Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 13, No 2, 611–619 (2012)
Environmental protection and sustainable development
Bus Rapid Transit as a Contribution to Sustainable
Transportation. The Case of Athens, Greece
I. Stamos*, D. Triantafyllos
School of Technology, Department of Transportation and Hydraulic
Engineering, Faculty of Rural and Surveying Engineering, Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. This paper examines the framework under which the implementation of a bus rapid transit
(BRT) system would be feasible in a major metropolitan area. In an effort to enhance comprehension
about this innovative mean of public transport and to determine its contribution to rising sustainability
issues, the technical and operational features of the BRT system are presented and discussed. The
paper then outlines the basic demographical and geographical characteristics of the city of Athens,
Greece, before briefly analysing the dominant transportational conditions of it. The techniques and
approaches used in former international practices of the system are reviewed and related with the
city of Athens, on which all respective steps of the planning process are subsequently represented.
The paper concludes with a proposal of a possible realisation (area and corridor selection) of the BRT
system in Athens, underlying the role of the decision-making process that precedes the selection of
public transport technology, and proposing a more detailed multi-criteria analysis for the detailed
evaluation of the impacts of a probable BRT implementation.
Keywords: sustainable transportation, public transport systems, bus rapid transit.
AIMS AND BACKGROUND
In an era where sustainable transportation is more of a necessity rather than a
global trend, public transport role is of undoubtable importance. Being at the crux
of the agenda of any city that yearns for community coherence and prioritises
people needs over vehicles, public transport came to be an indispensable element
of today society. Planning and realising a first-class, cost-effective system, however, that could attract passengers off the automobile, proves to be a puzzling and
complicated procedure. Despite its limited applications, bus rapid transit (BRT)
is increasingly aknowledged as a cost-effective solution to provide high-quality
transit services in urban areas. The Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (ITDP) claims that BRT ‘permits low-income cities to deploy a high-quality public transport system by allowing them to provide a functional network of
public transport corridors’1.
*
For correspondence.
611
The goal of this research is to raise awareness about this scarcely used mass
transportation technology and apply the experience and lessons learnt from former
international practices of the system to the city of Athens, Greece that serves as an
implementation paradigm. By exploring the technical and operational aspects of
the BRT technology, the paper aims to investigate and identify its accordance with
sustainable transportation and analyse how a currently spreading public transport
technology could be applied in a major metropolitan area.
The idea of sustainability emerged on a global level in 1987 and the concept
was given form under what the Brundtland report2 stated in ‘… meeting the needs
of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs’. Accounting for approximately 25% of today CO2 emmisions in Europe and having largely shaped the structure of cities, transportation
patterns and mobility habits have had huge impacts on the environment of urban
areas3. The advent of the automobile and its excessive usage thereafter bolstered
the ‘freedom of mobility’, at a great cost, however, air pollution, urban noise,
severance of communities, congestion costs, increasing dependence on oil supplies and social isolation are only a few among the many effects of the automobile
dominance4. Public transport, on the other hand, has often been claimed to be a
tool for handling and managing upcoming environmental and mobility puzzles
deriving from today rising motorisation.
The BRT system came to be an integral element of the public transport category. Interest in the BRT concept sparkled in the early 70’s in an effort of developing
cities to meet the transport needs of the increasing population with limited financial
resources. Wright5 defined BRT as a term applied to ‘a high-quality bus-based transit
system that delivers fast, comfortable and cost-effective transportation through the
provision of segregated right-of-way infrastructure, rapid and frequent operations,
and excellence in marketing and customer service’. On the same notion, Thomas6
purports that a BRT system essentially emulates the quality, performance and
amenity characteristics of a modern rail-based transit system but at a fraction of
the cost (BRT will typically cost 4 to 20 times less than a tram or light rail transit
(LRT) system and 10 to 100 times less than a metro system1) while combining
the flexibility of buses. However, BRT inherent flexibility means that no two BRT
systems will look exactly the same within a given region. The term encompasses
a broad variety of modes, including those known or formerly known as express
bus systems, limited busways and rapid busways systems, metro-buses or surface
metro. Levinson et al.7 set up 7 principle components that a public transport system
should include for it to qualify as BRT. These encompass busways (segregated
busways over the majority of the length of the system corridors), stations (convenient, secure stations that provide level access between the platform and the vehicle
floor), vehicles (low emission vehicle technologies), services (clear route maps,
signage), route structure (integrated network of routes and corridors), fare collec612
tion (pre-board fare collection and fare verification) and intelligent transportation
systems (automatic vehicle location, real time passenger information).
EXPERIMENTAL
Athens is the capital and largest city of Greece currently accommodating 752 573
citizens8. According to the European Urban Audit, the Athens larger urban zone
populates 4 013 368 inhabitants at a density rate of 1054 people per km2 (Ref. 9).
Throughout its long history, Athens has experienced many different population
levels, partly through absorbing and engulfing neighbour suburbs and villages into
its greater ‘Athens area’. As Athens grew in size, the original monocentric structure
of a large metropolis dissolved progressively with time into a polycentric structure.
The CBD (Central Business District) lost its dominant primacy, and clusters of
activities generating trips spread within the built-up area. The Athens polycentric
development along with the lack of a complete public transport system, largely
accounts for its car-based orbital transportation due to the pattern of the trips with
random origin and destination points.
According to the Hellenic Statistical Authority, during the last decade the
population in the metropolitan region of Athens has increased by about 15% while
at the same time car ownership has increased by about 84% (Fig. 1), reaching
0.593 private automobiles per inhabitant in 2006 (the respective car ownership
in 1996 was 0.250 automobiles per inhabitant)8. This has led to a 30% increase
in travel time in the last 10 years, which, along with the insufficient urban road
network in the central areas, has contributed to the deterioration of the traffic
conditions in the capital. As presented in the Metro Development Study for the
Athens metropolitan region, there is a daily demand for 6.3 mil. journeys, while
there are 8.1 mil. single mode daily trips (26% increase in the last 12 years)10. The
same study states that there are 2.01 daily trips per person (1.56 journeys/person),
while 55% of the population makes at least one trip per day with business trips
(45% of total daily travel) having the highest portion. The modal split reveals the
private vehicle (PrV) prevalence with an approximate percentage of 55.3%, followed by that of public transport with a share of 31.7% (Ref. 11). The share of
taxis, however, is differentiated from the PrV category holding a noteworthy 13%
(Ref. 12), which adds to a total of 68.3% of private vehicles (cars and motorcycles)
in the road network of Athens.
613
Fig. 1. Private car ownership development in Attica from 1986 to 2006
Source: H.S.A., 2006
Athens currently accommodates all possible public transport modes but that
of BRT. Transit providers have to serve a system, which faces a 3.5% annual
increase in traffic for the last 10 years, and which has 22% of the signalised
intersection approaches in the center of the city highly congested10. Since the
new metro lines have been delivered, there has been a steady increase in public
transport use (+17% between 2000 and 2006)13. Nevertheless, the area coverage
and thus the offered service and supply of public transport throughout the city is
considered as deficient, leaving many suburban areas without the expected level of
public transport supply. Taking into consideration that the financing of new public
transport infrastructure meets upcoming obstacles due to the economic recession,
a financial sound implementation of a system that would require less resources
and at the same time would integrate with the existent public transport network
should be carefully examined.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The importance of analysing the transportation demand in order to be able to predict
the expected number of trips in a given network can not be overstated. The demand
for transportation forms the primary input in any decision related to the creation
and management of transport infrastructure and services according to customer
needs. In the case of Athens, no travel demand data were available at the time of
the writing of this paper. Instead, a set of mobility and urban factors was used for
identifying the area and corridor of a probable BRT system in the city. Population
density, land use, location of major attraction points and the existence of a public
transport network were the main reasons behind the choice of the respective area
highlighted in purple-scaled rectangles in Fig. 2. The municipalities belong to the
east and south-east suburbs of Athens, and as shown, are not currently served by
a direct public transport line. Despite the fact that these municipalities accommodate more than 20% of Athens inhabitants and that highly attractive commercial
614
and business areas are located within their limits, the connection between them
still remains rather weak, with the focus given on their connection with the city
center8. In an effort to relieve the already burdened city center from additional trips,
a BRT line offering a direct service through these municipalities as well as acting
as a feeder line to the existent subway lines is proposed. The BRT link depicted in
Fig. 2 will provide a strong connection for 8 municipalities, integrating with the 3
subway lines, the tramline and the suburban rail line. The selected municipalities
share certain characteristics concerning their population density and land use. This
BRT proposal attempts to take into consideration social issues, by offering a strong
link to cities mainly inhabited by low to medium income citizens14. Moreover,
the line largely follows the route and direction of Kifissos avenue in an attempt
to decongest and relieve traffic from this oversaturated avenue, which is believed
to be host of approximately 320 000 vehicles per day15. Modal integration is very
important for a BRT system and this is the reason why the line seeks to build small
transportation hubs with the existent metro lines, the tramline and the suburban
rail line. In the end, the new system will not try to compete with and antagonise
the currently offered public transport services but pull people from private to mass
transportation.
Fig. 2. The BRT proposal for the city of Athens
Two scenarios have been developed for the corridor in which the new BRT
system of Athens will run. In both cases a series of factors have been determinant
for the choice of the specific route. Travel-time for the selected route both for transit
users and mixed traffic vehicles, the number of people served and affected by the
line, the modal integration with other public transport systems, the improvement
615
and development of the urban environment and the performance capabilities of
the BRT system were among the factors based on which the corridor selection
was made.
Scenario A, as depicted in Fig. 3, considers linking the municipalities mentioned above mainly via the Kifissos avenue, in an attempt to create a strong direct
business link, to relieve the saturation of this major arterial road due its commuting
and business trips and to attract passengers moving along the peak hours.
Fig. 3. Scenario A of the BRT implementation in Athens – the business link (source: Google,
2009)
The corridor in the scenario A has a total length of 15.95 km offering large
segments of separated bus way to the BRT vehicles, allowing them thus to reach
their maximum speed (close to 40 km/h). This is one of the most important features
of this case, since the estimated time for the bus to complete this route will be
near 45 min (including approximated delays at bus stops). However, the number
of people served by this line could possibly be low, since the link is not heavily
interfering with the inner parts of the municipalities, but is mainly running on the
outskirts of them. The relative low number of stations planned (7) also reflects the
latter fact. In this scenario modal integration with other public transport modes is
rather weak, since the line shares common stations with the suburban rail system
at the start of its route and partially integrates with the tram line in the end of its
route. The conversion of lanes where currently parking spaces are offered, to lanes
616
of general traffic will preserve the existing current traffic conditions (since no
mixed traffic lane will be removed for the BRT utilisation) but pose an obstacle
to people searching for parking places. Moreover, the right turn from the left lane
often used by the BRT vehicle can prove to be dangerous, especially in the case
of the Kifissos avenue.
Scenario B attempts to provide a link that will enhance the attraction of the
system to the residents of these cities (Fig. 4) focusing not only on a fast direct
service but also on its role as a feeder to the public transport system. The line
could possibly serve recreational and other purposes rather than commuting and
business ones and this is why it is planned to run through the majority of the
municipalities.
Fig. 4. Scenario B of the BRT implementation in Athens – the leisure link (source: Google, 2009)
The corridor in scenario B is significantly larger than that of scenario A, having
a total of 18.6 km. This corridor is designed to serve trips mainly during the nonpeak hours and this is why it attempts to serve a bigger percentage of people. 17
stations along the whole route will delay the BRT system considerably compared
to scenario A, since the estimated time for the completion of the route is close to
73 min. The modal integration, however, is quite strong in this case, enhancing
the role of the BRT as feeder line to the other public transport systems, since the
line shares one station with each metro line and is partially integrated with the
tram line of Athens.
617
CONCLUSIONS
This report has offered an insight on the initial steps of the realisation of a BRT
system in Athens. A BRT system is not ideal and optimum for every city but it
largely depends on the local demographical and transportational characteristics
of it. Temporal and financial resources largely determine the extent to which a
full BRT system will be implemented. In order to evaluate all impacts and assess
its accordance with sustainable transprotation, a multi-criteria analysis including
socio-economic data is needed.
What concerns the travel demand of a particular region or district, this is without doubt an important tool to have. Despite its unquestionable necessity though,
this paper has concluded that it is the components the travel demand consists of,
that can be investigated and studied when this voluminous data is not available.
A series of important estimations, projections and comparisons are dominantly
based on this data, but the main concept behind a decision (e.g. the selection of
the implementation corridor of a system) can be roughly shaped by travel demand
contributing features: population, population density, land use, existence of public
transport systems, supply of private transport infrastructure, major origin and destination attraction areas within a region. This methodology has been followed and
applied in this paper not only for the selection of the areas that would be served
by a BRT system in Athens but also for the specification of the corridor through
which such a system would operate.
Athens, a city whose polycentric structure encourages the already excessive
use of private transport, serves in this report as an illustration paradigm of a European metropolitan region suffering from the severe impacts of high motorisation
in the society, the economy and the environment. The enrichment of the scarce
public transport network with a BRT system would only then improve current
transportational problems if planned with special consideration on the integration
of the new system to the existing one and if combined with a series of corrective
measures.
REFERENCES
1. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy: Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide.
2007.
2. H. Brundtland: Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development, 1987.
3.A. MILUKAS: European Green Car Initiatives and the Prospects for Clean Transport. In: Proc.
of the 5th International Congress on Transportation Research, Volos, 2010.
4. P. Newman, J. Kenworthy: Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. 1st ed. Island Press, Washington, D.C., Covelo, California, 1999, 68–127.
5.L. Wright: Bus Rapid Transit. 1st ed. Eschborn, GTZ, 2003.
6.E. Thomas: Bus Rapid Transit. Presentation at the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2001.
618
7.H. Levinson, S. Rutherford, S. Zimmerman, J. Clinger, J. Gast, E. Bruhn:
Bus Rapid Transit. Vol. 1. Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90. Washington, 2003.
8.Hellenic Statistical Authority: online at www.statistics.gr, retrieved on 20-10-2009.
9.European Urban Audit: online at www.urbanaudit.org, retrieved on 15-09-2009.
10.Metro Development Study: Public-private Transport Mode Inventory for Athens. Attiko Metro
Agency, Athens, 1996.
11.European Metropolitan Transport Authorities: Barometer of Public Transport in the European
Metropolitan Areas, 2004.
12.A. ANASTASAKI, D. PANAYIOTAKOPOULOS: A Transport Model for the Athens Olympic
Games. Attico Metro, Greece, 2004.
13.Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: OECD Environmental Reviews.
Greece, OECD, 2009.
14.Hellenic Ministry of Finance: Data on the Attica Periphery for the Financial Year 2010. Greece,
2010.
15.Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: OECD Territorial Reviews. Athens,
Greece, OECD, 2004.
Received 8 December 2010
Revised 20 February 2011
619