Working Paper N°03 (13/01/2014): Transit Maps for BRT Maps

Transcription

Transit Maps for
BRT Systems
Working Paper
Research team:
Professor Rosário Macário
Bernardo F. Garcia
Camila Garcia
January 2014
Transit Maps for BRT Systems
Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION_____________________________________________________________________ 3
1.1.
OBJECTIVE ___________________________________________________________________________ 4
1.2.
METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________________ 4
2.
BRT SYSTEMS _______________________________________________________________________ 6
3.
TRANSIT MAPS____________________________________________________________________ 11
4.
TRANSIT MAPS IN BRT SYSTEM ________________________________________________ 18
5.
TRANSIT MAP SURVEY __________________________________________________________ 24
6.
REFERENCES ______________________________________________________________________ 31
ANNEX ___________________________________________________________________________________ 34
2
1. Introduction
One of the most important issues for urban mobility systems to reach their
purpose of providing users with mobility and accessibility is the information
provided to them about the services offered (Filipe and Macário, 2006). In the
specific case of public transport the provision of information is critical not only to
the ones that are already used with it, but also to those not familiar with.
Information can be provided in many different forms ranging from printed media,
such as timetables and maps, to verbal media like instructions or messages sent by
the transit staff, as well as to electronic media such as real time display panels and
on-line trip planners (Cain et al., 2007).
Transit maps are considered one of the most traditional means of providing
information to users. They represent the public transport network and have the
primary task of helping users navigate through it. Those maps are usually
schematic diagrams that depict locations, directions and connections of service
lines and stations, and do not normally include service information like travel time.
The information associated with this kind of media is crucial to the user’s travel
decision, serving as powerful planning tool to guide individual preference and to
improve the overall system efficiency (Guo, 2011).
Although transit maps are considered the main trip planning media and the most
popular amongst users, especially when there is no other source of information
available (Cain et al., 2007), the differences between the design of the transit maps
produced represent a barrier for an adequate reading by users. To overcome this
issue some efforts have been developed, such as the NCTR guidebook, helping in
the design of printed transit information material (Cain et al., 2008), the set of
guidelines for the development of transit maps proposed by Allard (2009), as well
as the research by Avelar (2002) and Avelar and Hurni (2006).
Besides the research focusing on the design of transit maps and the development
of good practices for their construction, a new research field has emerged on the
effects of transit maps on travel decisions (Guo, 2011). Its focus is related to the
impact of transit maps on user perception and their usage of the system. That
relationship might have significant implications for transit operation and planning,
with transit maps serving as a potential planning tool to solve operational
problems and improve system efficiency.
Some studies that investigate map effects on user choices have been developed in
the last years. Vertesi (2008) analyzed the effects of schematic maps on people’s
spatial cognition and their wayfinding behavior in London. Hochmair (2009)
compared the effect of different transit map designs on route choices in Vienna and
found that the inclusion of headway information on the maps favored the choice
for faster routes. Raveau et al. (2011) investigated the impact of Santiago de Chile’s
3
Metro map on its passengers’ route choice and found that the route directness and
the angular cost depicted in the map do matter.
In the specific case of BRT systems the use of transit maps is still underexploited
like in the majority of bus systems. This happens due to the high density of bus
lines which makes difficult their representation and consequently the reading of
the maps. However, as a BRT network has a structuring character in an urban
mobility system, the representation of only its main (or trunk) lines allows a more
efficient map design like the ones developed for Metrobús in Mexico City,
TransMilenio in Bogotá or Curitiba’s RIT. Besides, as many of the BRT systems are
still in their initial phase, having only one or two corridors in operation,
development and implementation of maps in a progressive way to guide user
navigation seems to be a promising activity also to promote this kind of systems.
1.1. Objective
The objective of the project is to propose guidelines for the development and use
of transit maps in BRT systems. To achieve this main goal the following specific
objectives need to be pursuit:
•
•
•
•
Diagnosis of the current practice regarding the development and use of
transit maps in BRT systems;
Analysis of cases where BRT maps have been successfully developed and
used;
Identification of the users level of knowledge and usage of BRT maps;
Propose guidelines for the development and use of transit maps in BRT
systems.
1.2. Methodology
In order to accomplish the objectives proposed the methodology to be applied in
this project is based on case studies and user surveys. Four main working areas are
envisioned according to each specific objective:
•
•
•
Working area 1- State of the art: in this phase the elements needed to
define the state of the art relative to BRT systems will be surveyed, and also
the use of public transport maps and survey methods to users;
Working area 2 – Diagnosis: this phase consists in identify the current
practice of the development and use of transit maps in BRT system. For this
the start point will be the analysis of all BRT systems listed in the BRT
database compiled by the ALC-BRT Centre of Excellence. The existence of
maps for the systems, the type of map used (schematic, geographic, hybrid)
and the main characteristics of these maps will be analyzed;
Working area 3 – Analysis of selected cases: this phase refers to the
analysis of specific BRT systems identified in the previous phase. Successful
cases where the use of transit maps is already established will be deeply
4
•
•
analyzed in order to understand the process of development and
implementation of the maps;
Working area 4 – Users survey: this phase consists in the development of a
survey with user of transit systems (including BRT systems) in order to
identify their level of knowledge and usage about maps and their
perception regarding the most useful maps design for BRT systems.
Working area 5 – Development of guidelines: this phase is related with
the recommendation of good practices for the development and use of
transit maps in BRT systems.
5
2. BRT Systems
The origins of BRT can be traced back to the 1930s, in the United States (Levinson
et al., 2002; Mejía-Dugand et al., 2013), though the expression “BRT” was to be first
used in 1966 in a study called “Transportation and Parking for Tomorrow’s Cities”,
by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Despite the fact of not attracting international
attention at its beginning, Curitiba’s RIT was responsible for developing the
concept of full featured BRT being considered the first example of its application
(Lindau et al., 2010). After that, different types of BRT systems have been
implemented throughout Latin and North America, Asia, Australia and most
recently in Africa and India (Deng and Nelson, 2010).
Albeit BRT is not the only mass transit option available for application, with metro
rail, LRT, monorail, and the standard bus systems also as options that municipal
leaders may consider (ITDP, 2007), BRT systems respond to that having the
potential to bid for substantial opportunities on urban development and the
enhancement of public spaces with impact on land-use (CERTU, 2010), also being
implemented faster than rail modes, within a short period of time (1-3 years after
beginning of conception), generally being planned within a period of 12 to 18
months (ITDP, 2007).
Thus the advance of BRT as an efficient choice for planners and decision-makers is
also partially explained by its low infrastructure costs combined with the capacity
to operate almost without subsidies and adapt to a range of different cities and
conditions, contrary to rail that, requiring longer implementation times, can
possibly result in financial risks, a concern for the same decision-makers
(Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Deng and Nelson, 2010).
Concept and definitions
In spite of having a wide and shifting concept, BRT has been defined by the
American Federal Transit Administration as “a flexible, rubber-tired form of rapid
transit that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and ITS elements
into an integrated system with a strong identity” (Levinson et al., 2003a). It is also
qualified as a “rubber-tired light rail transit with greater operating flexibility and
potential lower costs” (Levinson et al., 2003b), providing high-quality service
(Deng and Nelson, 2010), put in practice with the use of modern vehicles,
dedicated busways and also intelligent transportation systems technologies. Other
definition for BRT that demonstrates the extent of the concept is the one from
Thomas (2001) affirming that BRT is “a rapid mode of transportation that can
combine the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses”.
The reproduction of experiences and the evolution of the concept itself helped
create a progression within BRT systems, from BRT-lite to full-BRT. The former is
considered the “lower limit” of the concept and a minimum faster than a normal
6
bus line (Levinson et al., 2003a); the latter represents the bus systems that can
achieve performances comparable to the ones achieved by metro systems. As Finn
et al. (2010) defined, “full-BRT targets the same qualities as the metro: fully gradeseparated transit-ways, pre-board fare collection, frequent and rapid services,
modern and clean vehicles, and marketing and identity”.
In this way, Finn (2013) proposed a categorization of different types of BRT
systems around the world, grouping them in the three following categories:
•
•
•
High capacity Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), as implemented in South America,
South-East Asia and Africa with capacities exceeding LRT and sometimes
matching Metro;
Moderate capacity BRT (BRT-Lite, Busways), as implemented in North
America and Australia, with capacity matching or exceeding light railway
systems;
Bus with High Level of Service (BHLS), a European approach, with focus
on quality and reliability, with capacity matching or exceeding street
tramway systems.
In turn, Muñoz and Hidalgo (2013) proposed a broader classification for the busbased transit types in which BRT and the European BHLS are included. This
classification considers a more detailed typology of rapid transit system, with
three BRT categories (high, medium and basic) and the BHLS category with their
respective features and applications to urban environments (Table 1).
Table 1: Types of bus-based transit
Type
Main Features
Application
Basic bus corridor
Median or curbside lanes, on board payment,
conventional buses
Low
density
suburbs
corridors,
Bus of high level of
service (BHLS)
Infrastructure, technology and advanced
vehicles for enhanced service provision
Small urban areas, historic
downtown, suburbs
Medium BRT
Single median lanes, off board payment,
information technologies
Medium density corridors,
suburb/center connections
High capacity BRT
Dual median lanes physically separated, large
stations with prepayment, large buses,
information technologies, combined services
High demand, dense, mixed
use corridors, central city
Source: Munoz and Hidalgo (2013)
Despite marked differences in infrastructure, vehicles and services between
distinct types of BRT systems, the objectives of a full-BRT project, as listed by
Larwin et al. (2007) must result in a rail-like transit service, providing an
improvement in customer convenience and on minimization of delays, surpassing
other transit options like regular buses or even light rail, and having similar
performance to Metro systems. These general objectives would be:
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reducing transit travel time;
Increasing trip reliability;
Improving transit connections and providing more direct service;
Decreasing station stop dwell times and waiting times;
Enhancing system identity;
Heightening travel comfort;
Reinforcing safety and security.
To achieve these objectives, there are seven main components to be taken in
consideration in BRT systems that collectively build the efficiency of the service,
based on attributes like speed, reliability and identity (Levinson et al., 2002),
improving customer experience, reducing delays and upgrading comfort, especially
if compared to regular bus services. They can also be considered an integrated
package of rapid transit elements working together for the whole system (Deng
and Nelson, 2010), being a challenge for transportation professionals not to
sacrifice any of the package items in developing a BRT project (Larwin et al., 2007).
These components can be described (Levinson et al., 2002; Larwin et al., 2007;
Díaz and Hinebaugh, 2009) as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Running ways define where vehicles travel, being the most critical element
in determining the speed and the reliability of the system, also having an
impact on image and identity, mainly as exclusive grade-separated rightsof-way.
Stations serves as the entry point of the system, the most important
customer interface and a critical element in achieving image and identity,
varying from simple stops to major boarding points.
Vehicles are also linked with image and identity of the system, for their
aesthetics, being desirable the operations with specially dedicated fleets.
Branding elements are crucial to provide the customer with information
and to communicate the system’s values, in a wide range of strategies for a
set of product features and service attributes.
Service and operating plans consist in the design of the service and
operation characteristics of the system such as route length, route
structure, station distance, service span and frequency. The design of all
these features impacts in the user’s perception about the service offered.
ITS applications are modern technologies that enhance system
performance in terms of travel time, reliability, efficiency, safety and
security through the use of advanced communications. Practically no
system today is implemented without ITS elements.
Fare collection system includes fare policies, fare collection practices and
payment media. It is an important element of a busy service as BRT,
affecting user convenience and accessibility, as well as dwell times, service
reliability, and passenger security.
8
The European case of BHLS
In brief, the acronym BHLS (Bus with a High Level of Service) refers to the
adaptation of the concept of BRT to the French context, where the mass transit
function is already delivered by metros and tramways and which includes narrow
streets, at grade urbanism, focus on quality and reliability, more than on speed
(CERTU, 2010). In Europe, researchers also prefer to use the term (Finn et al.,
2010) that was introduced in the 1990s, as they wanted to differentiate the
European applications, which are based on improving passenger experience rather
on supplying BRT components, with an approach that seek to increase bus
ridership and quality of service, adapting its offer to the European urban and
economic context (Heddebaut et al., 2010; Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 2013).
While in the United States cities developed with diffuse and low density spread out
suburbs not favoring mass transit (Finn, 2013), the European forms of urbanism
contemplated dense urban areas, sometimes with narrow streets, concentrating
most activities and residences. In the American case, automobile use gained
ground over the option for a comprehensive network of public transportation
(suburban and regional), for instance, by rail. Thus, European BHLS fills the gap
between regular bus and LRT in terms of performance, cost and capacity, for the
particular conditions of European cities (Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 2013), that are
regularly satisfied in their transit needs by trams, LRT, metro and trains (Finn et
al., 2010).
The approach of a BHLS system, apart from the differences motivated by distinct
urban histories and contexts, has the same objective of taking a sizable advantage
of an economical, bus-based system, by using the elements of heavier systems
whose performance is well known (trams, light rail, metros, and even full-BRT), as
Finn et al. (2010) point out. Indeed, urban areas which already have those modes
implemented can operate a BHLS as an intermediate system, offering service levels
between those offered by such modes and conventional buses, also creating a
hierarchy within the system the city’s transportation network (CERTU, 2010).
Reasons for implementing BRT
Hensher (1999) affirmed that in many cities, buses moved more passengers than
any other public mode, however, usually not being favored by the operation on
mixed-mode infrastructure, along with cars and trucks. As a result of this, railbased transportation systems, like Metro and LRT, had an edge on the preference
for transportation infrastructures of choice (Hidalgo and Gutiérrez, 2013), even
considering the fact that just a few of them were indeed successful enough to
legitimize their implementation and operation, also the discordance from research
such as the ones from Hensher and Waters (1994) and Richmond (1998), who
defended the bus-based option instead of light rail in some urban contexts where
the latter was evaluated.
9
As for this, BRT systems, have been designed as cost effective as possible (Hensher,
2008; Finn et al., 2010), precisely to provide an advantage to planners and
decision-makers, as well as to present them an opportunity, although clear-cut
operating cost comparisons for distinct systems and cities are difficult to make due
to differences among agencies and their systems (GAO, 2001). As a consequence,
the rise of BRT as an effective transit option relates mostly to its relatively low
infrastructure costs and ability to operate without subsidies (ITDP, 2007), being
these the main reasons for BRT is rapidly expanding (also because of its fast
implementation times and high performance). Thus BRT presents much lower
expenditures in relevant comparisons with rail modes, which with similar
capacities can cost three to ten times more (Hensher, 1999; Wright and Hook,
2007)
As ITDP (2007) pointed out, “BRT can provide high-quality, metro-like transit
service at a fraction of the cost of other options”, being imperative to stress the
additional ridership as the most substantial benefit, seconded by operating
efficiencies, land development and environmental quality (Díaz and Hinebaugh,
2009). Also, as BRT systems have operational flexibility, and can be built quickly,
incrementally, and economically (Levinson et al., 2003c), as well as with the
possibility of being routed to eliminate transfers (GAO, 2001). They can be
implemented very rapidly within a short time frame (Hensher, 1999), making its
systems attractive to political leaders willing to complete projects before the next
electoral cycle (Hidalgo and Carrigan, 2010).
10
3. Transit Maps
One of the most important issues for urban mobility systems to reach their
purpose of providing users with mobility and accessibility is the information
provided to them about the services offered (Filipe and Macário, 2006). In the
specific case of public transport the provision of information is critical not only to
the ones that are already used with it, but also to those not familiar with.
Information can be provided in many different forms ranging from printed media,
such as timetables and maps, to verbal media like instructions or messages sent by
the transit staff, as well as to electronic media such as real time display panels and
on-line trip planners (Cain et al., 2007).
In this way, transit maps are amongst the most essential sources of information on
public transport systems (Cain et al., 2007; Avelar, 2008). They represent the
public transport network and have the primary task of helping users navigate
through it, particularly in the case of complex trips involving various routes and
transfers between services and transport modes (Allard, 2008). This type of maps
follows the example of any general map and has two important functions: the first
is to roughly inform and the second is to answer specifically. The informative
function must necessarily anticipate the precise answering function (Wessel,
2013). Therefore maps must be interpreted and analyzed in depth to establish
decisions and select a route (Freksa, 1999).
Usually transit maps are designed as schematic diagrams that depict locations,
directions and connections of service lines and stations, and do not normally
include service information like travel time. The information associated with this
kind of media is crucial to the user’s travel decisions, serving as powerful planning
tool to guide individual preference and to improve the overall system efficiency
(Guo, 2011). As Allard (Allard, 2009) pointed out, “although graphic designers and
cartographers have projected most of today’s transit maps, design investigations
and literature on the subject are fairly limited and disperse in other fields of
studies”.
History of transit maps
The use of maps to help guide people to navigate through routes started around
2000 BC by the Egyptians and the Romans. One of the most known examples of
early route maps, the Peutinger Table, is a strip map featuring the road network of
the Roman Empire, covering roughly from Southeast England to Sri Lanka. These
ancient maps, although presenting a high degree of distortion, allowed people to
travel accurately through those ancient roads (Goss, 1993; Avelar and Hurni,
2006).
More recently the development and use of transit maps gained strength from the
construction and expansion of major subway systems such as the London
11
Underground and the New York Subway. They are both iconic examples of how the
definition of guidelines can help to develop more accurate maps and also how
important is to have in consideration the urban particularities of the area where
the system to be represented is implemented.
The London Underground started its development in the end of the nineteenth
century with the construction of the very first underground line. Its first map was
designed in the beginning of the twentieth century as the representation of a group
of lines operating separately and not as a real system. Some years later, after the
operating companies of the system joined together, F. H. Stingemore presented a
card folder map for the system with some topographical distortion, presenting
some of the routes compressed in comparison with London’s central area.
In 1933, Harry Beck drew the first version of the current London Underground
diagram which revolutionized the design of public transport maps (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Beck’s diagram for the London Underground
Beck’s design seems to be inspired by the electrical diagram that he drew for the
system and was characterized by two main design strategies: the importance of
function over the precise geography and the exclusion of surface features (Allard,
2009). However, according to Roberts (2005), the most important contribution of
Beck’s diagram was the definition of a set of guidelines for the production of an
attractive and usable map of a very complex network. Such rules were identified by
the same author as the following:
•
Only horizontal, vertical, and 45-degree lines are used;
•
The center of the map (city center) is enlarged at the expense of its suburbs;
•
A distinctive interchange symbol is used;
•
Stations are denoted by tick marks;
•
Lines are denoted by different colors;
12
•
Street details are not shown (but one geographical mark, the River Thames,
is included).
Nevertheless, the Beck’s diagram presented some limitations and was criticized for
being considered an inaccurate guide to London’s complex configuration due to the
disproportionate spacing between stations and the enlargement of the city center
(Garland, 1994). Such inaccuracy mislead underground users and until today it’s
stimulating the exodus of London’s inner-city inhabitants and encouraging the
users to take a train between two stations when other forms of transport would be
far more suitable. Besides, the diagram was limited by the lack of information
about services (e.g., connection with buses) which can also hamper user
navigation.
As a way to overcome the Beck’s diagram limitation of showing only functional
relationships and not geographically correct relationships, an alternative map was
proposed by a group of students from Delft’s Technical University (TU Delft). The
proposal combined diagrammatic and geographic representations of the London
Underground in a same map (Figure 3). In the new map, lines in the central area
were represented geographically correct so that important above-ground
landmarks could be added, this way generating a more efficient trip planning that
could be considered with the inclusion of alternative ways of transport, such as
walking (Roberts, 2005; Allard, 2009).
Contrary to the London Underground case, the New York Subway is inserted in a
city with a unique geography whose street system makes it difficult to represent
the subway system with just a diagrammatic or just a geographic format. The
system started to be developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, but only
from 1940, with the integration of the New York transit, the Metropolitan Transit
Authority started to experiment different map styles and only in 1958 the first
schematic map with smoothed edges for each borough, simplified train routes and
no geographic references was proposed by George Salomon (Allard, 2009).
Still, the first schematic map presented some weaknesses, such as the lack of colors
along with clutter, leading to the development of a set of maps by Vignelli in 1972,
which considered some Beck’s rules such as grid organization, different colors for
lines, representation of all stations, enlargement of the central area, etc., and
introduced more geographical references. But this map was also very criticized
mainly for its inability to relate the underground ways with the city’s aboveground geography, and for the conflict between its logical and the NY’s gridiron
street system (Allard, 2009).
The current NY Subway map, known as “The Map”, is an update of the one
originally proposed by Hertz in the final of the 70. This map was an evolution of
the Vignelli’s map by considering the street grid, showed neighborhood names and
pointed out major landmarks (Allard, 2009). However, critics complained about
the overload of information in “The Map” and a new independent map known is
13
“Kick map” was proposed by the graphic designer Eddie Jabbour as a way to join
Vignelli’s and Hertz’s proposals through a hybrid map in which the good aspect of
both diagrammatic and geographic style are featured (Figure 2)(Jabbour, 2008).
Figure 2: Hertz’ Map and the Kick Map for the New York Subway (Jabbour, 2008)
Types of transit maps
Although transit maps are considered the main trip planning media and the most
popular amongst users, especially when there is no other source of information
available (Cain et al., 2007), the differences between the design of the transit maps
produced represent a barrier for an adequate reading by users. To overcome this
issue some efforts have been developed, such as the NCTR guidebook, helping in
the design of printed transit information material (Cain et al., 2008), or the set of
guidelines developed by Allard (2009), for the development of maps for transit
systems.
According to Cain et al. (2007), a system map is “a printed map that shows the
location of all transit routes within a given area”, thus designed to give users an
overview of the whole transit system, helping them identify their location, their
trip origin and destination, and determine the route to be taken, acting as a spatial
media used for representing knowledge (Berendt et al., 1998). It can also be
distorted to prioritize readability over geographic accuracy. In this way, there are
four basic types of system maps: geographical, schematic, hybrid and overlay. The
first two are considered the plainest map models, while the other two are a mixed
version sometimes featuring characteristics of both geographical and schematic
maps.
Geographical maps are a topological representation of the public transport
network in which the distance between the stations and the directions and cross
streets are represented in a very accurate way (Figure 3a). However, the use of
geographical maps can be tricky to represent large spaces, tight turns and areas
with a high concentration of stops. Schematic maps in turn are a simplified
representation that depicts locations, directions, and connections of stations and
lines in a transit system (Figure 3b). They can be considered as a rough sketch of
14
distance and space, being more of a guideline for directions and obtained by
relaxing spatial constraints from detailed maps (Barkowsky and Freksa, 1997).
Geographical map (a)
Schematic map (b)
Figure 3: Geographical and schematic maps of the London Underground (Guo, 2011)
Overlay maps are basically a superimposition of transit routes over a road map
and are usually used to represent bus systems (Figure 4a). They provide high
levels of detail and are typically to scale, but their users may complain of
difficulties in differentiating the transit service elements from other map features
(Cain et al., 2008). Hybrid maps, or semi-schematic maps, in turn, consist in a
simplified representation of lines and connections together with main topographic
and/or contextual features (Figure 4b). They are especially suited for crowded
areas where alternatives to arrange features without severe topographic distortion
are needed (Allard, 2009).
Overlay map (a)
Hybrid map (b)
Figure 4: Examples of a hybrid map and overlay map (Cain et al., 2007)
15
The use of system maps varies with the type of transportation mode to be
represented (Table 1) (Allard, 2009). Schematic maps are more suitable to
represent railway system, especially in underground systems where there is no
representation of what is on surface. Overlay maps, in turn, are more adequate to
represent tram, light rail and bus systems as they normally have their routes
following the streets. An exception may occur in the underground section of trams
and light rail system to which schematic maps are more suitable. Finally, hybrid
maps are more appropriate to represent bus system, but mainly to intermodal
system where the diversity of information demands the use of different ways of
representation.
Table 1: Type of maps according type of modes
Type of mode
Type of map
Underground railway
Schematic maps
Surface railway
Schematic maps
Trams and light rail
Overlay maps and schematic maps
Buses
Overlay maps and hybrid maps
Intermodal
Hybrid maps
Transit maps and travel decisions
According to the study performed by Guo (2011), the information given by a
transit map may impact the passengers’ travel decisions, affecting them on the
grounds of path, location and mode choices. As stated by the same author, path
choice is considered the most impacted of the three, as it can easily capture the
true effects generated by a designed transit map.
The main path attributes could be listed as distance, considered the most
important factor involved in path choice decisions, as well as direction, landmarks
– normally omitted on schematic maps - connection and service quality, with
people preferring straight routes, linearity and less directional turns, all of which
being found to play an important part for route selection in usual activities
(Raveau et al., 2011). The support of landmarks for wayfinding is also considered
an important factor since they serve as key location points that help orient users
through the network.
Other kind of decision affected by transit maps relates to mode choice. A map can
boost the use of a mode, instead of another, by means of a better presentation. Map
coding, with the help of colors, marks and a distinct characterization, has its effect
16
on it, for instance, highlighting stations and lines for the users (Garland et al., 1979;
Dziekan, 2008). This is normally seen in rail systems maps, considered easier to
understand than bus systems maps, thus promoting the former. Also, in schematic
maps walking can be penalized in city centers as stations are designed farther than
they really are.
The design of transit maps can also influence location choices, by affecting people’s
spatial cognition (Guo, 2011) and their perception of the system, as in Harry Beck’s
design of the London Underground. The Tube map was believed to be a promoter
of the city expansion as they appeared closer than they really were to the city
center, a promotional purpose possible for a schematic representation, as
mentioned by Kennedy (1999).
17
4. Transit Maps in BRT System
In order to have an overview regarding the usage of transit maps in BRT system a
diagnosis based on the 156 cities comprised in the Global BRT Database was
performed. This analysis tried to identify the existence of transit maps in the
different systems considered, the type of maps used and the relation between
some systems characteristics (marketing identity and system size) and the usage
of transit maps. Moreover, some iconic cases of maps developed for BRT systems
are more deeply analyzed in order to have a better idea of the features most used
on transit maps applied to this case.
Looking at the set of cities considered it was possible verify that only 76% of them
(119 cities) present a transit map that depicts their BRT system only or in
conjunction with other transit system such as metros, trams or regular buses. The
majority of cities presenting a transit map also have a marketing identity (brand
and logo), about 70% of them, which demonstrate the importance of such
characteristic in this type of systems (Figure 1a). However, the size of the system
seems not having an influence on the use of the maps since regardless the number
of corridors in the system the majority of them presents a transit map (Figure 1b).
Figure 1a: Relation between transit maps
and marketing identity
Figure 1b: Relation between transit maps
and # of corridors
Regarding the type of maps used four varieties were identified: geographical,
overlay, schematic and from Google maps. Overlay and schematic maps are the
ones most used corresponding together for 88% of the analyzed maps (Figure 2a).
Overlay maps are specially used in Europe and North America, while schematic
maps are more easily found in Latin America, but also in Europe (Figure 2b).
Geographical maps and Google maps are the least used. Only two cases of
geographical maps were found in Europe which indicates that this type of maps
seems not be so explored to represent BRT system as the information provided by
them normally lack in details. Finally, it was noticed a tendency for the use of
Google maps to represent transit systems, especially in Latin America.
18
Concerning the marketing identity the general tendency is the use of maps
regardless its type when a brand and a logo are associated with the system (Figure
3a). However, schematic maps seem to be the preferred ones when a marketing
identity exists. Regarding the size of the system, it does not appear to have
influence on the type of maps used (Figure 3b). The majority of the analyzed cases
corresponds to one-corridor services, which not necessarily require a design of a
specific map to represent it. The usual action is to have a redesign of the preexistent map of the system, which may be schematic, overlay or geographical, and
then include the new corridor.
Figure 2a: Types of transit maps
Figure 3a: Types of transit maps and marketing
identity
Figure 2b: Types of transit maps by regions
Figure 3b: Types of transit maps and number of
corridors
Overall, the use of schematic maps is most expressive in Latin America where the
tradition to implement full-BRT systems is stronger. Examples such as the maps of
Curitiba (RIT), Bogotá (TransMilenio), Mexico City (Metrobús) and Pereira
(Megabús) demonstrate the adequacy of this type of map to represent a BRT
system. However, some European cities such as Swansea, Istanbul and Hamburg
choose to include the representation of their BHLS system to the general schematic
maps of its transit system. Normally the schematic maps used to represent BRT or
19
BHLS systems picture the corridors by different colors and the station by some
geometric figure (ticks, rings, dots, etc.). Details such as transfer stations between
modes or availability of complementary infrastructures such as bicycle parking can
be added to these maps according to the specific characteristics of the systems
using a variety of symbols.
A good example of a schematic map for BRT systems is the one developed for
TransMilenio, in Bogotá (Figure x). The system has eight corridors represented by
different colors and a different letter for each. The stations are depicted by a tick,
the end of the stations by a ring and the transfer stations by a connected ring. The
stations with connection to others bus services (feeder, complementary and
special) are also identified by a specific symbol. The map shows a simple, yet well
represented structure of the system that allows the user to have a good idea of the
corridors.
Another interesting case is the one from Metrobüs, the BHLS corridor of Istanbul,
which is represented in a schematic map together with the other transit modes of
the city including metro, train, tram, funicular and cableway, as well as the park
and ride facilities and ferry stations. The map depicts the lines/corridor by
different colors and a specific code. The stations are represented by ticks and the
transfer stations by rings connected or stressed, depending on the station
configuration. All stations have their names labeled. The BHLS corridor is
identified by a pictogram of a bus and has all their routes classified by number and
name in a legend. The design of this map makes clear the identification of the
corridor as well as the connection points with other modes, placing the BHLS mode
in the same level of importance of the city’s other structuring modes.
The use of overlay maps to represent BRT/BHLS systems follows the same
patterns of the use of schematic maps. Sometimes just the BRT/BHLS system is
represented in the map, other the systems are depicted together with the others
mode systems. A typical case of a BHLS system represented by an overlay map is
the LAM system from Prato, Italy. The corridors are represented by color and
name, with a distinction between the urban (LAM) and the metropolitan lines
(LAM-MT), which are also represented with different thickness according to the
frequency of the service offered. Stations are represented by aside rings to indicate
the boarding side or by stressed ring when the boarding/arrival or transfers are
possible.
20
Figure 4: The TransMilenio System, Bogotá
Figure 5: The Metrobüs, Istanbul
21
Figure 6: The LAM system of Prato, Italy
Finally, a very interesting example of transit maps applied to bus transit systems is
the Metrobús, in Mexico City, that presents the most complete representation of
this type of system. Its five corridors are depicted by five different types of maps:
schematic, google map, geographical, combined geographical and route map
(Figure x). In all maps each corridor is represented by a different color and
number. However for each type of map the design of the systems components
vary:
•
•
•
The schematic map represents the corridors by color and number including
the name of the start/end of the corridor. The stations are all represented
by a ring and have their names identified. The map also include the
identification of metro and train stations, the stations with bicycles parking
and bike sharing services, using a specific symbol to each one;
The geographical map depicts the corridors and stations the same way as in
the schematic map. The main differences are in the preservation of the
topological design of the corridors, the adding of some roads identified by
name and the no identification of bicycle services;
The combined geographical map is a simplification of the geographical map
in terms of stations representation (no name and no metro and train
stations are identified) and include the metro lines. However, the Metrobús
corridors are thicker featuring the stations in order to highlight the
corridors in relation to the metro lines;
22
•
•
The google map has the same color representation for the corridor, but a
pictogram for each station. This type of map has the advantage of function
as a trip planner for the users and to be of easy access by digital medias;
The routes maps are schematic representation of each corridor including
the identification of all station by name. An interactive version of these
maps is also available with detailed information regarding the transfer
points, service available, zero emission stations, etc.
Schematic Map
Geographical Map
Google Map
Combined geographical map
Figure x: Metrobús System Transit Maps
23
5. Transit Map Survey
In order to analyze the user’s level of knowledge and usage about maps and their
perception regarding the most useful maps design for BRT systems a web survey
has been developed. The survey is structure in four main phases: a socioeconomic
characterization, a mobility characterization, a transit system familiarity and a
map design choice experiment.
The socioeconomic characterization is designed with the objective of collecting
information at individual and household levels, including demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics such as age, gender, education, occupation and
income. Question regarding the transportation modes available at the household
are also included.
The mobility characterization refers to the identification of mobility patterns of the
respondents. Questions about the frequency of their trips and the transportation
modes used are considered. To complement the mobility characterization a group
of questions to help evaluate the level of familiarity of the respondents with the
transit system of their city is included.
The final phase, a map design choice experiment, is developed with the objective to
analyze the preferences of the respondents regarding the typology of maps used to
represent BRT systems and also in relation to specific design characteristics of
maps of the same type
The first version of the survey is presented as follows
24
Residential location
1. Please place in the map your residential location (street).
Sociodemographic characterization
In this section of the survey we will ask you about some personal characterization
questions.
1. When were you born?
<1920 till 2001
2. Gender?
male / female
3. Which of these options best describe your work status?
Full time employed / Part time employed /Full time student /Worker-student
/Unemployed /Retired / with no paid activity
4. Which of the options best describes your occupation? (just for employed
people)
entrepreneur / head or superior board or self-employed professional /
intermediate board / administrative staff / specialized personnel / craftsman or
mechanic operator /other
5. What is the highest educational level that you have completed?
Lower than high school /High school / Professional course / College (bachelors)
/ Post-graduate (Master/PhD)
6. In which band your total monthly household income falls in? Please
include income from all sources, before tax and other deductions.
< 2005 USD / 2005 – 3007 USD / 2005 – 3009 USD /4009 – 5012 USD / 5012 –
6014 USD / 6014 – 8019 USD / 8019 – 12028 USD / >12028 USD / Refused
7. Do you have a driver's license?
Yes/No
8. How many cars do you have in your home (including company owned cars)?
0 / 1 /2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
9. Do you own a public transport pass?
Yes/No
25
10. How many motorcycles your household own?
0 / 1 /2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
11. How many bicycles your household own?
0 / 1 /2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Mobility characterization
In this section of the survey we will ask you questions about your mobility. Please
consider that a trip is a displacement between one point in space and another
location within your borough or another area of the city. For example, if on
Mondays you a) leave you house during the morning to go to your work, b) after
working go to a shopping location, and finally, c) return home during the evening,
you have performed 3 trips that day.
1. How many trips do you normally do during a regular week day?
0 / 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-8 / 9-12 / >12
2. Please, indicate the regularity you use the following transport modes.
Never
Less than 1
time per
month
From 1 to 5
times per
month
From 6 to 10 From 11 to
times per
20 times per
month
month
1 time
per day
More than
1 time per
day
Private car (Driver)
Private car (Passenger)
Heavy public transport
(Subway, rail, LRT, BRT
or ferry)
Light public transport
(bus or tram)
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walk
Transit system familiarity
1. Do you know if your city has a heavy bus system?
Yes/No
26
1.1. Which is the system name?_______________ (only show the question if the
answer was yes)
1.2. Which one of these systems seems to be more similar to
it?_______________ (only show the question if the answer was yes)
Picture 1
Picture 1
Picture 1
2. In the bus stops or stations of your city is there a map illustrating the
available routes?
Yes/No
2.1. Do you normally use this map to help planning your trips? (only show
the question if the answer was yes)
Yes/No
3. Please, indicate your level of agreement with the following affirmation.
Consider 1 for not helpful and 7 for very helpful.
1 /2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7
Transit maps are an important source of information on transit systems.
Transit maps are helpful to plan how to go from location A to location B.
A map of the whole transit system must be available on each stop/station.
A map for each lines stopping on each stop/station must be available.
Transit maps must be available on internet.
Timetables are an important source of information on transit systems.
Timetables must be available on each stop/station of the system.
Timetables must be available on internet.
Transit maps are more useful than timetables.
Google map are the best way to plan how to go from location A to location
B.
A transit system with an associated brand makes me feel more willing to
use it.
Scenarios Choice
1. From the transit bus maps below which do you think is more helpful in
planning how to go from location A to location B.
27
S
Seat. Igna
man tius S
St
t
Mackenzie Av
Towers St
F204
C306
Mari
ner
St
Railw
ay St
C306
St
Creek
Palm
St
Hea
ther
St
Jap
an S
t
Tucker St
n St
z St
Nun
eato
St
Rose
Edm
Spe
nce
r St
Du n
ferm
line
St
orne
St
May
er S
t
Haw
th
onto
nA
v
Nels
on S
t
zale
Cha
n
St
gh S
brou
St
Cox
Mid
dles
Chel
tenh
am
St
C303
F212
t
t
Ruth
erfo
rd
C303
Sheldon St
Av
LEGEND
Brisb
ane
St
St
Pre
ston
St
Cav Suthe
rlan
alier
d St
St
C305
S
tirling C305
Av
C305
el St
St. Gabri
Russell St
Elgin
A
v
Rich
mon
d
r St
C305
C305
C305 Hayes St C308
St
Blackberry
dler
St
Gon
a St
Chea
lsea
Joshu
St
Croke
Naka
mur
a St
Brom
ley
St
este
Dorch
St
St
Orm
ond
St
St
Mun
ro
Melv
ille
C305
Drum
mon
d
C305
St
Spa
Kilometers
ldin
g St
F211
C305
ham St
M
or
ec
am
be
St
St
Rogers
C305
W
ood
sS
O'H n St
ara
St
Siste
lo S
t
McL
G
eod
St louceste
r St
Coo
per
St
St
Champions
n
Irwin
St
C303
Hoven St
d St
Derb
y St
C305
C303
Clay
S
St
F209
F209 Holto
O'C
onn
or S
t
Nola
B104 n St
C304
B102
Harper St
Grant St
St
Feeder lines
F212
Helmsw
C308
orth St C308
Conventional lines
C308
Wellingto
n St
C308 F212
BRT
lines
Achille
Unite
s St
d Sta
tes
Burtton
Feeder
St
Stevstops A
Wigan
enson
St
C308
St
Conventional
Twic
C305 stops
kenh
F212 Essex St
am S
t
C305stops
BRT
C305
St. Paul St
F212 F212
F212
0
.25
.5
.75
F212
St
C304
Lisbo
C304 C304
Coventry St
C305
Bake
r
Golden Park
Perry St
C305
C303 Tyle Madiso
r
n
F209
F212
C303
F212
F209
F209
Mis unu
ma
St
Witney
rick
St
B103
F209
C303
F209 F209 F209
C303
L yn
ne S
t
Digb
y St
ange St
B103
Dulw
ich S
t
C303
Moth
erw
ell A
v
F an
tini S
t
Hertfordshire S
Or
Hild
ebra
nd S
Blac
t
kpoo
l St
St. Patrick Park
B103
t
St
B104
Lyn
nS
t
St. J
ame
s St
Ade
Sey
laid
mo
eS
ur S
t
t
Fors
C301
OsboC304
urne S
t
Av
Ferd
inan
d St
Clyd
e St
St
ythe
e St
Av
St
St. Pat
C303
C305
ntrose St
Mo
C304
St
ister
S
B103
Suzu t
ki St Hudson
HoleSt
S
C307
B
C306
Aucklan
nc k
St
Harr
ow
hill A
v
St
St
Bolivia
Pla
St
St
bley
Mon
ro
rsha
Ma
ll
St
C301
B104
Und
erwo
od
W
St
aldy
C305
Cam
den
Da
Bradley St venport
St C303
Home St
C303
Frankli
n St
Ce
ds S aser St
t
Burming
Tin
da
ll S
Hu
t
ll S
t
Glasg
ow
Wem
St
e
Kirkc
C301
Tra Hew
nm son ere St
St
St
Stevenage St
Benson St
Harr
is S
t
St
Henr
ietta
Roth
St
St
Empi
re A
v
M
or
an
St
St
ry
He
n
Re
es
A
St
C304
She
ffield
St
St
St
W
M ol
ex fe
ico S Ell
t
is
St
St
M
a
as rtin Wa
se S t
ls
n
G all
St
al S
ve t
st
on
v
Pall
Midla
n
Chu
rc
St
St
Berwick Av
gs
stin
Ha
Fr
an
Torq
u
Lanc ay St
C307Warwick
aste
r St
St
C301
W
alk
er
Oldh
am
Haw
St
ock St
Kilmarn
St
ra
nd
B103
C307
y St
Grimsb
Silver St
Cra ig Av
C302
C301
C301
Ro
ys
Fle ton Alde
St rs
m
C302
ho
in
Re
g
tS
d
St
t
kn
ap
O'C
p
C302
St
as
ey
St
St
e
C302
B103
Ford St
B101
B101
Av
B101
Bu
ry
F203
kA
Av
an
C302
oo
df
or C302
d
e St
t
ar
ob
lliv
Pe
t
n
to
dle
Av
t
F216
Su
er
s
C302
B103
C307 St
C301
Fulh
am
Norf St
olk S
t
St
St
F216
B102
ello Av
Montic
Dexter
ng Av
St
St
Pickeri
so
rA
v
C302
H
an
ch Robin
St
es
te
F216 r St
W
C302 ind
Irv
in
ale S
t
ll St
T yrre
Con
cord
St
Pag
e St
M
Dean
S
Mas
on
C302
y Av
Presle
Athe
n
Mille Dover
r St
St
St
St
Grace t St Lawrence
Fawcet
F216
W
Roch
d
McC
oist
Barn
e
Starr
St
t St
Ban
Bru
dera S
s Samo hl St
t aS
t
Claire St
Norwich St
St
Balh
am
C301
Keith Av
y St F216
sford
St B103
C307
Blo om St
C301
Clare
C307
x St
RocFo
helle
C301 St
Che
lm
Av
Clifton St
St
St
Cross
F216
Stan
dford
B103
St
Aberdeen
s St
O'Higgin
Lovell
Brighton St
id
M
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
St
F213
F213
rroyo
F216
r St
Goodyea
Kimberl
Marconi
St
Studart
C306
St
Drake
Shaw St
Park
Sp
C307
Waterfront
Pitt St ears St
Drake Park Whit
eca
F205
F205
F205
C307
stle
F205
F205
Yam
Metcalfe St
Av
Ciaran St Sou
a
F205
g
F215
C306
a
thpo
F215
ta S F215
St
Buck
rt St
t
C307
Maidstone F205
ley S
F204
F205
F215
F204
t
St
Whitehurst
F204
Arm
F204
D
F215
stro
o
u
F215
glas
You
ng A
Stoke St
F205
Hampton St
ng S
F204
S
v
t
Bo
t
C306
ston
t
F215
F204
F215
nS
St
C307
F205
B101
F215
lbio Jenner St
Rober
F205
Tay
F215
B103 F204
F215 A C303 F215
tson
Drake St
lor S
F204
St
t
F215
Tre
Fraser Av F214
nton
F214
Starling
Sher
Mont
St
St
C306
wood
real
Forf F214
C307
S
St
t
ar S
Italy St
F214
F214
Blueb
t
Robert St
B102
C303
erry
F214
Fe
Chath am
C306
Wash
rgu
St
St
ingto
Lincoln St
so
C306
C303
n St
F214
Soldier Park
nS
F201
F201
Farn
F201
t
D
C306
boro
F201
erry
F214 ugh
N
St
F214
F201 St
B103
C307 ottingha C306
F216
C303
m
Cate
F214
St
rh
C306
a
mS
C306
C303
F216
C306 B102
t
Falc
C306
F214
F214
oner
St
C306
F201
St
C307
F213
C303
Hansen
B103
C306
A
F204
Towers St
St. Ignatius St
F215
Hea
ther
St
Jap
an S
t
St
St
Edm
onto
n
ncer
er S
t
St. Patrick Park
May
t
ildeb
rand
St
Blac
kpoo
l St
Don
o
Dulw
ich S
t
van
St
num
a
St
W
oo
St
Clay
St
D un
rd A
v
Brisb
ane
LEGEND
Sheldon
St
ds S
t
St So
u
Holto thampto
n St
O'H n St
ara
St
Siste
lo S
t
McL
G
eod
St louceste
r St
Coo
per
St
Ruth
erfo
Fan
tini
Tyle Madis
on S
r St
t
St
ama
S
Pan
St
Midd
lesb
roug
h
Misu
Ly n
ne S
t
Digb
y St
Cox
St
Rug
by
ra S
t
ferm
line
St
H
Av
n St
Cate
rham
St
Falc
one
r St
Rose
e St
Dum
Wash
bart
ingto
on S
n St
t
Spe
ntho
rp
Italy St
Nels
o
Cra
Haw ven St
tho
rne
St
n St
ndle
r
Cha
Scu
ld St
Chesterfie
t
on St
Kirby
S
Bosto
n St
St
Gon
zale
z St
N un
eato
St
St
Bu
tler
nham
Che
lte
St
Josh
ua
Avene
ll St
Robert St
Chatham
St
otherwell
A
v
Mexico
St
Av
St
el St
St. Gabri
Russell St
t
Kels
rne St
Cav
alier therland
S
St
Arset
nal
St
Stirlin
g Av
Vinc
ent S
St
Hayes St
Eastbou
ester
Dorch
ey S
t
Elgin
Rich
mon
d
St
St
Feeder lines
Helmsw
orth St
Conventional
lines
Wellingto
n St
Achille
Unite
BRT lines
s St
d Sta
tes A
Burtton
St
S
Wigan
Feedertestops
venso
St
n St
stopsTwickenham
Essex St Conventional
St
St. Paul St
BRT
stops
Transfer
stops
Dru
mmo
Pre
nd S
Stirlin
ston
t
g St
Sp a
0 St .25
.5
.75
ldin
Su
Bromley
Witney
St
Av
M
St
Ply
mo
uth
Jenner St
Rober
ts
Croke
S
St
nS
Nak
amu
She
Cam
den
Troy
St
Creek
St
Stevenage St
Endo St
St
Chea
lsea
St
Orm
ond
t
our
St
ate
Marg Blackberry
Tucker St
Marconi
St
Kendall St
Benson St
Mo
za
rt A
v
ro S
Mun
Stoke St
t
g St
Kilometers
Hertfordshire S
M
or
ec
a
Le
ice mb
e
st
St
er
St
d St
ria S
t
Frankl
in St
Midla
C
nds easer S
St
t
St
St
St
St
io
Alb
B
Champions St
St
Sey
m
Nola
n St
ffield
Av
St
St
inan
d
Clyd
e
Ferd
L yn
n St
St. J
ide
St
Irwin
St
Melv
ille S
t
St
Harr
is
t
ow S
Mon
roe
St
Fors
ythe
St
Lis
b
on
Nav
ajo
Victo
Harr
ow S
Chu
t
rchill
Av
St
Harper St
St
Rogers
Grant St
rwoo
Fraser Av
Spri
ngfi
eld
Ciaran St
Hoven St
d St
Aucklan
Golden Park
Coventry St
Perry St
t
rwoo
dA
St
Lan
Orange
caster St
McGyver Av
Hampton St
ntrose St
Mo
St
St
M
r St
Suzu
ki St
Yam
agu
Dave
chi
St
npo
Bradley St
rt St
Home St
Hudson
St
Osb
ourne S
t
She
St
gham
Burmin
Und
e
atrick
Palli
ster
ame
s St
t
Hen
rietta
St
St
Emp
ire A
v
Roth
St
He
nr
y
St
St
W
olf
e
Bu
ry
Pla
nck
Gr
St
ad
eS
t
Fulh
am
Norfo St
lk St
Bake
St
v
ey
S
t
St
Bolivia
Ti
ton Ald
St ers
ho
t
t
St. P
re S
St
y St
Grimsb
Silver St
St
St
Tran
me
O'C
as
St
He
wso
n
Haw
Kirk
cald
y St
St
t
De
rb
y
Maso
St
A
ke
r
St
St
ra
nd
am S
le S
t
Roch
da
Tyrre
ll St
St
n St
Cott
age
W
al
St
Dumfries
Mars
hall S
t
Ro
ys
Ar
ge
nt
in
a
Av
on
St
nd
all
Hu
St
ll S
t
St
Oakh
McC
oist
St
St
Starr
Av
on
Av
M
W art
as in Wa
S
ls
Ell sen t
al
lS
is
St
St
t
an
Su
lliv
Av
e
in
In
s
War
wick
St
To
rqu
ay S
us
on
St
Derr
y St
St
Berwick
Fr
an
k
Fe
rg
ck
Kilmarno
Irv
kn
ap
p
Palm
St
Old
h
am St
Av
titute S
St
St
ello Av
Montic
St
Red e St
t
ar
Craig Av
or
d
ob
H
Fle
m
in
g
lmsf
ord
Av
F205
Forfar St
Fo rd St
Pe
te
John
rs
son
St
St
St
Bath St
Che
an
ch
es
te
rS
W
t
in
ds
or
Av
M
id
dl
et
St
Dexter
oo
df
St
Claire St
g Av
Pickerin
n St
M
Soldier Park
Athe
Dea
n
W
t
St
t
Stan
dford
Robin
St
t
sS
arle
Ch
Tre
nton
St
h St
Norwic
N
ottingham
St
St
m
xha
Wre
x St
RocFo
helle
S
berry S
t
Tay
lor S
t
M on
treal
Blue
y Av
Presle
orou
gh
C
ly St
Kimber
Mille Dover r St
St
St
Grace t St
Fawcet
ng S
t
St
Aberdeen
St
lare St Arroyo St
eld St
Mansfi
St
Goodyear
v gton A
Harrin
m St
Balha
Farn
b
Herre
ra S
Shaw St
Spears
Pitt St St
Whitehurst St
las
St
O'Higgins
St
St
Lovell
Brighton St
Cross
St
Dou
g
Clifton St
St
Freeman
Lincoln St
St
Studart
St
Viseu St
Barn
et S
t
Metcalfe St
St
Maidstone You
Wem
bley
St
B103
Hummels
t
Av
ata
S
Starling
St
Hansen
kley St
Ade
la
Buc
Glasg
Arm
stro
ng
Collymore St Y
ama
g
thpor
t St
or
an
Sou
Waterfront
Drake Park
Pag
e
Ban
dera S
s Samo
t aS
t
Keith Av
Todd St
Bloom St
ie Av
Mackenz
Whitecastle Av
Mari
ner
St Railw
ay St
Drake
Park
28
2. From the transit bus maps below which to you think is more helpful in
Forfar
Dumfries
B103
F201
F209
B102
Taylor
F204
B101
F215
F205
F214
F215
B
Aberdeen
Motherwell
F211
Midlands
he
ls
ea
Churchill
C
Ly
nn
rs
yt
h
Fo
M
on
e
tic
el
lo
w
G
la
sg
o
pi
re
Em
Chelmsford
Chandler
C308
C303
Athen
Sheldon
C304
C305
Institute
F212
C307
C301
A
Windsor
Essex
Planck
Margate
Monroe
Golden Park
Yellow Park
F205
F214
F215
F201
F209
B
F215
BRT101
F204
Taylor
BRT 102
Forfar
Dumfries
BRT 103
Aberdeen
Motherwell
F211
Midlands
Athen
C303
C301 C308 Sheldon
C304
A
C
he
lse
a
M
on
tic
el
lo
Ly
nn
Institute
Windsor
Fo
r
la
sg
ow
G
Em
pi
re
sy
th
e
Chelmsford
Churchill
Chandler
C305
F212
C307
Essex
Planck
Margate
Monroe
LEGEND
Bus stops
Transfer points
Golden Park
Yellow Park
BRT lines
Feeder lines
Conventional lines
29
3. From the transit bus maps below which to you think is more helpful in
SeSat. Igna
man tius
St St
Mackenzie Av
Towers St
F204
C306
Mari
ner
St
Railw
ay St
C306
Creek
St
Palm
St
Hea
ther
St
Jap
an S
t
St
Brom
Dun
ferm
line
St
F201
F209
Forfar
Dumfries
B103
B102
O'C
onno
r
Taylor
F204
F205
F214
B101
F211
C305
Stirli
ng A C305
v
F215
Elgin
St
F215
el St
St. Gabri
Russell St
Hertfordshire S
B
Av
Rich
mon
d St
St
Pla
Derb
y St
St
M
or
ec
am
be
nck
St
ll S
Hu
t
ll S
t
Und
erwo
od A
v
St
St
St
Champions
Blackberry
lesb
roug
hS
Cox
St
ley S
t
Midd
Lyn
n St
St. J
ame
s St
Ade
Sey
laid
m ou
eS
r St
t
t
Fulh
am
Norf St
olk S
Witney
St
y
St
W
M ol
ex f e
ico S El
t
lis
St
St
Bu
r
St
M
W ar t
as in Wa
se St
ls
n
G a ll
St
al S
ve t
st
on
v
St
Tin
da
Hoven St
d St
Aucklan
t
St
St
Bolivia
n
gham
Burmin
Lisbo
ck St
Irv
in
e
LEGEND
St
Berwick Av
gs
stin
Ha
Fr
an
kA
Ford St
St
Craig Av
St
ra
nd
Kilmarno
y St
Grimsb
Silver St
oo
df
or C302
d
e St
lo Av
Su
lliv
an
Pe
te
rs
Av
A
el
Montic
St
g Av
r St
Dex te
Re
es
e
St
Pickerin
He
nr
y
St
Mo
ra
nS
t
Maso
n St
Mon
roe
St
Fors
ythe
St
Naka
mura
St
Crok
e St
Spe
nce
r St
Haw
thorn
e St
May
er S
t
v
Ros
e St
Edm
onto
n Av
Nels
on S
t
Gon
zale
z St
Nune
aton
Cha
ndle
r St
Che
ltenh
am S
t
Josh
ua S
t
Che
alsea
St
Orm
ond
St
t
Mun
ro S
ille S
t
Melv
She
ffield
A
St
St
Clyd
e
B
Tucker St
Stevenage St
Ben son St
St
Harr
is
St
St
Ferd
inan
d
St
Con
cord
St
Pag
e St
Roth
Wem
bley
ll St
Tyrre
Norwich St
Henr
ietta
St
St
Emp
ire A
v
St
McC
oist
Roc
hdale
St
et S
t
St
Barn
Starr
Claire St
Clifton St
St
Aberdeen
s St
O'Higgin
St
Lovell
Cross
Brighton St
Glas
gow
era Sa Bruhl S
s S mo
t
t aS
t
Ban
d
Keith Av
Bloom St
Marconi
St
Studar
C306
t St
Drake
Shaw St
Park
Sp
C307
Waterfront
Pitt St ears St
Drake Park Whit
eca
F205
F205
F205
C307
stle
F205
F205
Y
Metc
A
alfe
a
St
m
v
Sou
agata
F205
Ciaran St
C306
F215
thpo
F215
St
St F215
Buc
rt St
C307
Maidstone kley F205
F204
F205
F215
St
F204
Whitehurst St
F204 Arm
F204
Dou F215
stro
F215
You
glas
ng A
St
F205
Hampton St
F204
ng S
St
v
t oke St
Bosto
C306
S
t
F215
F204
n St
F215
C307
F205
B101
ion
F215
Jenner St
Tayl
Rober
F205
Alb
Drake St
F215
B103 F204
F215
ts
o
C303 F215
on St
r St
F204
F215
Tren
Fraser Av F214
F214
ton
Starling
Sherw
Mon
St
St
C306
treal
ood
Forf F214
C307
S
St
t
ar S
Italy St
F214
F214
Blueb
t
Robert St
B102
C303
erry
F214
Fe
C306
Chatham
Wash
St
r gu
St
ingto
Lincoln St
so
C306
C303
F214
n St
Soldier Park
nS
F201
F201
Farn
F201
t
Derr
C306
boro
F201
F214 y St
ugh
N
F201 F214
B103
St
C307 ottingh C306
F216
C303
am
Cate
F214
St
rham
C306
C306
C303
St
F216
C306 B102
Falc
C306
F214
F214
one
r St
C306
F201
St
C307
en
F213
C303
ns
Ha
B103
C306
Arro
yo S
t
C306
St. Patrick Park
F216
Frankl
Che
in St
lmsfo
Stan
r St
Goodyea
B103
F213
B102
B103
dford
rd S
Midla
Cea
t
Dulw
ser S
Av
nds
F213
ich S
St
t
t
Clare
C303
Hild
F216
St B103
ebra
C307
Cam
den
Black nd St
Moth
St
ox St
C307
RocFhe
p
e
o
B103
rwe
ol S
lle St
ll Av
t
C301
C301
Fa n
C307 tini S
Harr
F209
Balh
B103
B103
ow S
t
am S
C303
Chu
C301
t
t
L
rchill
ly St F216
Av
ynne
Kimber
Athe
B103
F209 Miller Dover n
S
C301
F209 St
t
St
St
Palli
F209
Digb
ster
F209
y St
Oldh
S
B101
F209 Holto
Dea
C303
B103
am S
Suzu t
n
n St
C301
St
St
C307
t
ki St O'Ha St
Grace t St Lawrence
B103
v
ra S
A
F209
F209
Fawcet
H
t
t
F216
aw
Siste
C302
ar
St
b
M
lo S
M
isun
o
Da
t
F209
McL
C301
H
uma
Bradley St venport
an
G
eod
y Av
St
C303
St C303
St louceste
ch Robin
Presle
T
orqu
St
r St
es
W
ood
Home St
F212
Coo
ay S
C303
te
W
per
Lan
C303
s St
B101
St
caste t C307Warwic
Hudson
C302 ind F216 r St
Clay
k St
r St
St
so
C303 Tyle Madiso
HoleSt
rA
r St
n St
St
C301
v
Ruth
F216
C303
erfo
C304
W
C302
F212 C303
rd A
C305
al
e St
v
Kirk
ke
C303
Orang
C303
rsha
Ma
cald
rS
ll St
C304 C304
y St
Bris
C307
F216
t
bane
C302
F212
St
C301
Tra Hew
C305
v
s
n
Sheldon
Feeder lines
me o n S A
F212
ose St
C302
St
ntr
re
n
Mo
t
Helmsw
C308
C304
o
St
et
S
or
C308
C308
l
th
t.
Conventional
lines
St
d
Patric
C301
id
k St
B104
Wellingto
Perry St
M
n St
C301
C305
C302
C308 F212
Ar
BRT lines
Achille
Unit
B101
ge
ed S
s St
B102
tates
nt
Burtto
in
A
C304
R
n
Feeder
Osb
St
a
Stevstops
oy
Wigan
St
Coventry St
enso
s
ourne S
C308
St
nS
Fle ton Alde
t
Conventional
B104
St rs
m
C305 tstopsTwicken
C302
ho
ing
F212 Essex St
ham
St
C305 Harper St
tS
F203
St
Rogers
Bak
Red
St
C305
C305
e
t
BRT stops
St. Paul St
r St
kn
F212 ap
F212
O'C
p
F212
0
.25
.5
.75
St
St
C302
as
C304
Grant St
ester
F212
ch
D
e
or
ru
Nola
D
m
yS
Pres
C305 mond St
B104 n St
C305
t
C305
ton
C305
Spa
St
Kilometers
lding
C305 C305
Cava Suthe
St
C302
lier S rland
Hayes St C308
S
t
C305
t
Ir
win
C305
C304
C305
W
Golden Park
S
F204
Aberdeen
Motherwell
F211
Midlands
Chandler
Churchill
Ch
el
se
a
on
t
M
Ly
n
n
ic
el
lo
th
e
go
w
G
la
s
Em
pi
re
Chelmsford
Fo
rs
y
C308
Athen
C303
Sheldon
C304
C305
Institute
F212
C307
Windsor
C301
A
Essex
Planck
Margate
Monroe
Golden Park
Yellow Park
30
6. References
Allard, J. (2008). "Coping with complexity Reconfiguring the navigation system for Santiago's
new transportation plan." Information Design Journal Vol. 16(No. 3): 163-177.
Allard, J. (2009). The Design of Public Transport Maps – Graphic elements and design
operations in the representation of urban navigation systems. Dipartimento INDACO.
Milano, Politecnico di Milano. Doctor.
Avelar, S. (2002). Schematic Maps on Demand: Design, Modelling and Visualization. . ETH.
Zurich.
Avelar, S. (2008). "Visualizing public transport networks: an experiment in Zurich." Journal of
Maps v2008: 134-150.
Avelar, S. and L. Hurni (2006). "On the Design of Schematic Transport Maps." Cartographica:
The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 41(3).
Barkowsky, T. and C. Freksa (1997). Cognitive requirements on making and interpreting maps’.
International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Berlin, Springer.
Berendt, B., T. Barkowsky, C. Freksa and S. Kelter (1998). Spatial representation with aspect
maps. Spatial cognition - An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing
spatial knowledge. C. Freksa, C. Habel and K. F. Wende. Berlin, Springer.
Cain, A., W. P. Morris, M. Mistretta, T. Teague and P. C. Clark (2008). Designing Printed Transit
Information Materials – A Guidebook for Transit Service Providers, National Center for
Transit Research.
Cain, A., W. P. Morris, M. Mistretta, W. Teague and P. C. Clark (2007). Developing a Printed
Transit Information Material Design Manual. “Designing Printed Transit Information
Materials – A Guidebook for Transit Service Providers”. Tampa, National Center for
Transit Research (NCTR).
CERTU (2010). Buses with a High Level of Services - Choosing and implementing the right
system, Centre d’études sur les réseaux, les transports, l’urbanisme et les
constructions publiques.
Deng, T. and J. D. Nelson (2010). "Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review of the
Literature." Transport Reviews 31(1): 69-96.
Díaz, R. B. and D. Hinebaugh (2009). Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making,
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute - Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Dziekan, L. (2008). The transit experience of newcomers to a city – learning phases, system
difficulties, and information search strategies. Transportation Research Board - 87th
Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.
Filipe, L. N. and R. Macário (2006). Elementos para a Configuração de um Sistema de
Informação para a Gestão da Mobilidade Urbana. 2º Congresso Luso Brasileiro para o
PLaneamento, Urbano, Regional, Integrado, Sustentável - Pluris. Braga, Portugal.
Finn, B. (2013). "Organisational structures and functions in Bus Rapid Transit, and
opportunities for private sector participation." Research in Transportation Economics
39(1): 143-149.
Finn, B., O. Heddebaut and S. Rabuel (2010). Bus with a high level of service (BHLS): the
European BRT concept. Transportation Research Board - 89th Annual Meeting.
Washington, D.C.
Flyvbjerg, B., M. K. S. Holm and S. L. Buhl (2003). "How common and how large are cost
overruns in transport infrastructure projects?" Transport Reviews 23(1): 71-88.
Freksa, C. (1999). Spatial aspects of task-specific wayfinding maps: a representation-theoretic
perspective. Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design. J. S. Gero and B. Tversky. Sydney,
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition: 15-32.
31
GAO (2001). Mass transit. Bus rapid transit shows promise, United States General Accounting
Office.
Garland, H. C., J. J. Haynesm and G. C. Grubb (1979). "Transit map color coding and street
detail effects on trip planning performance." Environment and Behavior 11(2): 162184.
Garland, K. (1994). Mr. Beck’s Underground Map, Capital Transport Publishing.
Goss, J. (1993). The Mapmaker’s Art. Hong Kong, Rand McNally.
Guo, Z. (2011). "Mind the map! The impact of transit maps on path choice in public transit."
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45(7): 625-639.
Heddebaut, O., B. Finn, S. Rabuel and F. Rambaud (2010). "The European Bus with a High Level
of Service (BHLS): Concept and Practice." Built Environment 36(3): 307-316.
Hensher, D. (1999). "A bus-based transitway or light rail? Continuing the saga on choice versus
blind commitment." Road & Transport Research 8(3).
Hensher, D. (2008). "Frequency and Connectivity – Key Drivers of Reform in Urban Public
Transport Provision." Journeys - Land Transport Authority.
Hensher, D. A. and W. G. Waters (1994). "Light Rail and Bus Priority Systems: Choice or Blind
Commitment?,." Transportation Economics III: 139-162.
Hidalgo, D. and A. Carrigan (2010). Lessons learned from major bus improvements in Latin
America and Asia. Modernizing Public Transport, EMBARQ.
Hidalgo, D. and L. Gutiérrez (2013). "BRT and BHLS around the world: Explosive growth, large
positive impacts and many issues outstanding." Research in Transportation Economics
39(1): 8-13.
Hochmair, H. (2009). "The Influence of Map Design on Route Choice from Public
Transportation Maps in Urban Areas." Cartographic Journal, The 46(3): 242-256.
ITDP (2007). Bus rapid transit - Planning guide, Institute for Transportation & Development
Policy.
Jabbour, E. (2008). "About the Kick Map."
Retrieved July 21, 2013 from
http://kickmap.com/about.html.
Kennedy, R. (1999). "Problems with Cartographic Design in Geographic Information Systems
for Transportation." Cartographic Perspectives 32.
Larwin, T., G. Gray and N. Kelley (2007). Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners. San Jose,
Mineta Transportation Institute. MTI Report 06-02.
Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger and J. Gast (2003c). Bus Rapid Transit: Synthesis of Case
Studies. Transportation Research Board - 82nd Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.
Levinson, H., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger and S. C. Rutherford (2002). "Bus Rapid Transit: An
Overview." Journal of Public Transportation 5(2): 1-30.
Levinson, H. S., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, J. Gast, S. C. Rutherford and S. Bruhn (2003a). Bus
Rapid Transit. Volume 2: Implementation Guidelines. Bus Rapid Transit, Transit
Cooperative Research Program. 2.
Levinson, H. S., S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, S. C. Rutherford, R. L. Smith, J. Cracknell and R.
Soberman (2003b). Bus Rapid Transit. Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Bus
Rapid Transit, Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Lindau, L. A., D. Hidalgo and D. Facchini (2010). "Curitiba, the cradle of bus rapid transit." Built
Environment 36: 274-283.
Mejía-Dugand, S., O. Hjelm, L. Baas and R. Alberto Ríos (2013). "Lessons from the spread of Bus
Rapid Transit in Latin America." Journal of Cleaner Production 50(82-90).
Muñoz, J. C. and D. Hidalgo (2013). "Workshop 2: Bus rapid transit as part of enhanced service
provision." Research in Transportation Economics 39(1): 104-107.
Raveau, S., J. C. Muñoz and L. de Grange (2011). "A topological route choice model for metro."
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45(2): 138-147.
Richmond, J. E. D. (1998). New Rail Transit Investments – A Review.
32
Roberts, M. J. (2005). Underground Maps After Beck, Capital Transport Publishing.
Thomas, E. (2001). Presentation at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting.
Chicago.
Vertesi, J. (2008). "Mind the Gap: The London Underground Map and Users' Representations
of Urban Space." Social Studies of Science 38(1): 7-33.
Wessel, N. (2013). Why Google Transit will never be enough for small to medium-sized
systems. Human Transit. J. Walker. 2013.
Wright, L. and W. Hook (2007). Bus rapid transit planning guide. New York, Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy.
33
Annex
34
Tabela x: BRT Transit Maps data
Region
Country
Cities
Corridor / System Name
#Corridors Brand and Logo Map type
Latin America Argentina Buenos Aires
Metrobus
3
yes
Overlay
Latin America Brazil
Belo Horizonte
Move
7
No
Googlemaps
Blumenau
-
8
No
Not available
Brasília
-
4
No
Not available
Campinas
Corredor Metropolitano Noroeste
3
no
overlay
Campo Grande
Sistema Integrado de Transportes
4
No
Not available
Caxias do Sul
SIT Caxias
7
No
Not available
Criciúma
SIT Criciúma
1
No
Not available
Curitiba
Rede Integrada de Transporte
6
Yes
Overlay
Diadema
Corredor Metropolitano ABD
1
No
Schematic
Feira de Santana
-
2
No
Not available
Fortaleza
SIT-FOR/Av. Bezerra de Menezes
1
No
Googlemaps
Goiania
Rede Metropolitana de Transporte Coletivo
2
No
Schematic
Jaboatão dos Guararapes Av. Ayrton Senna
1
No
Not available
Joinville
SIT
5
No
Overlay
João Pessoa
R. Miguel Couto / Av Sanhaua / Av Guedes Pereira
1
No
Not available
Juiz de Fora
Avenida Visconde do Rio Branco
1
No
Not available
Londrina
R. Duque de Caxias/Winston Churchill/R. João Cândido
3
No
Not available
Maceió
Avenida Fernandes Lima
1
No
Not available
Mauá
Corredor Metropolitano ABD
1
No
Schematic
Natal
SIT - Avenida Bernardo Vieira
1
No
Not available
Region
Country
Cities
#Corridors Brand and Logo
Map type
Niteroi
Alameda São Boaventura
1
No
Not available
Olinda
Sistema Estrutural Integrado (Leste-Oeste)
1
Yes
Schematic
Porto Alegre
TRI
12
No
Overlay
Recife
Sistema Estrutural Integrado (Leste-Oeste)
3
Yes
Schematic
Rio de Janeiro BRT Rio
8
Yes
Schematic
Salvador
Sistema de Transporte Coletivo por Ônibus de Salvador
3
No
Not available
Santos
Ana Costa
1
No
Not available
Sorocaba
-
2
No
Googlemaps
Sumaré
Corredor Metropolitano Noroeste
1
Yes
Overlay
São Paulo
-
10
No
Googlemaps
Uberlândia
SIT Uberlândia
1
No
Not available
Latin America Chile
Santiago
Transantiago
14
Yes
Overlay
Latin America Colombia
Barranquilla
Transmetro
2
Yes
Googlemaps
Bogotá
TransMilenio
8
Yes
Schematic
Bogotá
TransMilenio
8
Yes
Schematic
Bucaramanga Metrolinea
1
Yes
Schematic
Cali
MIO
1
Yes
Schematic
Medellín
Metroplús
1
Yes
Schematic
Pereira
Megabús S.A.
3
Yes
Schematic
Latin America Ecuador
Guayaquil
Metrovia
2
Yes
Schematic
Latin America Ecuador
Quito
Metrobus-Q
5
Yes
Googlemaps
Latin America Guatemala Guatemala
Transmetro
2
Yes
Schematic
Latin America Mexico
Mexibus
1
Yes
Schematic
Ecatepec
36
Region
Country
Cities
Macrobús
Map type
1
Yes
Googlemaps
1
Yes
Schematic
Metrobus
4
Yes
Schematic
Monterrey
Metrobus
1
Yes
Schematic
Puebla
Red Urbana de Transporte Articulado (RUTA)
1
Yes
Googlemaps
Latin America Panama
Panama
Metrobús
1
Yes
Overlay
Latin America Peru
Lima
Metropolitano
1
Yes
Schematic
Latin America Uruguay
Montivideo
Corredor Garzón
1
No
Not available
Latin America Venezuela
Caracas
BusCaracas
1
Yes
Schematic
Latin America Venezuela
Merida
Tromerca
1
Yes
Schematic
Guadalajara
León de los Aldama Optibus
Mexico City
Europe
Czech Republic Prague
Line 213
1
no
Schematic
Europe
France
Caen
Twisto TVR
1
Yes
Googlemaps
Europe
France
Douai
Le Tram / Évéole
1
yes
Overlay
Europe
France
La Rochelle
ILLICO
1
Yes
Overlay
Europe
France
Lille
Liane
1
Yes
Schematic
Europe
France
Lorient
The Triskell
1
Yes
Overlay
Europe
France
Lyon
C-Lines
1
no
Schematic
Europe
France
Maubeuge
BHLS - Viavil
1
no
Overlay
Europe
France
Nancy
TVR (GLT)
1
no
Overlay
Europe
France
Nantes
Bus way (Line 4)
1
Yes
Overlay
Europe
France
Nice
Ligne d'azur
1
no
Overlay
Europe
France
Paris
TZEN
4
Yes
Geographical
Europe
France
Rouen
TEOR
3
Yes
Geographical
Europe
France
Toulouse
BSP
2
no
Overlay
37
Region
Country
Cities
Map type
Europe
Germany
Essen
The Spurbus
2
no
Schematic
Europe
Germany
Hamburg
The MetroBus Line 5
1
no
Schematic
Europe
Germany
Oberhausen
PT-way
1
No
Schematic
Europe
Ireland
Dublin
Quality Bus Corridors
1
no
Schematic
Europe
Italy
Brescia
The LAM network
2
no
Overlay
Europe
Italy
Prato
LAM
5
Yes
Overlay
Europe
Netherlands
Almere
MAXX
8
No
Overlay
Europe
Netherlands
Amsterdam
Zuidtangent BRT
2
Yes
Overlay
Europe
Netherlands
Eindhoven
Phileas
1
Yes
Overlay
Europe
Netherlands
Twente
HOV lines
2
no
Overlay
Europe
Netherlands
Utrecht
TVM
2
no
Overlay
Europe
Portugal
Lisbon
24 de Julho Corridor
1
No
Schematic
Europe
Spain
Castellon
TVRCAS
1
Yes
Not available
Europe
Sweden
Gothenburg
Stombus
4
no
Schematic
Europe
Sweden
Jonkoping
Citybussarna
3
no
Overlay
Europe
Sweden
Stockholm
Blåbuss
4
Yes
Overlay
Europe
Switzerland
Zurich
VBZ zurich
1
Yes
Schematic
Europe
Turkey
Istanbul
Metrobüs
1
Yes
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom Bradford
Manchester Road
1
no
Overlay
Europe
United Kingdom Cambridge
Cambridgeshire Guided Busway
1
yes
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom Crawley
2
Yes
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom Edinburgh
Fastlink
2
Yes
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom Ipswich
Ipswich Rapid Transit
1
Yes
Overlay
Europe
United Kingdom Kent
Fastrack
1
yes
Overlay
38
Region
Country
Cities
Map type
Europe
United Kingdom Leeds
Superbus
2 yes
Overlay
Europe
United Kingdom London
East London Transit(EL1 -EL2)
1 no
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom Luton
FTR train to plane
1 Yes
Not available
Europe
United Kingdom Swansea
FTMetro
1 Yes
Schematic
Europe
United Kingdom York
FTR
1 yes
Overlay
Oceania
Australia
Adelaide
O-Bahn Busway
1 No
Not available
Oceania
Australia
Brisbane
Brisbane Busway
3 Yes
Schematic
Oceania
Australia
Melbourne
Smart Bus
2 Yes
Overlay
Oceania
Australia
Sydney
Metrobus
3 Yes
Schematic
Oceania
New Zealand
Auckland
Northern Busway
1 No
Not available
Nothern America Canada
Brampton
Züm
2 yes
Overlay
Halifax
Metrolink
3 yes
Schematic
Ottawa
Transitway
3 yes
Schematic
Vancouver
Translink
1 no
Overlay
Winnipeg
Rapid Transit -RT
1 yes
Schematic
York
Viva
5 yes
Schematic
Nothern America United States
Boston
Silver Line
2 yes
Overlay
Cleveland
Healthline
1 Yes
Not available
Eugene
EmX
1 Yes
Schematic
Kansas City
MAX
2 Yes
Overlay
Las Vegas
MAX
1 Yes
Overlay
Los Angeles
Orange Line
1 Yes
Schematic
Miami
South Miami-Dade Busway
1 no
Overlay
New York
Select Bus Service
6 Yes
overlay
39
Region
Country
Cities
#Corridors
Brand and Logo
Map type
Oakland
San Pablo Rapid
1 Yes
Overlay
Orlando
LYNX Lymmo
1 Yes
overlay
Phoenix
Valley Metro LINK
4 Yes
Googlemaps
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh BRT
3 no
Overlay
Snohomish County Swift
1 Yes
Overlay
Stockton
Metro Express
3 Yes
Overlay
Africa
Nigeria
Lagos
Lagos BRT-Lite
1 No
overlay
Africa
South Africa
Cape Town
MyCiti
1 Yes
Schematic
Africa
South Africa
Johannesburg
Rea Vaya
1 Yes
Googlemaps
Asia
China
Beijing
Beijing BRT
3 Yes
Overlay
Asia
China
Changde
Changde BRT
1 Yes
Overlay
Asia
China
Changzhou
Changzhou BRT
2 Yes
Overlay
Asia
China
Chongqing
Chongqing BRT
1 no
Not available
Asia
China
Dalian
Dalian BRT
1 No
Overlay
Asia
China
Guangzhou
Guangzhou BRT
1 Yes
Not available
Asia
China
Hangzhou
Hangzhou BRT
2 Yes
Schematic
Asia
China
Hefei
Hefei BRT
2 No
Not available
Asia
China
Jinan
Jinan BRT
4 yes
overlay
Asia
China
Kunming
Busways
5 no
Not available
Asia
China
Lanzhou
Lanzhou BRT
1 yes
Not available
Asia
China
Lianyugang
Lianyugang BRT
1 No
Not available
Asia
China
Urumuqi
Urumuqi BRT
4 no
Not available
Asia
China
Xiamen
Xiamen BRT
3 No
overlay
Asia
China
Yancheng
Yancheng BRT
1 yes
Not available
40
Region
Country
Cities
#Corridors
Brand and Logo
Map type
Asia
China
YInchuan
Yinchuan BRT
1 No
Not available
Asia
China
Zaozhuang
Zaozhuang BRT
1 no
Overlay
Asia
China
Zhengzhou
Zhengzhou BRT
1 yes
Overlay
Asia
India
Ahmedabad
Janmarg
2 yes
Schematic
Asia
India
Indore
ibus
1 Yes
Schematic
Asia
India
Jaipur
Jaipur Bus
1 No
Not available
Asia
India
New Delhi
Delhi BRTS
1 no
Not available
Asia
India
Pune
Pune BRTS
1 no
Not available
Asia
India
Rajkot
Rajpath
1 Yes
overlay
Asia
Indonesia
Jakarta
TransJakarta
Asia
Iran
Tabriz
Tabriz BRT
1 Yes
Not available
Asia
Iran
Tehran
Tehran BRT
6 yes
Schematic
Asia
Japan
Nagoya
Yutorito Line
1 Yes
Schematic
Asia
Lahore
Lahore Metro Bus System
1 Yes
Not available
Asia
Pakistan
Republic
Korea
Median bus lanes
5 yes
Not available
Asia
Taiwan
Taipei
Busways
11 Yes
Googlemaps
Asia
Thailand
Bangkok
Bangkok BRT
of
Seoul
10 Yes
1 Yes
41
Schematic
Schematic

Working Paper N°03 (13/01/2014): Transit Maps for BRT Maps

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

june 4 : fado irish pub

Bus Rapid Transit - Regional Transit System

How do I get more information?

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

view presentation - East-West BRT Feasibility Study

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project - West