Urban Transport and Development

Bus Rapid Transit System in Lagos (Nigeria)

Table of contents
0. Abstract 1. Introduction to different mass transit systems 2. Bus Rapid Transit systems features in the context of developing cities 3. Factors that determine systems suitability 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Costs Design and Development factors Performance Impacts Introduction Design development Characteristics of the system System cost, development and performance System analysis Further research

4. A case of study, Lagos BRT-Lite

5. Bibliography

0.

Abstract

Urban mobility in developing countries implies a big challenge but has big potential to improve economic development. This paper analyzes the success and further improvements of the Bus Rapid Transit system in Lagos (Nigeria) through a comprehensive and qualitative study of the features that make this system different from other BRTs in other developing countries. The most critical characteristics as system costs, design, development and performance are analyzed and their impact estimated in percentages. It was found that there have been an important household spent decrease in transportation, as well as a drop in CO2 emissions. A macro economical analysis shows that there is large potential to improve economical and environmental impact of the system by changing fuel sources.

1.

Introduction to different mass transit systems

The improvement of living standards of people is dependent on the ability to communicate and to trade and transact with ease among themselves and with other people. Transport is unique in national development because it contributes to success or failure of other sectors of the economy. Peter H. Chiwona

In any part of the globe people have daily necessities such as go to work, school, shopping or seek medical attention. In most of the cases the distance between their house and these services requires a large amount of time to get there walking. Therefore, mobility, as it implies faster access to different places, enables economic development. On the other hand, when motorized mobility is not controlled, its growing may lead to critical problems. As we can see in the graph below, by 2050 is expected that in the developing world the passenger-kilometer travelled by car increases more than five times. Therefore, one of the most important issues when studying urban transportation is its sustainability: it has to improve accessibility while avoiding social, environmental and economic disruptions.

Figure 1: Passenger travel by region and mode, 2005 and 2050 When a city is looking for a way to improve peoples mobility, there are several mass transit options that must be taken into account as: (Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), Underground metro, elevated rail transit, suburban rail, etc). Each of these systems has intrinsic and contextual characteristics and limitations, that if are well studied, designed and executed within the specific reality of the project, the potential benefits of any of them over current low-quality services are: Reduced travel times Increased economic productivity and employment by a more reliable access throughout the city Reduced accidents and illness Increased civic pride and sense of community Reduced emissions of pollutants related to human health (CO, SOx, NOx, particulates, CO2) and noise levels More sustainable urban form, including densification of major corridors Delivery of mass transit system within one political term

These benefits must be pursued in any renewed public transportation system, but depending of the solution adopted the costs and outputs will vary significantly. As this paper focuses on developing countries, an appropriate alternative that is working in several and different places is the Bus Rapid Transit systems, and the reasons will be studied below.

2. Bus Rapid Transit systems features in the context of developing cities

To achieve a better understanding of the applicability of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems as appropriate technology within the general context of cities in developing countries, we should start by defining what the characteristics of this system are. Bus Rapid Transit is a bus-based mass transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective urban mobility. The aim of this system is to provide a car-competitive transit service similar to rail-based transit systems but at remarkable lower cost (Lloyd Wright). The main features that the BRT Planning Guide provides to be considered a full BRT system are:

Avoid mix traffic by segregated busways or bus-only roadways, located in the median rather than in the exterior lane. Entry to system restricted to prescribed operators (closed system) Existence of an integrated network of routes and corridors, with special stations to integrate trunk routes and feeder services, with fare-integration between them Stations that are convenient, comfortable, secure and weather-protected Stations that provide level access between the platform and vehicle floor Pre-board fare collection Distinctive marketing identity for system

In the BRT Planning Guide, the authors provide a table that classifies bus-based transit systems according to their accomplishment of full BRT features.

Figure 2: Bus-based system classification Most of the current transit services in developing countries are currently performing within the groups of informal transit services or low-quality conventional bus services. This is associated to long waits, inconvenience of stations, vehicles overload and lack of safety. For these reasons people are looking forward to be able to afford their own car or motorcycle, in order to avoid uncomfortable public transit. Therefore, family expenses in motorization, as well as urban mobility problems are growing fast. Taking into account this general context, higher-quality bus services, without meet the full BRT requirements, can suppose a significant improvement to the mobility of residents in most cities. Therefore, in each specific context the most suitable solution may fall into any of the previous categories. Now, a deep explanation of each of those features will show their impact on the global performance of the system:

Use of busways (physically segregated lanes) in stead of bus lanes (reserved surface without physical segregation), has been proved to be much more effective. Both of them have the aim of avoid traffic mix, what improves flow of the public system (no congestion) and private vehicles (absence of some of the slow vehicles that make multiple stops) The difference is that violation of non-physically segregated lines occur frequently when vigilance systems are poor, and in the developing context, the technology and expenses required to maintain an effective surveillance systems shows the preference for busways

In a context where informal or low-quality sector has a big presence, allowing these vehicles to use segregated lines would decrease the effectiveness of the system The final aim of any mass transportation system should be a democratization of the public transport. Unconnected routes segregate cities into different areas, being difficult to move from one to another. With high quality stations passengers comfort will increase, reducing their wish to own a private vehicle Accessibility to the vehicle is always an issue that must be taken into account in the democratization of the system Boarding time can be reduced by simple mechanisms as pre-board fare collection or multiple vehicle doors. Giving to BRT system an identity that shows its difference with low-quality busbased system will help its potential acceptability among most of the social groups.

As important as understand the principal features that may make BRT system succeed is to know its main limitations. These are: Political will Existing operators Institutional biases Lack of information Institutional capacity Technical capacity Financing Geographical / physical limitations.

Most of these problems can be solved by a deep analysis in a local basis, and removing biases and pressure from lobbies that may end getting profit from the introduction of BRT.

3.

Factors that determine systems suitability

BRT systems had approached the design phase from a costumers needs perspective. Indeed, understand their necessities are basic for the projects success. Transit systems usage will depend on fare levels, schedule reliability, possible routes and quality. In order to achieve the best from these characteristics, there are several factors that must be taken into account. 3.1 Capital Costs Developing cities does not have access to unlimited lending. Therefore, the initial investment is limited and depends on several factors such as labor, physical/geographical conditions and design requirements. When complex infrastructures as tunnels or elevated structures are required, the cost and technology required increase a lot. Several mass transit systems give an order of magnitude of the capital costs of different systems: CITY TYPE OF SYSTEM Taipei BRT Lagos BRT-lite Bogot (phase I) BRT Tunis LRT Los Angeles (gold line) LRT Kuala Lumpur Elevated rail Bangkok Elevated rail Las Vegas Monorail Mexico (Line B) Metro rail London (Jubilee line) Metro rail Table 1: Capital costs of different systems Segregated lines (km) 57 14.3 40 30 23 29 23 6.4 24 16 Cost (US$ million/km) 0.5 1.7 5.3 13.3 37.8 50 73.4 101.6 40.9 350 Costs

Thus, we can see that capital cost per kilometer of BRT systems suppose a fraction of any other systems price. The main conclusion that we can obtain from this is that with the same capital investment BRT systems cover larger city area, so more people have access to mass transit, and the goal of larger accessibility is better achieved. Operating costs The costs of operating a mass transit system depend mainly on vehicle amortization, labor, fuel and maintenance. In developed world is more popular LRT because of high labor cost (35 70%) therefore the fact that just a person can drive several cars at once allows to
8

considerable savings. On the other hand, in developed countries, wages are less than 20% of operating costs and more employment allows more opportunities to achieve social equity. Rail vehicles amortization costs are around three times more expensive than for bus, so, in developing context, only in high density corridors they may offer a cost-effective alternative to BRT systems. Thus, it has been proved that most of the BRT systems in developing countries are working without subsidies; even some of them give profits while maintaining an affordable fare. This attracts the private sector, and makes concessions easier, as well as government save money that may be expended on other factors that play an outstanding role in development such as education or health care. 3.2 Design and Development factors

Planning and implementation time Political will Existing operators Institutional biases

As we pointed out in the limitation factors, existing conditions and biases may be a hindrance in the development of the new system. Therefore, projects that require long time may not succeed because of changes in government or interest groups pressure. Also, long construction time can lead to traffic problems, businesses loses and so on. BRT duration from start to design to beginning of operation is significantly shorter than rail-based systems. Some of them have been completed in 12-24 months of planning and the same duration for construction. Passenger capacity In developing countries cities have high population densities and the proportion of people without private vehicle that depend on public transit is large. Therefore, capacity to move a large amount of people is a key factor of an appropriate system. Comparing the different possibilities, the largest peak capacities are achieved by metro systems: Sao Paulo 60,000 passengers / hour / direction. In this sense, BRT cannot compete with metro systems, but it is still able to achieve capacities as large as 45,000 passengers / hour / direction in Bogot or 35,000 in Sao Paulo. Also, the amount of people that these BRTs serve daily is around 1,300,000 passengers in Bogot and 196,000 in Sao Paulo.

On the other hand, LRT systems are not able to achieve these peak period capacities, because of operationally vulnerability to street events. Their capacity is lower than 13,000 passengers / hour / direction, and they would need be segregated into a metro-like system, to achieve competitive capacity. The reasons why Bogots BRT is able to achieve these outstanding statistics are:

Use articulated vehicles 160 passengers Stations with multiple stopping bays Multiple permutations of routing options (local, limited stop and express) Short station dwell times (pre-board fare collection, several doors, etc)

Scalability Economies-of-scale are intimately related with rail-based systems. It is needed a large scale to operate economically, and the construction of small and adaptable segments is not feasible. Otherwise, BRT systems have been adopted by all-sizes cities as main or supplementary transportation system. There are systems from medium size cities, to megacities as big as Sao Paulo (20.8 million). As the construction works are similar to a regular road, it allows flexibility and building process linked to citys growth process. System flexibility Costumer preferences are not always well predicted in the design phase, and once the system is working changes are needed to best manage the mobility. With rail-based systems tunneling and rails laying are difficult and costly to change, but BRT flexibility allows accommodating changes quickly and at relatively low monetary price. Moreover, BRT does not always pretend to be a final solution to citys transit system. It may act as extension of an existing metro system, a feeder service, a precedent to future rail system or it can act as principal mass transit service.

10

3.3 Affordability

Performance

The price that costumers have to pay to use the system is related to operational cost and level of subsidies. In developing countries, as it was said before, low wages make from BRT a system capable of work without subsides and at affordable fees. Travel time / speed The factors that sum in the time expended in a journey are in-vehicle and out-of-vehicle travel time. As metro and elevated rail achieve commercial speeds around twice larger than surface systems, their in-vehicle time is smaller. Otherwise, the advantage of BRT and LRT is less out-of-vehicle time due to more accessibility to stations because they are more spread and distance from platform to street is generally smaller than metro systems. Moreover, waiting times are psychologically perceived longer than on vehicle times. Another advantage of BRT is that freedom of movement allows performance of express and local lines cheap and easily, while they are really complex in rail-based systems. Reliability Unreliable service may create personal stress because of the uncertainty of transit performance, what will incline costumers to try to get a private vehicle. BRT, LRT and metros have excellent reliability in comparison with more conventional transit systems. Safety Segregated lanes reduce potential accidents, but BRT and LRT have more possibilities than metros because of the intersections and the drivers that are not used to segregated transit. Integration A key point in a good transit system is the ability to move people from neighborhoods around the whole city. As spread the system is, more people will profit from it. So, an easy transfer between neighborhood feeder services and trunk-line services is determinant. In order to achieve successful transfer is important to avoid long physical distances, unprotected areas, long waiting periods and any monetary cost.

11

Therefore, transfer between the same systems is more likely to accomplish these characteristics, and as said before, in developing countries buses usually take the role of feeder system. Image / status It is a factor that should bee kept in mind, overall when we are focusing on people that may have an alternative. Traditionally, rail-based systems have maintained a better image than bus systems, but new BRTs are creating a modern and unique identity. 3.4 Economic The employment generated during design and construction phases involve a larger percentage of the budget in bus than metro systems, where the cost of machinery is much larger. The same happen in operation phase as people needed to drive buses is larger than to drive trains. In developing countries, the marginal benefits of create employment must be fairly considered. Another factor is that BRT systems may attract local investment from equipment providers, because bus fabrication can be economically scaled, while train manufacture is more difficult to be scaled. Environmental The impact depends on how many people use transit systems in stead of private vehicle, as well as the environmental performance of them. BRT allows the use of different fuels while rail-based systems usually are electrify, this means that they do not localize emissions (better for urban pollution) but contribute to regional and global emissions through energy generation. Therefore, to know the comparative environmental effect of both systems we need to know the environmental issues related with the electricity production in each specific context. BRT can be driven by electricity (as trolleys), but most of the time are run by natural gas or diesel fuels. Therefore, at a local scale BRT generates more pollution (NOx, CO, PM, etc) than rail-based systems (most of them do not produce any emissions). But with stringent emission levels, less conflict with traffic and smoother operations, these levels are smaller than regular buses systems. Noise levels produced by transit vehicle are also high, but if a considerable amount of people switch from own vehicle to transit, the final result is noise reduction.
12

Impacts

Social impacts A key point in any public mass transportation system is the access to all income groups, so they must be affordable. It is achieved in LRT and metro systems by strong subsidies, but BRT systems are able to achieve it, in most of the cases, without any. If besides affordable the system is also a high-quality one, with a good reputation among all social groups, it has the potential to provide a meeting point for all income sectors. This is the ideal scenario, and must be deeply studied in every context. The implementation of a transit system usually leads to area improvement by employment and economic growth. Also, the presence of vigilance and a professional environment, reduce the likelihood of crime. This is also influenced by the kind of vehicle and in buses, as the driver can see every point, it allows better control. Urban impacts Looking for a reduction in house-station distance, transit-oriented development will imply densification and development along transit corridors. This has benefits from the municipality point of view as the cost in electricity and water connections decreases and there is better access and utilization of the system. But, some authors consider that bus systems may be perceived as less permanent than railbased ones, so its effect is not as important in this sense. Bogots TransMilenio has proved that this is not always true, and there has been a notable development along the BRT corridor. On the other hand, to move the same amount of people with public mass transit the amount of space required is far less than by private vehicles. BRT and LRT systems may be analyzed together in this point versus metro systems. The construction of segregated lines is usually viewed as bad for traffic congestion but this argument is refuted by: Public transit and private vehicles have different movement patterns, so the mix makes flow worse Peoples switch to transit leads to less amount of traffic It has been proved that increase in road capacity leads to increase in amount of traffic, and vice versa. This is called induced traffic. So, by reducing the number of lines, drivers willingness to use that specific street will be lower, and they may change to transit The effect of metro systems here is less evident, due to the fact that they do not consume public space, so their installation does not affect to private vehicle drivers.

13

4.

A case of study, Lagos BRT-Lite

4.1 Introduction

Lagos is the commercial capital of Nigeria with a growing population of more than 15 million of inhabitants. The city has experienced rapid urbanization growth without sufficient parallel infrastructure development. Before BRT was launched in March 2008, Lagos was the only megacity in the World without an organized public mass transportation system. The key issues of the city transport were low quality and insufficient transportation system and infrastructure, lack of transportation policies and week institutions. This situation deal to massive demand growing of transportation services based on individual minibus operators, shared taxis and motor-cycle taxis, with variable fares and unreliable service. On the other hand, the unsustainable demand of private transport implied deterioration of poor facilities and large congestion and pollution problems. Lagos transport infrastructure remains the same than what served just 6 million people 20 years ago. This weakness in the physical infrastructure necessary to support basic needs has hampered efficiency and productivity in the metropolitan area, affecting the most vulnerable segments of society, which depend mostly on public transport. Moreover, the absence of land use regulations has led to rapid urban sprawl. Population density decrease has made more difficult to provide efficient public transportation, and prices of the unreliable services that assist these areas are high. This situation stops the development of the poor and excludes them from work and social services. The development of the new system was based on the success of previous BRT projects in Bogot (Colombia) and Curitiva (Brazil) but adapted to the city context. As explained above, this is one of the cases where the solution adopted does not have all the features of a full BRT system but the quality remains high and the system affordable. In its conception it was viewed not necessarily as a long-term aspiration, but a fast and cheap solution that will be integrated in a more ambitious mass transportation development project. 4.2 Design development

A unique premise of BRT systems, and in particular Lagos BRT-Lite, is the design based on costumers necessities, rather than on a specific technology. As Lagos had had poor transportation quality and people could not conceive how organized public transportation might work there, LAMATA (Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority) had to fight against skepticism developing a sense of ownership within the citizens of Lagos. In the study phase, the 6 million people BRT-Lites catchment area was divided into 3 groups: - 65% No vehicle owners, so primary beneficiaries of the system - 25% Vehicle owners but susceptible to use it under right circumstances
14

10% High-income citizens, unlikely to use public transportation but with strong power and likely to benefit from traffic decongestion.

Each group was consulted individually in order to get increase ownership feeling and creating a user projected system. A big marketing campaign was also launched, as well as how to use the BRT commercials. Other affected sectors as taxi or old buses owners/drivers were not excluded from the conversations, and were coordinated with the new system. For example, the best minibuses drivers were encouraged to retrain to become BRT drivers, what also increases their status, learning how to use the new infrastructure and devices. 4.3 Characteristics of the system

The first phase of the system runs along a 22-kilometer radial highway that connects suburbs and satellite centers to the traditional business center of Lagos. This corridor has 65% of physically segregated bus lanes and 20% of busways. The design adopted continuous bilateral segregation with breaks in the connections with service roads and overpasses that allow easy removal of broken-down vehicles, or the possibility to avoid them. The small non-BRT buses were banned from the segregated lanes and from the main lanes, being relegated to service lanes that run parallel to the corridor. BRT-Lite includes pre-boarding fare payment, new and comfortable shelters and terminals. Features that increase comfort, service reliability and security. 4.4 System cost, development and performance

The duration from the beginning of the design phase to start operations was 15 months, and the capital costs were $1.7 million per kilometer, what is much lower than $5.3 million per kilometer of its Latino American predecessors. In stead of the typical detailed design phase, contractors and designers worked together to ensure the concept while reducing large amount of time during design period. At first, 100 new buses were procured by the private sector and 120 by a state-owned company and then leased to the private sector operator. Vehicles were financed by the vehicle supplier and the financial sector. These numbers did not accomplish the estimated demand of 300 buses operating at 20second headways. In the first phase, just 100 buses were running regular services and 25 express. The solution adopted until more buses where purchased was allow the low-quality existing minibuses continue operating without use the segregated lanes. This gave a chance to costumers to choose, making irregular suppliers to improve in order to compete against BRT-Lite and traffic speeding up by removing buses from mix traffic flow.
15

Performance The average ridership is around 200,000 passengers per day, achieving a peak hour oneway capacity of 10,000 passengers. A survey carried out seven months after operation begun shows that: - Headways average: 30 seconds during morning peak hours, 45 during the off-peak period. - Average journey time along the whole corridor under an hour - Average express service about 40 minutes - Average queuing time in busy stops 10 minutes during peak hours The fares of ride BRT-Lite are N120 across zones and N70 within the same zone, what is equivalent to $0.8 and $0.45, respectively. While the unreliable traditional systems charge a variable fare, some times as large as N230, equivalent to $1.5. 4.5 Design An important difference between Lagos BRT-Lite and other BRT system is that this adopted two parallel lines in the exterior part of the road, instead of the typical location in the median. This leads to complex intersections in the points where regular cars need to leave the main road, and the segregation between systems is not perfect. On the other hand, this system has just a 65% of physically segregated bus lanes, and with this disposition the transition from them to regular road is easier, as well as the pedestrian access to stations does not require supplementary infrastructure. On the other hand, traditional buses implied serious challenge to traffic flow, due to irregular stops and slow speed. With the implementation of the BRT-Lite they are not allowed to use segregated lines neither the main road, what has decrease congestion on these areas of the city. Social impact According with the numbers provided 200,000 passengers use the BRT-Lite per day. That has directly improve the mobility of 130,000 that do not have access to a private car, and 50,000 that potentially will shift from drive own vehicle to transit. This has clear implications in mobility and congestion management. In a city that is projected to become the 3th largest megacity in the World, with an increasing motorization rate, sustainability must be a key concept in transportation development, and these measures are oriented in the right way: fewer vehicles, segregation between different transportation systems and a potential to further change to less contaminant energy sources. System analysis

16

It is estimated that people expended 20% of household income in transportation. With BRT, the average fare has decrease from N230 to N120 (N70 within the same zone). This implies family savings of 10.5% that now can be expended in more basic needs. On the other hand, in Nigeria about 57% of the population lives on less than US$1 (N155) per day. That means that even the new fares are still far from the limited budget of this part of the population, and implies a big effort to another big percentage of the Nigerians. Environmental impact The main ideas of the project are to improve mobility along a prioritized corridor and promote a shift to more environmentally sustainable urban transportation modes. They reduce vehicle kilometers of travel and improve the energy efficiency of peoples mobility. Therefore, it implies reduction in green house gases emissions due to decrease in energy consumption per passenger-kilometer, potential of technical improvement of buses and smother flow of private vehicles. These consequences help to improve public health by reducing ambient air pollution, as well as facilitate walking and reduce noise levels. Data shortage force to study environmental impact based on comparison with other cities where field research on emissions was made. These are Nairobi, Kenya and Accra, Ghana. In these cities the traffic features are comparables with Lagos and the emission factors obtained were: Vehicle type Grams CO2 per km Car 343 Taxi 320 Danfo/Bus 489 BRT 1316 Table 2: Estimated emission factors from Nairobi and Accra data In Lagos, traffic was counted along the study corridor before and after BRT-Lite implementation. There were 10,700 vehicles less per day in both directions. Hence, the reduction in CO2 emissions is estimated in 24.7 kilotons per year, what is a 13% reduction. In this study it was not taken into account indirect CO 2 emissions as change in the behavior of travelers. Potential environmental improvement In the context of development, environmental issues are often forgotten in favor of affordability and other factors whose direct effect in poverty reduction are much more evident. As we can see in the tables below, Nigeria produces 102.5 million tons of Crude oil and exports 94% of this production. Despite of the large oil production, Nigeria imports every year 65% of the motor gasoline that consumes. This unsustainable practice is one of
17

the reasons why further investigation should be made in order to use another kind of energy source to power public transit. For example, 27% of electricity is generated from hydroelectric plants and 58% from natural gas. Therefore, shift to hybrid (gas and electric) vehicles would have strong repercussion in reduction of localized emissions in the city and national economy, because of independence on energy imports to run BRT buses.

Table 3: Energy consumption per sector, IEA 2008

18

Table 4: Electricity generation, IEA 2008 4.6 Further research

The importance and scope of this topic moves beyond a qualitative analysis of this specific project. Sustainable mobility in developing countries is a key point for several organizations but few measures have been taken to improve it. As a further research I would point out, first of all, the necessity of more field numerical data such as traffic flows, mobility patterns and local emissions factors. Moreover, it is necessary information about energy consumption per vehicle class and potential to use buses powered by other energy sources, in order to achieve a better understanding of the repercussion of mass transit systems in localized green house emissions. Qualitative analyses that have not been studied in this paper but play an important role in the success of future projects are the implication of institutions and the access of the poorest to the system. Finally, other BRT projects are being developed in Sub-Saharan African countries, as the Rea Vaya in Johannesburg that is already working. Therefore, a comparative analysis between performance and impacts of several systems would give valuable information about how to extend Bus Rapid Transit system to other developing cities.

19

5.

Bibliography
1. Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (June 2007)
2. Wright, L. Sustainable Transport: A Source-book for Policy Makers. Module 3b:

Bus Rapid Transit.

3. Henke, C. A Practical Approach to Bus Rapid Transit 4. Hook, W. (2005) Institutional and Regulatory Options for Bus Rapid Transit in

Developing Countries
5. Mobereola, D. (2009) Africas First Bus Rapid Transit Scheme: The Lagos BRT-

Lite System 6. Spencer J. O. (2009) Presentation: The Success Story of the 1st Ever BRT Project in Lagos, Nigeria. 7. The World Factbook, CIA.
8. Osinubi, T. S. Urban Poverty in Nigeria: A Case Study of Agege Area of Lagos

State, Nigeria. 9. International Energy Agency on-line Data Service

10. Project Appraisal Lagos Urban Transport Project 2, October 15, 2009

20