BRT Scores
Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil | Av. Capitão Mário Toledo de Camargo | 2016
Standard Version: 2016. Scoring date: September 04, 2022
Portion of corridor scored: Av. Capitão Mário Toledo de Camargo Av. Capitão Mário Toledo de Camargo, from R. Osvaldo Aranha to R. Dr. Ariovaldo Teles de Menezes)
Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil | Av. Capitão Mário Toledo de Camargo | 2016
| BRT Basics | Elements | Measurement | 26/38 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dedicated right-of-way | 4/8 | Source: Google Streetview | ||
| Physically separated, dedicated lanes (8) | ||||
| Color-differentiated, dedicated lanes with no physical separation (6) | ||||
| Dedicated lanes separated by a painted line (4) | 3.37km/3.37km (100%) -> 4 | Technically not even a painted line, though Ônibus is painted onto the lanes and there are some small lane separators | ||
| 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) | 3.37km/3.37km (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 | Source: Google Streetview | ||
| Barrier-controlled (8) | ||||
| Proof-of-payment (7) | ||||
| Onboard fare validation - all doors (4) | ||||
| Intersection treatments | 7/7 | |||
| Turns prohibited across the busway (7) | 7 | Turns across busway banned at nearly all intersections. ROW is on a river, so minor streets do not interact with 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) | ✓ | |||
| Stations in corridor have measures for reducing the horizontal gap (6) | ||||
| Service Planning | Elements | Measurement | 7/19 | Notes |
| Multiple routes | 0/4 | |||
| Two or more routes exist on the corridor, servicing at least two stations (4) | ||||
| No multiple routes (0) | ✓ | Only one active service | ||
| 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) | ✓ | |||
| 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) | ✓ | |||
| Infrastructure | Elements | Measurement | 4/13 | 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 | 2/3 | |||
| 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) | ||||
| 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) | ✓ | |||
| >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 | 1/10 | Notes |
| Distances between stations | 0/2 | |||
| Stations are spaced, on average, between 0.3km (0.2mi) and 0.8km (0.5mi) apart (2) | Very wide station spacing along corridor | |||
| 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) | ✓ | Weather protected and wide only | ||
| 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 | 0/3 | |||
| Buses have at least three doors (articulated) or two wide doors on station side (non-articulated). System allows boarding at all doors (3) | Articulated buses only have 2 doors on station side | |||
| Docking bays and sub-stops | 0/1 | |||
| At least two substops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations (1) | ||||
| Less than two substops or docking bays at the highest-demand stations (0) | ✓ | Only one station can support two articulated buses back to back | ||
| Sliding doors in BRT stations | 0/1 | |||
| All stations have sliding doors (1) | ||||
| Otherwise (0) | ✓ | |||
| Communications | Elements | Measurement | 0/5 | 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 | 0/2 | |||
| 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) | ✓ | Corridor between two integration 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) | ✓ | Lanes are very narrow and not protected | ||
| 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 | 45/100 | |
| BRT? | Basic BRT |
External Citations