BRT Scores
Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil | Manaus BRS - Eixo Norte-Sul & Eixo Leste | 2016
Standard Version: 2016. Scoring date: September 04, 2020
Portion of corridor scored: Eixo Norte-Sul & Eixo Leste (Av. Constantino Nery, Av. Torquato Tapajós, Av. Max Teixeira, and Av. Noel Nutels, from Av. Alvaro Maia to R. 77. The remainder of Eixo Leste does not have dedicated lanes and is not in scope for this ranking, as is the section between T1 and Av. Alvaro Maia.)
Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil | Manaus BRS - Eixo Norte-Sul & Eixo Leste | 2016
| BRT Basics | Elements | Measurement | 26/38 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dedicated right-of-way | 4/8 | Source: Google Maps, Google Streetview | ||
| Physically separated, dedicated lanes (8) | ||||
| Color-differentiated, dedicated lanes with no physical separation (6) | ||||
| Dedicated lanes separated by a painted line (4) | 15km/15km (100%) -> 4 | |||
| No dedicated lanes (0) | ||||
| Busway alignment | 8/8 | Source: Google Maps | ||
| Tier 1: Two-way median-aligned busway in the central verge of a two-way road (8) | 15km/15km (100%) -> 8 | |||
| Tier 1: Bus-only corridor where there is a fully exclusive right-of-way and no parallel mixed traffic, such as a transit mall or a converted rail corridor (8) | ||||
| Tier 1: Busway that runs adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront or park where there are few intersections to cause conflicts (8) | ||||
| Tier 1: Busway that runs two-way on the side of a one-way street (6) | ||||
| Tier 2: Busway that is split into two one-way pairs on separate streets, with each bus lane centrally aligned in the roadway (5) | ||||
| Tier 2: Busway aligned to the outer curb of the central roadway on a street with a central roadway and parallel service road (4) | ||||
| Tier 2: Busway aligned to the inner curb of the service road on a street with a central roadway and parallel service road. Busway must be physically separated from other traffic on the service road to receive points (4) | ||||
| Tier 2: Busway that is split into two one-way pairs on separate streets, with each bus lane aligned to the curb (3) | ||||
| Tier 3: Virtual busway that operates bidirectionally in a single median lane that alternates direction by block (1) | ||||
| Curb-aligned busway on a two-way road (0) | ||||
| Off-board fare collection | 0/8 | |||
| Barrier-controlled (8) | ||||
| Proof-of-payment (7) | ||||
| Onboard fare validation - all doors (4) | ||||
| Intersection treatments | 7/7 | |||
| Turns prohibited across the busway (7) | 7 | There are only around 5 intersections on the entire 15 km stretch because the median is continuous and both grade separation/diversions are used for crossing the busway. | ||
| Signal priority at intersections (2) | ||||
| Platform-level boarding | 7/7 | |||
| Buses are platform level, having 4 centimeters or less of vertical gap. Buses with steps at entrances do not count as platform-level (7) | ✓ | High Level Platform | ||
| Stations in corridor have measures for reducing the horizontal gap (6) | ||||
| Service Planning | Elements | Measurement | 11/19 | Notes |
| Multiple routes | 4/4 | |||
| Two or more routes exist on the corridor, servicing at least two stations (4) | ✓ | |||
| No multiple routes (0) | ||||
| Express, limited, and local services | 0/3 | |||
| Local services and multiple types of limited-stop and/or express services (3) | ||||
| At least one local and one limited-stop or express service option (2) | ||||
| No limited-stop or express services (0) | ✓ | |||
| Control center | ?/3 | |||
| Full-service control center with automated dispatch, active bus control, and automatic vehicle location (3) | ||||
| Control center with two of the following: automated dispatch, active bus control, and automatic vehicle location (2) | ||||
| Control center with one of the following: automated dispatch, active bus control, and automatic vehicle location (1) | ||||
| No control center or center with limited functionality (0) | ||||
| Located in top ten corridors | 2/2 | |||
| Corridor is one of top ten demand corridors or all top ten demand corridors have rapid transit infrastructure (2) | ✓ | Av. Nery - Av. Tapajós is the highest demand corridor in the metropolitan area | ||
| Corridor is not one of top ten demand corridors (0) | ||||
| Demand profile | 3/3 | |||
| Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 1 Trunk Corridor configuration (3) | ✓ | |||
| Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 2 Trunk Corridor configuration (2) | ||||
| Corridor includes highest demand segment, which has a Tier 3 Trunk Corridor configuration (1) | ||||
| Corridor does not include highest demand segment (0) | ||||
| Hours of operations | 2/2 | Source: Moovit | ||
| Both late-night and weekend service (2) | ✓ | |||
| Late-night service but no weekend service OR Weekend service but no late night service (1) | ||||
| No late-night or weekend service (0) | ||||
| Multi-corridor network | 0/2 | |||
| BRT corridor connects to an existing BRT corridor or to the next one planned in the network. Must be BRT and not other rapid transit (2) | ||||
| BRT corridor connects to a future planned corridor in the BRT network (1) | ||||
| No connected BRT network planned or built (0) | ✓ | Other corridor in network has a grade separated crossing with this corridor, and there is no transfer station or way for vehicles to switch corridors without a major detour. Fixing this is a long term city goal. | ||
| Infrastructure | Elements | Measurement | 5/13 | Notes |
| Passing lanes at stations | 0/3 | |||
| Dedicated passing lanes (3) | ||||
| Buses overtake in oncoming dedicated bus lanes given safe conditions (2) | ||||
| Passing in mixed traffic given safe conditions (1) | ||||
| No passing lanes (0) | ✓ | |||
| Minimizing bus emissions | ?/3 | It is not possible for us to judge bus emissions quality and so we do not score | ||
| Stations set back from intersections | 3/3 | |||
| 75% of stations on corridor are set back at least 40m/130ft from intersections or meet at least one exemption (fully grade-separated busways; stations located near intersections due to short block length - <100m/330ft) (3) | ✓ | As mentioned in BRT Basics, there basically aren't any intersections along the entire scored portion of the corridor | ||
| 75% of stations on corridor are set back 26m/85ft from intersections or meet exemptions (fully grade-separated busways; stations located near intersections due to short block length - <100m/330ft) (2) | ||||
| 25% of stations on corridor are set back 26m/85ft from intersections or meet exemptions (fully grade-separated busways; stations located near intersections due to short block length - <100m/330ft) (1) | ||||
| <25% of stations on corridor are set back 26m/85ft from intersections or exemptions (fully grade-separated busways; stations located near intersections due to short block length - <100m/330ft) (0) | ||||
| Center stations | 2/2 | |||
| >80% of stations on corridor have center platforms serving both directions of service (2) | ✓ | Some narrow sections have split platforms | ||
| >50% of stations on corridor have center platforms serving both directions of service (1) | ||||
| >80% of stations on corridor have center platforms serving only one direction of service (1) | ||||
| Pavement quality | ?/2 | It is not possible for us to judge pavement quality and so we do not score | ||
| Stations | Elements | Measurement | 7/10 | Notes |
| Distances between stations | 2/2 | |||
| Stations are spaced, on average, between 0.3km (0.2mi) and 0.8km (0.5mi) apart (2) | ✓ | Current average is 681m on scored corridor; infill station expected to shift that to 652m | ||
| Safe and comfortable stations | 1/3 | |||
| Stations have all four of the following: at least 3m/10ft wide, weather protected (as appropriate to location), safe (well-lit, transparent, and have security, and attractive (3) | ||||
| Stations have three of the following: at least 3m/10ft wide, weather protected (as appropriate to location), safe (well-lit, transparent, and have security, and attractive (2) | ||||
| Stations have two of the following: at least 3m/10ft wide, weather protected (as appropriate to location), safe (well-lit, transparent, and have security, and attractive (1) | ✓ | Wide and weather protected | ||
| Stations have one of the following: at least 3m/10ft wide, weather protected (as appropriate to location), safe (well-lit, transparent, and have security, and attractive (0) | ||||
| Number of doors on bus | 3/3 | |||
| Buses have at least three doors (articulated) or two wide doors on station side (non-articulated). System allows boarding at all doors (3) | ✓ | |||
| Docking bays and sub-stops | 1/1 | |||
| At least two substops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations (1) | ✓ | All stations can hold at least two articulated buses, with terminals being capable of many more | ||
| Less than two substops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations (0) | ||||
| Sliding doors in BRT stations | 0/1 | |||
| All stations have sliding doors (1) | ||||
| Otherwise (0) | ✓ | |||
| Communications | Elements | Measurement | 1/5 | Notes |
| Branding | 0/3 | |||
| All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand of entire BRT system (3) | ||||
| All buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, but differ from rest of system (2) | ||||
| Some buses, routes, and stations in corridor follow single unifying brand, regardless of rest of system (1) | ||||
| No corridor brand (0) | ✓ | |||
| Passenger information | 1/2 | |||
| Functioning real-time and up-to-date static passenger information corridor-wide (2) | ||||
| Up-to-date static passenger information (1) | ✓ | |||
| Access and Integration | Elements | Measurement | 7/15 | Notes |
| Universal access | 2/3 | |||
| Full accessibility provided (3) | ||||
| Only physical accessibility provided (2) | ✓ | |||
| Only audiovisual accessibility provided (1) | ||||
| Integration with other public transport | 3/3 | |||
| Integration of both physical design and fare payment (3) | ✓ | System is based around integrated fare terminals | ||
| Integration of physical design or fare payment only (2) | ||||
| No integration (0) | ||||
| Pedestrian access and safety | 2/4 | |||
| Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and many improvements along corridor (4) | ||||
| Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and modest improvements along corridor (3) | ||||
| Good, safe pedestrian access at every station and no other improvements along corridor (2) | ✓ | |||
| Good, safe pedestrian access at most stations and no other improvements along corridor (1) | ||||
| Stations lack good, safe pedestrian access (0) | ||||
| Secure bicycle parking | 0/2 | |||
| Secure bicycle parking at least in higher demand stations and standard bicycle racks elsewhere (2) | ||||
| Standard bicycle racks in most stations (1) | ||||
| Little or no bicycle parking (0) | ✓ | |||
| Bicycle lanes | 0/2 | |||
| Bicycle lanes on or parallel to entire corridor (2) | ||||
| Bicycle lanes do not span entire corridor (1) | ||||
| Poorly-designed or no bicycle infrastructure (0) | ✓ | |||
| Bicycle-sharing integration | 0/1 | |||
| Bicycle-sharing at minimum of 50% of stations on corridor (1) | ||||
| Bicycle-sharing at <50% of stations on corridor (0) | ✓ | |||
| Design Score | Elements | Measurement | 57/100 | |
| BRT? | Bronze |
External Citations