943-1970): Early ideas and planning efforts laid the groundwork for future transportation systems.
2. Plan Implementation (1972-1988): During this period, Curitiba implemented the Integrated Transit Network (RIT), which became a model for BRT systems worldwide.
3. Metropolitan Growth and Advancements (1988-Present): The system has continued to evolve, expanding and improving to meet the growing city’s needs.

In the 1970s, Curitiba initially planned an LRT system, but due to high costs, the city shifted to a trunk-and-feeder bus system with dedicated median lanes. This approach eventually led to developing the world’s first comprehensive BRT system. In 1980, Curitiba began establishing the RIT, and in 1990, the Urban Development Authority of Curitiba (URBS) was responsible for transportation planning and management (Lindau et al., 2010).

Curitiba’s BRT System Components

The Integrated Transit Network (RIT) in Curitiba includes:

• A longitudinally separated median busway
• Tube stations with level access and prepayment facilities
• Integrated pricing across various services
• Controlled dispatch at terminal stations
• Specialized services, including express routes, feeder services, and central fare collection

By 2007, Curitiba’s RIT operated with a fleet of 2,600 buses, providing 2.26 million trips per working day and covering 483,000 km daily. The system includes 72 km of bus corridors, 347 tube stations, and 29 urban terminals (Lindau et al., 2010). The gradual and strategic implementation of RIT components has allowed Curitiba to develop a highly efficient and sustainable BRT system.

Curitiba’s experience demonstrates that a well-planned and integrated approach to transportation and land use can result in a successful and scalable BRT system. The collaboration between the Institute for Research and Urban Planning of Curitiba (IPPUC) and URBS has been crucial in achieving these results, setting an example for other cities worldwide.

Source: Lindau et al., 2010

With the addition of the new Green Line corridor in 2009, Curitiba’s BRT system introduced more sustainable and practical features, such as cleaner vehicles and fuels, increased capacity, and improved commercial speed. This RIT corridor embodies all aspects of a modern, complete BRT system. In March 2010, the system was further upgraded by introducing a new method of passing lanes at stations. This upgrade involved repositioning stations and removing parking spaces to make room for a new route and additional buses. These new buses share the busway but do not stop at every station, increasing the corridor’s capacity to 20,000 people per hour in each direction, according to data from URBS. The commercial speed also increased to 25 km/h (Lindau et al., 2010).

Curitiba’s success in integrating buses into its public transportation system and developing a BRT system lies in the effective integration of transportation and land-use planning. This success is made possible through strong political leadership and collaboration, innovative problem-solving, adherence to plans, effective use of new technologies, and consistency and continuity in planning and execution.

BRT implementation can lead to significant changes in the built environment and its dynamics. One of the most commonly documented impacts is the increase in land and housing stock prices. Research shows that land values near BRT systems often rise, which can have a substantial impact on the local population. Studies indicate that South American and Asian cities have experienced more pronounced increases in property values compared to U.S. cities with express bus systems. A 2018 case study in the U.S. found that public transit-related price increases were similar across BRT, light-rail, and heavy-rail systems, suggesting a higher net return on capital investment when spent on BRT development (Ingvardson & Nielsen, 2018).

BRT investments can also induce residential and commercial development, although the empirical evidence on these impacts is still limited (Vergel-Tovar & Landis, 2022). The significance of these impacts is closely tied to accompanying land-use policies. Curitiba, for example, has successfully integrated land use and transit planning over 40 years of BRT implementation, encouraging high-density development along BRT corridors. In contrast, cities like Quito and Bogotá have seen development concentrated around BRT stations, with limited corridor-wide growth.

Inducing urban development and redevelopment through BRT implementation has proven to be challenging and context-dependent. For example, Bogotá has seen more commercial development induced by the TransMilenio system, with diverse and intense redevelopment around BRT corridors connecting key activity areas. Successful infrastructure implementation, when accompanied by appropriate land-use policies, can lead to consistently increasing ridership. Research shows that BRT ridership is higher when the surrounding environment aligns with the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD) (Vergel-Tovar & Landis, 2022).

Balancing the Benefits and Challenges of BRT Systems

As discussed in previous sections, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is recognized as a cost-effective transportation option for sustainable urban mobility. Successful BRT implementations worldwide have demonstrated numerous benefits, including environmental friendliness, improved mobility, enhanced accessibility, and more significant equity in transportation. BRT systems are also believed to impact land and property values positively. Although there is no complete consensus on the extent of BRT’s influence on the land market, empirical studies suggest that in some cases, such as in Bogotá, Colombia, better access to BRT stations can lead to increased residential property values (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

Research by Rodríguez and Targa (2004) explores how the BRT system in Bogotá has altered residents’ commutes and how these impacts have evolved for different beneficiary groups. Additionally, the study examines the relationship between multifamily apartment rentals and accessibility to BRT station locations (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

While BRT is revolutionizing public transit systems worldwide, numerous empirical studies in Latin America have highlighted its effectiveness and success. Despite BRT’s growing popularity, particularly in the last two decades, questions remain about its effectiveness as a mass-transit option. From a decision-maker perspective, some disadvantages of BRT include its limited ability to encourage economic development compared to light rail and heavy rail systems. Investors favor developing residential, commercial, and office spaces around rail lines and stations rather than bus lanes and stations. Concerns exist regarding the negative externalities associated with BRT services, such as noise and pollution. However, these adverse effects could be mitigated by using compressed natural gas (CNG) as fuel for BRT vehicles, thereby reducing the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Policymakers often argue that light rail transit (LRT) infrastructure has a more permanent and visible presence, which could lead to more significant public transit commitment and attract more private-sector investment and land development around stations. Nevertheless, more research is needed to fully understand the impact of BRT on land development, investment attraction, and the relationship between BRT accessibility and land values (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

In contrast to Curitiba, where BRT investments and land-use developments are closely integrated, the effects of BRT on proximity-related externalities, accessibility, and land development remain unclear in many other cases. Therefore, this section focuses on Bogotá to assess the impact of BRT accessibility on land development. As the capital of Colombia and one of the densest cities in the world, Bogotá faces significant mobility challenges despite its relatively low car ownership rate compared to other major Latin American cities. Over the past few decades, numerous efforts have been made to address these issues, though many have failed.

However, the city has undertaken several mobility and urban development initiatives in the last two decades to implement sustainable transportation strategies (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004). In 1999, Bogotá invested in an extensive BRT network built between 1999 and 2000. It began operations in late 2000 with two main corridors. This new network will cover 80% of the city’s daily transit trips.

Data show that implementing the BRT system has dramatically improved mobility and accessibility in Bogotá.

The BRT system now spans 42.5 km of dedicated busways and accommodates around 800,000 one-way trips daily. In fact, TransMilenio transports more passengers than the public transportation networks of several major cities worldwide (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004). Additionally, the transformation of a busway corridor plagued by safety issues, pollution, and aesthetic concerns into a modern BRT system has led to significantly reduced travel times, lower noise levels, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, making Bogotá’s case unique (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

A study analyzed the impact of local physical accessibility to BRT stations on residential land value and rental prices by selecting a 1.5 km buffer area around two main corridors of the BRT system in Bogotá. Other factors, such as housing characteristics, were controlled for in the analysis. The results demonstrated that higher rental prices for multifamily residential units were associated with improved accessibility to BRT station sites. Properties located five minutes closer to stations saw rental prices increase by 6.8% to 9.3%, reflecting property owners’ value on proximity to BRT stations (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

Understanding the impacts of BRT station accessibility on land value under Bogotá’s current conditions helps planners anticipate how such accessibility could shape future land-use planning. As the BRT system expanded from 42.5 km to several hundred kilometers, it significantly affected accessibility and affordability to different land uses. The authors suggest that as the system grows, BRT will become more competitive with other modes of transportation, such as private vehicles, enhancing its overall usability and value to customers. This competitive advantage is expected to correlate with increased land values (Rodríguez & Targa, 2004).

In the following paragraphs, we will analyze how informal transport, consisting of privately owned and operated buses, competes with the BRT system in Bogotá. We will also discuss how the Phase 3 expansion did not benefit low-income commuters and how BRT competes with informal transportation, which is more affordable and flexible for these commuters.

Although TransMilenio has been lauded as a successful model for improving urban transport in Bogotá, it has recently faced severe criticism for various reasons, including cost, ownership structure, design efficacy, and, most notably, its failure to address transportation issues in the city effectively (Gilbert, 2008). Despite its success, it is unfortunate that the BRT system in Bogotá has failed to serve the city’s poor and underserved populations adequately.

Research shows that in both developing and developed countries, the two primary reasons people opt to use private vehicles are the lack of reliable public transit and rising incomes. However, private cars are unsustainable for various reasons, including increased congestion, higher air pollution, diminished quality of life, and reduced economic productivity. Latin American countries have not been exempt from the negative impacts of increased car ownership. To counter these issues, many cities worldwide have developed rail transit systems. However, rail systems, such as subways, metros, and light rail, have challenges, including high construction and maintenance costs, limited coverage, and unequal service to minority and low-income populations. In this context, a well-designed bus system is the best way to address the problems associated with rising car usage and the limitations of rail transport (Gilbert, 2008).

The BRT system is notably one of the most reliable and efficient public transit options. BRT can transport nearly as many passengers as rail systems but is much cheaper to build and maintain. As mentioned in previous sections, Curitiba pioneered the BRT model, which other Latin American cities, including Bogotá, have since adopted. The collaboration between the public and private sectors in Bogotá’s BRT implementation has led to positive outcomes. However, the system, particularly the TransMilenio, has faced challenges and criticism. For example, passenger numbers have declined as many riders have returned to traditional buses. Additionally, fares have increased relative to wages and the cost of other bus services, and some aspects of the Phase 3 expansion have been controversial (Gilbert, 2008).

Table 8.7 outlines the construction plan for different phases of the BRT system in Bogotá. Data collected by surveying residents shows that 19% of respondents in 2005, 18% in 2006, and 14% in 2007 cited TransMilenio as their primary mode of transportation. By 2007, the system carried an average of 1.3 million people per workday (Gilbert, 2008).

Source: Gilbert, 2008

The local criticism regarding the Bogota BRT started when Phase 2 began in 2004. The first group of complaints was related to three main issues, including 1) the traffic congestion caused by the construction of the system, 2) the decay of the road surface, and 3) the deteriorating condition of the bus stations. The second group of criticism was mostly concerned with overcrowding, delays to the bus system, and passenger protests regarding the decrease in the system’s services. The third group of complaints was about safety and security issues, indicating the risk of robbery, primarily because of overcrowding. Finally, the fourth group of issues was related to the decline in the technical problems of the system. Undoubtedly, this confluence of pests is to blame for the declining approval ratings. Compared to other forms of transportation, the public awarded Trans Milenio an excellent rating when it first began operating; in 2001, it scored a 93% acceptance rating. However, only 66% of respondents believed the service was still outstanding or excellent in 2007 (Gilbert, 2008).

Moreover, one of the most critical questions regarding the efficiency of the Bogota BRT system relates to its state of equity and affordability. This is an essential issue since most of the city’s population is low-income, and the system’s construction is highly subsidized. Current data show that most users of the BRT system in Bogota are middle-income people; however, the low-income population is the majority. The main reason for this issue is related to the network’s expansion and the areas covered by the network; Transmilenio’s current routes do not reach large areas of poor settlement, and the fares charged are more expensive than those in the traditional system. Furthermore, although future c corridors will cover a much broader socio-economic cross-section of the city, the subsequent and recently expanded phases (Phase 3) do not prioritize routes that pass through poor areas (Gilbert, 2008).

Therefore, removing competition is the most appropriate way to solve the issue. The small-scale owners and drivers must negotiate a political agreement to do this. Due to unfair competition, TransMilenio is not transporting as many passengers as the present fleet of articulated buses can accommodate. Buses are still parked in the garages, and TransMilenio tariffs have climbed due to rising costs and stagnant passenger volume. If nothing is done to halt the illegal buses and speed up the scrapping program, TransMilenio may find itself in a dangerous downward spiral. It won’t be able to convince clients to switch from the existing system, which is less expensive and would need to raise prices once again to survive (Gilbert, 2008).

Last but not least, a considerable portion of public money is spent on building Bogota’s infrastructure. Making space for personal automobiles, taxis, and standard buses accounts for a large part of the expense of building corridors. If public policy could limit the number of private cars using Bogotá’s streets, the infrastructure cost may decrease, and the number of passengers might grow (Gilbert, 2008).

Local criticism of Bogotá’s BRT system began intensifying during Phase 2, which started in 2004. Complaints were grouped into four main categories.

1. Traffic and Infrastructure Issues: The first set of criticisms focused on traffic congestion caused by the system’s construction, the deterioration of road surfaces, and the worsening condition of bus stations.
2. Operational Challenges: The second group of complaints revolved around overcrowding, delays, and declining service quality, leading to passenger protests.
3. Safety and Security Concerns: The third category highlighted safety issues, particularly the increased risk of robbery due to overcrowding.
4. Technical Problems: The final group of complaints concerned the system’s declining technical performance.

These issues contributed to a significant drop in public approval. When TransMilenio launched in 2001, it received a 93% approval rating. However, by 2007, only 66% of respondents rated the service as excellent or outstanding (Gilbert, 2008).

Equity and affordability have also become critical issues for the Bogotá BRT system. Although the system was heavily subsidized and intended to serve the entire population, current data indicates that most BRT users are middle-income despite the city’s majority low-income population. The main reasons are related to network expansion and coverage. TransMilenio’s routes do not adequately reach many poor neighborhoods, and its fares are higher than those of the traditional bus system. While future corridors are expected to cover a broader socio-economic range of the city, the recent expansion (Phase 3) has not prioritized routes through low-income areas (Gilbert, 2008).

Addressing the competition from informal transport is crucial for improving the BRT system’s efficiency. TransMilenio is not carrying as many passengers as possible due to competition with illegal buses. Many articulated buses remain unused in garages, and fares have increased due to rising costs and stagnant ridership. If no action is taken to eliminate illegal buses and accelerate the scrapping of outdated vehicles, TransMilenio could enter a dangerous downward spiral. The system may struggle to attract customers from the cheaper, existing alternatives and may need to raise fares again to stay afloat (Gilbert, 2008).

Lastly, the cost of building Bogotá’s infrastructure, particularly the space allocated for private cars, taxis, and standard buses, consumes a significant portion of public funds. If public policy were to limit the number of private vehicles on Bogotá’s streets, infrastructure costs could decrease, and passenger numbers on public transit might increase (Gilbert, 2008).

Conclusion

This chapter introduced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a successful and cost-effective public transit solution. BRT has become a popular response to traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and other transportation challenges, particularly in developing cities. The benefits of BRT systems are numerous, ranging from reductions in pollution and travel time to shifts in travel behavior, increased labor force participation, higher tax revenues, and rising property values near BRT corridors. By examining some of the most successful BRT implementations, we highlighted the significant impact BRT can have on the urban transportation landscape.

BRT systems show considerable promise regarding social equity. For example, an analysis of Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT system reveals that lower-income riders experience greater reductions in travel time compared to middle-class users. Additionally, BRT users often benefit from more efficient routes and network designs, resulting in lower fares than conventional buses, as seen in cities like Mexico City, Bogotá, and Lagos.

However, the research on BRT impacts is not uniformly positive. Some studies report mixed or contradictory results, indicating minimal improvements in job access for low-income populations or more significant time savings for middle- and high-income groups rather than for the poor.

Further research is needed to evaluate BRT’s potential to encourage a shift away from car use, particularly in North American cities where solo driving remains a significant issue. A comprehensive analysis should explore the factors of the built environment that are essential for a successful BRT system and how these benefits can enhance social equity in car-dependent American cities.

REFERENCES

Ardila-Gomez, A. & Ortegon-Sanchez, A. (2016). Sustainable urban transport financing from the sidewalk to the subway: Capital, operations, and maintenance financing. World Bank Group. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0756-5

Gilbert, A. (2008). Bus rapid transit: Is Transmilenio into a miracle cure? Transport Reviews, 28(4), 439–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701785733

Goedeking, N. (2024). Broad support vs. deep opposition: The politics of bus rapid transit in low- and middle-income countries. Transport Policy, 145, 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.10.019

Hensher, D. A., & Golob, T. F. (2008). Bus rapid transit systems: A comparative assessment. Transportation, 35(4), 501–511. https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/2293/

Hidalgo, D., & Gutiérrez, L. (2013). BRT and BHLS around the world: Explosive growth, large positive impacts and many issues outstanding. Research in Transportation Economics, 39(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.018

Hidalgo, D., Pereira, L., Estupiñán, N., & Jiménez, P. L. (2013). TransMilenio BRT system in Bogota, high performance and positive impact – Main results of an ex-post evaluation. Research in Transportation Economics, 39(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.005

Hook, W., Kost, C., Navarro, U., Replogle, M., & Baranda, B. (2010). Carbon dioxide reduction benefits of bus rapid transit systems: Learning from Bogotá, Colombia; Mexico City, Mexico; and Jakarta, Indonesia. Transportation Research Record, 2193(1), 9–16. https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/3899/

Ingvardson, J., & Nielsen, O. (2018). Effects of new bus and rail rapid transit systems – an international review. World Transit Research. https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/6699

Lindau, L. A., Hidalgo, D., & Facchini, D. (2010). Curitiba the cradle of bus rapid transit. Built Environment, 36(3), 274–282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23289717

Nakamura, F., Makimura, K, & Toyama, Y. (2016). Perspectives on an urban transportation strategy with BRT for developing cities. Engineering and Applied Science Research, 44(3), 196-201. https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/easr/index

Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: Beyond megacities. Sustainability, 7(6), 7784–7895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067784 

Rodríguez, D. A., & Targa, F. (2004). Value of accessibility to Bogotá’s bus rapid transit system. Transport Reviews, 24(5), 587–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000195081

Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757.

Vergel-Tovar, C. E., & Landis, J. (2022). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – The Affordable Transit Megaproject Alternative. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803920634.00013