BRTS

 ROW’s of 24, 30, 45 and 60 meters are most commonly observed in Indian BRT system design.
The dedicated BRT lanes are majorly seen along the median side.
 The different design concepts include two lane for motorised vehicles, one lane for non-
motorized traffic and a 2 m footpath. Further, one lane is reserved for one way BRT and two lanes
for two way BRT. Cross sections with bus stops has additional 3 m carriageway reserved for it. A
utility Parking lane is also observed in few cross sections.
 The GC model is either a route based or area based cost model. In GC model the private partner
states the unit cost of service on the following criteria: (1) Kilometres based (cost/km) e.g.
Helsinki(Finland), Gote Borg(Sweden) Janmarg (Ahmedabad BRTS) and DIMTS New Delhi (2)
Contract based (whole cost of operating) e.g. London (before 1993) (3) Passenger based
(Cost/Passenger) e.g. Santiago
 NC model is also either a route based or area based model. In these models the operator states the
minimum subsidy required. e.g. London (after 1993) and Rajkot
 Ahmedabad BRTS has adopted a very different phasing plan for the signals installed at the
intersections of BRT corridor, the cycle time of these signals are planned in a way that the BRT
lane signal goes green two times in one cycle time, al though there is no priority signal installed
but still this helps in reducing the overall travel time on the BRT corridor.
 TTR, waiting time reliability and headway regularity based reliability

 Many Indian BRTS have good monitoring system using closed circuit cameras that are installed at
the stops considering the passenger safety in mind. Distinctive low floor buses running on BRT
corridor in India creates a good image in the mind of passengers. Off board ticketing system in
few BRTS helps in reducing the dwell time and also gives a greater LOS to the passengers
because they don’t have to stand in crowd near the entry gate for buying the ticket just like how it
is happening in conventional transit service

 Further in Table 5 it can be easily seen in the salient features of different cross sec tions that all
BRT corridors have space for cycle track and pedestrian pathways which increases the
accessibility to the BRT corridors.
 The population of Ahmedabad and Delhi is five million plus, rest cities like Bhopal, Indore,
Jaipur, Pune, Rajkot and Surat have a population of less than 5 million

 The selection of BRT corridor is highly dependent on the availability of ROW, but a logical
reason for its selection is must. Ahmedabad BRTS has a partial ring radial network. Apart from
the listed reasons of network there are some more network advantages of this type of network that
it has adequate coverage and connectivity with minimum transfers and it also strengthens the
focal point

 the circular lines of the ring radial network has three main functions. Firstly, it gives a direct link
to many high and medium population density areas around the city. Secondly they help in good
modal integration like the London underground integrates with British rail station. Lastly the ring
line enables manly suburb to suburb trips

 Grid pattern has a dis advantage in terms of increased number of transfers. Also, in this network
the frequency of the service has to be increased to cater different nodes

 The most commonly adopted carriageway design is for a ROW of 24 and 40 m

 Ring and radial pat tern is majorly planned for BRTS network of different cities. This type of
network works efficiently because it gives a direct link to high and medium population density
area around the city, helps in good modal integration and encourage suburb to suburb trips. The
radial network also gives center of the city a privileged accessibility

Approx. avg_rad
Color Meaning/Interpretation
Value

Black ~0 – 5 No light / rural areas / dark zones

Blue ~5 – 15 Low light levels (low-density or less traffic)

Purple ~15 – 25 Moderate light (urban areas, small roads)

Red ~25 – 40 High light intensity (main roads, busy junctions)

Very bright zones (highways, industrial or commercial hubs, traffic

Yellow ~40 – 50+
hotspots)
Tool/Library Description Use When

statsmodels ARIMA, SARIMA Simple time series

Facebook Prophet Easy & robust to seasonality Hourly or daily forecasting

scikit-learn Regression (with features) You build time as features

XGBoost Boosted trees, very accurate Big datasets & features

NeuralProphet Neural nets + time series (Prophet) More flexible time forecasting
 Principle factors influencing ridership performance are high service levels, low speeds, shorter
stop spacing, segregated rights of way, modern accessible vehicles, lower fares, system
integration and pre boarding ticketing (the latter is not fully applied in Australasian BRT contexts)
 Applying the multiple regression models, bus travel times in an urban network in Sydney were
analyzed and variables that have a significant impact on changes in bus travel time (i.e. non-stop
running time, the delay caused by the traffic lights, delay due to roundabouts and lost times at bus
stops, which are useful for the classification of delays along a route) were identified and the
percentage of time that buses spend in each stage of a trip were estimated
 In this research the main objective was the consequences analysis of the strategy change of paying
for a bus service. By using estimates of passenger boarding times with alternative fare payment
methods (cash, magnetic strip, contactless card and off-board payment), operational speed and
benefits of upgrading the fare payment technology can be calculated, including savings on fleet
size requirements, fuel and labor cost, travel time for users and air pollution (Tirachini, 2013).
 As a case study by using the Kalman filter traffic characteristics after the special events and
predicted travel time after graduation ceremony were investigated
 In addition to travel time between two consecutive stations, these samples include the average
dwell times at origin station, the distance between two consecutive stations, number of signalized
intersections in each section, number of unsignalized intersections in each section, average speed,
section number, direction (way or return) and the time of day (morning or afternoon)
 Buses have a mixture of 1 and 2 doors. Where buses have 1 door, the bus stops at the station at
two locations, one to allow passengers to alight, and one to allow passengers to board
 Median stations have covered pedestrian over bridges for access. Over bridges have ramps at a
9% gradient to allow for wheelchair access
 All fares are paid before entering the station environment. Currently operate a token/ card and
paper ticket based system, which will be replaced in due course with smart cards
 Work carried out by INSTRAN demonstrated that on some corridors, journey times more than
halved when compared to other modes of public transport using mixed traffic lanes.
 ITS tools like GPS-based bus tracking help maintain headways and optimize performance
The current population of GVMC is 1.7 million, the average trip length is 4.1, and PHPDTs more
than 15,000 exist only in two stretches, both of which being less than 5km in length, even in 2030.
The guidelines suggest that these demands should be achieved in 2020 for the city to plan for a metro.
Hence metro is not a feasible option for the city. However, the city qualifies in two of the three
criteria for a BRT system, i.e. demand and population. Even the trip length is not too far from the
required trip length. Also, the city has a successful BRT system in operation, and should expand on
this to improve its network connectivity.
The existing bus fleet is inadequate to cater to the raise in demand that is likely to occur in the
horizon years. Hence the existing fleet needs to be augmented with more buses. Currently, a bus
carries 750 passengers per day on average. Assuming a better level of service and comfort, by the
horizon year each bus is assumed to carry 600 passenger trips per day. The additional fleet required in
the city based on this calculation is observed to be 1100 buses by 2030. The fleet augmentation
should be coupled with the following measures for it to be most useful:
 Better routing and scheduling of vehicles for them to be more efficient. The routes need to be
updated regularly and dynamic scheduling systems should be used to optimise the available fleet
 Buses need to be universally accessible, i.e. children, women, elderly people and wheelchair users
should also be able to use them. As many low-floor buses as possible should be added to the fleet to
improve accessibility
 Supporting infrastructure like bus stops and access facilities to the bus stop need to be provided
 Adequate bus depots and terminals need to be provided to cater to the increased fleet required for
the horizon year. The locations for these features are identified in addition to the inter-modal
integration hubs mentioned earlier, and are shown in the following figure. VUDA needs to allocate
the land for upcoming depots to the APSRTC for it to be functional.
Their order of priority is as follows:
1. NH-5 from Tagarapuvalasa to Maddilapalem
2. NH-5 from Maddilapalem to NAD Junction
3. Dwaraka Nagar to Steel Plant Via Scindia
4. NH-5 from NAD Junction to Gajuwaka
5. Asilmetta to Yendada via Beach Road
6. Gosala to Venkojipalem via NSTL These corridors are shown in the city road network in the
following figure. It can be observed that together, these corridors provide mass transit
connectivity even for the outgrowths of the city.
Ridership per Route km - Demand per infrastructure investment.
Ridership per Vehicle km - Operational efficiency.
Average Speed - Service quality.
PHPD Demand - Capacity stress.

VARIABLES REQUIRED FOR MODEL PREPARATION :

(A) Dependent Variable (Target)
 Ridership (Boardings/day or Boardings/year)
o Primary measure of BRTS success.
(B) Independent Variables (Predictors)
1. Infrastructure & Service Design
 BRT Route Length (km)
 Number of Stations
 Stop Spacing (avg. distance between stations, km)
 Segregation Level (e.g., dedicated lanes = 1, mixed traffic = 0)
 Peak Hour Frequency (buses/hour)
 Average Operating Speed (km/h)
2. Socio-Economic & Demographic
 Population Density (persons/km²) along corridor
 Employment Density (jobs/km²)
 According to Per Capita Income (₹) range comparison
 Vehicle Ownership (cars/1000 people)
3. Travel Behaviour & Competition
 Fare (₹ per trip)
 Travel Time Savings vs. Current Transit (minutes) – Buses & Autos
 Connectivity to Other Modes (e.g., rail, metro, last-mile options)
4. Environmental & Policy
 Traffic Congestion Index (0-100 scale)
Future Projections (2050)
 Population Growth ( from Census)
 Urban Expansion (GIS-based land-use forecasts)
 Transport Policy Shifts ( metro integration)

Alternative Models for Evaluation :

1. Genetic Algorithm
2. BEAD tool
Model Validation Techniques
1. R² (Goodness-of-Fit): How well the model explains historical data.
2. RMSE (Root Mean Square Error): Prediction accuracy.
3. Cross-Validation: Split data into training/test sets to avoid overfitting and compare with other
BRTS models
4. Coefficient of Variation

7. Policy Recommendations for Vizag BRTS

 Priority: Segregated lanes → Biggest ridership boost.
  Optimize: Stop spacing (~500-800m balances speed/access).
 Integrate: Feeder buses to BRTS stations.
 Pricing: Dynamic fares (peak vs. off-peak).
Regression Models:
 Spatial Regression (e.g., SAR, SEM): Accounts for spatial autocorrelation (neighbouring
zones influencing each other).
Variables:

Dependent: Public transport trips per capita or total ridership per zone.

Independent: Urban form metrics (density, land use mix, etc.) + socioeconomic controls.

 Model Validation: Tests for multicollinearity (VIF), heteroscedasticity, and spatial

dependence (Moran’s I).
 VIZAG - BRTS

Overall vizag urban area may grow by 60-70 km.square outward by 2040-2050
Implementing a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in Visakhapatnam by 2050 faces several
challenges, as evidenced by current project delays and systemic issues:
1. Land Acquisition and Legal Disputes
 Delays in critical corridors: A 2-km stretch between Patha Adavivaram and Gosala near
Simhachalam remains incomplete due to unresolved land disputes with railways, defense
authorities, and private landowners, stalling the project for over a decade14.
 Compensation complexities: Over 267 affected individuals require relocation or
compensation, complicating progress despite recent efforts to finalize land transfers1.
2. Infrastructure and Design Shortcomings
 Pedestrian safety risks: Lack of crossings, sidewalks, and refuge areas at junctions forces
commuters to jaywalk or climb barriers, creating hazardous conditions2.
 Mixed traffic conflicts: Poor intersection design and unenforced lane segregation allow
private vehicles to intrude into BRT lanes, reducing efficiency27.
 Inadequate stations: Bus stops lack basic amenities like shelters, digital displays, and CCTV
cameras, diminishing user experience2.
3. Administrative and Financial Barriers
 Governance gaps: No functional Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) exists to oversee operations,
leaving responsibilities fragmented among agencies like GVMC and APSRTC24.
 Unclear funding: Capital costs for specialized buses and operational expenses (e.g.,
maintenance, staff) remain unaddressed, jeopardizing long-term sustainability26.
4. Operational Limitations
 Non-specialized buses: Current buses lack features like wider doors or real-time tracking,
undermining the BRT’s identity and efficiency
 Low ridership: Only 1.5% of city bus users utilize the existing Pendurthi corridor, partly due
to poor branding and integration with other transit modes.
5. Traffic Integration Challenges
 Negative car traffic impact: Dedicated lanes at certain intersections worsen congestion for
private vehicles, risking public opposition7.
6. Long-Term Urban Dynamics
  Sprawling development: As Visakhapatnam expands, maintaining high BRT modal shares
(e.g., 35–50% in sectors like education) will require continuous infrastructure upgrades and
policy enforcement57.
Conclusion
While Visakhapatnam’s BRTS has potential, overcoming these challenges demands coordinated
governance, robust funding, infrastructure redesign, and public engagement. Learning from cities like
Ahmedabad (which achieved ~30% BRT modal shares) could provide actionable insights for phased
implementation
Community engagement plays a critical role in overcoming the challenges of the BRTS project in
Visakhapatnam by fostering public trust, ensuring the system meets local needs, and reducing
opposition. Here’s how:
 Building Public Support and Trust: Early and sustained engagement helps address
misconceptions and fears about the BRTS, leading to greater buy-in and acceptance from
residents, businesses, and other stakeholders69. When people feel heard and informed, they
are more likely to support and use the system56.
 Identifying and Addressing Local Concerns: Community input can highlight specific
issues-such as pedestrian safety, access, or land acquisition-that planners might overlook.
Incorporating this feedback leads to solutions better tailored to the local context, reducing
resistance and project delays57.
 Reducing Conflict and Opposition: Many BRT projects in India have faced strong public
opposition, resulting in low ridership or even project discontinuation. Effective engagement,
including information campaigns, public meetings, and trial runs, has been shown to reduce
conflict and increase project success, as seen in Indore and Buenos Aires6.
 Enhancing Project Design and Usability: Residents can provide practical insights on route
planning, station locations, and service features, making the BRTS more accessible and user-
friendly7. This increases ridership and the likelihood of the system meeting its goals.
 Ensuring Social License and Legitimacy: Institutionalizing stakeholder engagement helps
secure the “social license” necessary for large infrastructure projects. This means the
community perceives the project as legitimate and beneficial, reducing the risk of political or
legal challenges9.
 Facilitating Integration with Existing Systems: Community feedback can guide how BRTS
integrates with other public transport modes, ensuring smoother transfers and better overall
mobility6.
Effective strategies include transparent communication, regular consultations, use of digital
platforms for feedback, and collaboration with local leaders and organizations568. These approaches
help overcome resource constraints and consultation fatigue, ensuring that engagement is meaningful
and sustained8.
In summary, robust community engagement is essential for the BRTS project’s success in
Visakhapatnam, helping to anticipate and address challenges, foster trust, and create a system that
truly serves the city’s needs
To ensure the BRTS serves as a crucial last-mile connector to the planned metro network in
Visakhapatnam-especially along the main urban axis and between satellite centers-the following
strategies, supported by current plans and best practices, should be adopted:
1. Strategic Network Planning and Route Adjustment
 Extend or Realign BRTS Routes: BRTS corridors should be mapped and, if necessary,
extended to directly serve existing and proposed metro stations, industrial clusters, and major
transit hubs. This ensures that passengers can seamlessly transfer between high-capacity metro
services and the more flexible BRTS network, effectively bridging gaps in the urban mobility
grid68.
 Serve Satellite Centers: By connecting outlying residential and employment hubs (satellite
centers) to the metro via BRTS, the system can act as a feeder, supporting balanced urban
growth and reducing congestion on main corridors67.
2. Integrated Station Design and Interchange Facilities
 Design Conflict-Free Interchanges: BRTS and metro stations should be co-located or linked
by safe, direct pedestrian pathways. Station design must prioritize conflict-free movement for
buses, metro, and pedestrians, with clear signage and minimal walking distances between
modes18.
 Real-Time Information and Amenities: Equip interchange stations with real-time transit
information, ticketing facilities, and passenger amenities to make transfers convenient and
attractive5.
3. Unified Ticketing and Fare Integration
 Single Fare System: Implement a unified ticketing system across BRTS, metro, and city
buses, allowing passengers to transfer without purchasing separate tickets. This reduces
barriers to multi-modal travel and encourages use of public transport for complete journeys46.
4. Institutional Coordination and Governance
 Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority: The establishment of a unified authority (as
initiated by the Andhra Pradesh government) can coordinate planning, scheduling, and
operational integration between BRTS, metro, and other modes, ensuring that services are
complementary and not duplicative46.
5. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
 Land Use Integration: Encourage higher-density, mixed-use development around key BRTS
and metro stations. This not only boosts ridership but also supports sustainable urban growth
and reduces reliance on private vehicles67.
  Pedestrian and NMT Connectivity: Develop safe, accessible walking and cycling routes
within 1 km of metro and BRTS corridors to facilitate first- and last-mile connectivity67.
6. Phased Upgrades and Expansion
 Leverage Existing Infrastructure: Upgrade current BRTS corridors with features such as
precision bus docking, all-door boarding, and high-visibility crosswalks, as recommended in
the Smart City Master Plan, to improve efficiency and integration with the expanding metro
network5.
 Future-Proofing: Plan for additional BRTS corridors and flexible routing as the city grows
and new metro lines are added, ensuring the system remains adaptable to evolving mobility
needs67.
In summary:
By extending and aligning BRTS routes to metro stations, designing integrated interchanges, unifying
ticketing, coordinating governance, supporting transit-oriented development, and upgrading
infrastructure, Visakhapatnam’s BRTS can become an effective last-mile connector-maximizing the
reach and efficiency of the planned metro network and supporting sustainable urban mobility
Simulate:
 Peak hour load in 2050.
 Response to road expansion or new BRT lines.
 Impact of restricting private vehicle access in corridors.
Use regression or neural networks to:
 Predict where bottlenecks will shift if you improve pavement.
 Identify which segments benefit most from investments.
 Run what-if scenarios like:
o "What happens if NAD–Baji Jn has 2x ridership in 2050?"
o "What if Gnanapuram–Kancharapalem gets an overpass?"
Multimodal Integration & Park-and-Ride
 Reduce congestion on critical segments by offering:
o Park-and-ride at Karasa, NAD, or Sujatha Nagar.
o Cycle/bike lanes to reduce short local trips clogging BRTS.
o Integration with rail/suburban metro (if applicable by 2050).
Traffic Management Interventions
  At congested junctions:
o Implement adaptive signal control.
o Introduce queue jump lanes for buses.
o Apply peak-hour vehicle bans for private vehicles.

Urban Zoning & Land Use Policy Changes

 Restrict commercial buildup along over-congested routes (e.g., Gnanapuram).
 Encourage residential densification near underused stations or feeder routes.
 Use 2050 demand data to zone for future BRTS expansion corridors

 Congestion-density mappings vary by city/road.

 Fix: Use city-specific historical speed data to refine thresholds.

 kj depends on driver behavior and vehicle size.

 Fix: Use regionally adjusted kj values (e.g., kj=125kj=125 vehicles/km in dense cities).

Input Description
Historical growth trends Census data, past urban expansion
Migration and economic drivers Anticipated in-migration due to industry, jobs, and
infrastructure
Urbanization rate Projected rise in urbanized area from 15% to 33% of VMRDA
region by 2041
Zone-based modelling Population forecasts for each planning zone, then aggregated
Stakeholder/field surveys Understanding of migration, housing, and employment trends
Integration with major projects Impact of new airport, metro, industrial corridors, and new
townships
Policy and land use changes Expansion of VMRDA limits, new urban nodes, and compact
development strategies

Thus, from VMRDA reports, the total population by 2041 = 6.72 million
Avoiding low-density sprawl
Encouraging Mixed Land Use
Transit oriented development
Good urban design
Not too much land for roads and parking