Latin American cities have been at the forefront of implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, a mode of public transport distinguished by infrastructure prioritizing buses over other vehicles, off-board fare collection, and rapid boarding. Over 45 cities in Latin America have invested in BRT systems, accounting for 63.6 percent of global BRT ridership.
Curitiba, Brazil, pioneered the BRT system as a tool to promote urban development centered on public transport. In 1972, the city established an exclusive bus lane network, encouraging high-density, mixed-use developments along the system’s five main axes, which converge in the city center. This structural approach has guided Curitiba’s urban growth for decades. Curitiba’s new “Green Line” follows similar principles, fostering urban development that enhances and facilitates mass public transport use. The Curitiba case suggests that BRT system success is amplified by concentrating land development along mass transit corridors. Further research explores whether BRT systems effectively stimulate land development.
The term “Transit-Oriented Development” (TOD) describes compact, mixed-use urban development, typically including residential, commercial, and office spaces, with a high-quality pedestrian environment offering excellent public transport access. TOD is considered to support public transport by concentrating demand along transit corridors, balancing passenger flows, and creating opportunities for multimodal journeys. Evidence from the United States suggests that residents in TOD areas use public transport more than those in conventional developments. While most TOD projects are centered around rail systems, the concept can also complement and enhance BRT systems.
Typologies of Transit-Oriented Development
Researchers and practitioners have developed various typologies of TOD, though few specifically focus on BRT systems. Understanding the types of development around BRT stations is crucial for planning station areas, integrating TOD into regional growth strategies, raising public awareness, and increasing system success.
Literature on TOD highlights significant variations in its characteristics and types. One approach, rooted in the experience of planners, architects, and urbanists, is exemplified by Peter Calthorpe’s (1993) concept of urbanization, identifying urban and neighborhood-scale TODs based on public transport service quality, land uses, development intensity, and urban design character. These TODs can be located in greenfield development areas or in urban redevelopment and renewal zones. A similar typology developed in Florida (USA) in 2011 considers both the scale of the activity center (regional, community, or neighborhood) and transport modes (Renaissance Planning Group, 2011).
Dittmar and Poticha (2004) combine geographic location and urbanization in their TOD typology, categorizing them as urban center, urban neighborhood, suburban center, suburban neighborhood, transit-supportive neighborhood, and bedroom community. This approach persists in more recent applications. For example, Sacramento, California, defines TOD typologies as urban core/center, employment center, residential center, bedroom center, and enhanced bus corridor (Steer Davies Gleave, 2009). Reconnecting America developed typologies for the San Francisco Bay Area: regional center, urban center, suburban center, transit town center, urban neighborhood, transit neighborhood, and mixed-use corridor (Metropolitan Planning Commission, 2007). In Denver, Colorado, the Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD, 2008) developed station area planning guidelines incorporating an additional typology: special use and/or employment district.
An alternative approach to a priori typologies uses data clustering techniques to examine urban environments. For example, typologies of urban development around 25 integrated metro stations in Hong Kong identified five types: high-rise office buildings, high-rise residential buildings, large-scale residential developments, large-scale mixed-use developments, and mid-rise residential buildings (Cervero and Murakami, 2009). Another study used cluster analysis to develop a spatial-functional typology of areas around light rail stations in Phoenix, Arizona (Atkinson-Palombo and Kuby, 2011). Identified typologies included employment centers, middle-income mixed-use areas, park-and-ride nodes, high-density/rental areas, and areas with concentrated urban poverty.
A final set of emerging typologies from CTOD introduces an implementation or performance dimension to the built environment. These typologies often form two-dimensional matrices, with built environment types on one axis and implementation measures on the other. Developed for Portland, Oregon, and Baltimore, Maryland, these typologies guide capital investments and policy changes, and are useful for raising public awareness about TOD travel benefits (Deng and Nelson, 2012).
Alt Text: A well-maintained Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station platform, designed for efficient passenger flow. The platform is clean and clearly marked, indicating a focus on user-friendly public transport stations.
Case Study Cities and Data Collection
To understand TOD around BRT systems in Latin America, our study investigated the built environment around BRT stations and terminals in seven cities (Table 1). We selected major cities in the region with BRT systems operational for at least five years: Bogotá (Colombia); Curitiba (Brazil); Goiânia (Brazil); Guatemala City (Guatemala); Guayaquil (Ecuador); Quito (Ecuador); and the São Paulo Metropolitan Area (Brazil), specifically the “ABD” corridor. Collectively, these cities account for 16 percent of global BRT ridership and 31 percent of Latin American BRT ridership. The study included two types of stops: stations (common BRT stops) and terminals (end-of-line or major transfer stops). With the help of urban planners in each city, we identified representative stations and terminals, regardless of existing TOD. Ultimately, 51 stations and 31 terminals were selected for investigation.
Due to data limitations across cities with high spatial resolution, we collected data in situ using a format designed to capture urban environment characteristics at two levels: street segments (block-faces) and city blocks. A “segment” was defined as the street section between two intersections. The data collection format included fields on:
- Pedestrians and bicycles (pedestrian streets, bridges, bike lanes).
- Land uses (industrial, commercial, single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial-industrial, commercial-residential, institutional).
- Urban development density (low, medium, high).
- Public or semi-public spaces (public areas near shopping centers, schools, hospitals, churches, libraries, markets, sports/recreation centers).
- Open spaces (green areas, parks, plazas).
- Housing type mix.
- Development level in the study area.
- Building and green space condition (low, medium, high).
For stations, we studied street segments within a 250-meter radius, centered on the BRT station. For terminals, we studied a 500-meter radius. In seven cases in Guatemala City and one in Goiânia, we studied two stations (instead of one) due to bus systems operating on parallel one-way streets, creating paired stations serving both directions. In these cases, the study area slightly exceeded the 250-meter radius. In addition to field data, we used secondary data from municipal authorities, such as census population within the study area and station/terminal distances to major city activity centers.
In total, we studied 10,632 segments and 2,963 blocks around 82 BRT stations and terminals across the seven cities. Given the similar size of station areas, comparing segments and blocks per station/terminal provides insights into area compactness and connectivity. A Guayaquil station had the most segments (102.1), while São Paulo (ABD Corridor) stations had the fewest (43.1). A similar pattern emerged for segments per block.
All data were aggregated at the station/terminal level. Segment-level data were aggregated to measure the percentage presence/absence of urban environment characteristics. Block-level data were aggregated to measure the density of characteristics within the station/terminal area’s gross area. Finally, we calculated 38 variables characterizing the built environment around each station/terminal.
Alt Text: An aerial view of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) terminal, illustrating its integration within the city’s urban fabric. The image highlights the terminal as a central public transport station, connected by roads and surrounded by buildings.
Typologies of Stations Identified in BRT Systems
Due to the large number of variables (38) and relatively small number of observations (82), we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to reduce variables and estimate factor scores. Factor analysis uses data correlation to identify groups of similar variables. The 38 variables were reduced to 9 factors for further analysis:
- Pedestrian-friendly, with connected public spaces and green areas.
- Single-family attached residential uses in non-central areas.
- High-density multi-family residential.
- Undeveloped land.
- Mixed-use areas in good condition and well-maintained.
- Green spaces in good condition and well-maintained.
- Public facilities for institutional uses oriented to the BRT system.
- Large-scale commercial developments.
- Consolidated urban area without industrial land uses.
Examining the factors and their descriptive statistics revealed several observations. First, development intensity around stations and terminals tends to be relatively low. Only 8 percent of segments had high-density development, while 31 percent had low-density development. Second, redevelopment appears crucial for TOD around BRT in the studied cities. Only 8 percent of segments showed low consolidation levels, while 11 percent had vacant lots. In contrast, nearly half of segments showed high consolidation levels. This suggests limited opportunities for TOD on vacant land. Third, regarding vehicle parking, 26 percent of segments had on-street parking, and 30 percent showed retail activity with off-street parking. This highlights the challenge of managing parking supply and demand and may indicate that station areas are not as pedestrian-friendly as they should be.
Each station’s performance on the nine factors was combined with population density and three additional variables uncorrelated with others in the factor analysis. These nine factors and four additional variables were used in a cluster analysis to group stations and terminals. Cluster analysis formed the basis for defining typologies, identifying 10 types of urban development around BRT stops (Table 2).
Examining the typology by city revealed that two types of stops captured city-specific factors: Quito’s historic center and several Guatemala City stations (city with the newest BRT system among those studied). The novelty and location in consolidated city areas might explain station clustering in the analysis. The remaining eight station types represent a broad range of stations across several cities.
Five attributes differentiate the station types: (1) multi-family developments with and without BRT orientation; (2) single-family attached housing, often informal with some commercial activity, typically far from major city centers; (3) high population density, pedestrian infrastructure, and access to parks and green spaces, generally away from city centers; (4) stations with institutional facilities and green spaces, not necessarily public; and (5) stations with physical barriers due to converging high-traffic streets.
The identified TOD typologies encompass a wide range of built environments around BRT stations. The “BRT-Oriented Satellite Center” typology, illustrated by Bogotá, exhibits significant commercial activity, public facilities, parks, pedestrian infrastructure, and a mix of multi-family and single-family attached housing (Figure 1). These characteristics closely align with the ideal TOD model. Similarly, the “Historic City Center Station” typology in Quito also possesses many TOD attributes. Whether these typologies translate to higher BRT ridership remains an empirical research question.
Stations in the “Community Center” and “Neighborhood Center” typologies align with Calthorpe’s (1993) community and neighborhood TOD definitions. “Community Center” stations feature some single-family attached housing and mixed-uses, including institutional uses, typically located near city areas. “Neighborhood Center” stations show higher residential intensity, specifically single-family attached housing. Stations in “Corridor” typologies align with the bus corridor improvement concept developed in Sacramento and San Francisco, California, though our data distinguish between corridors dominated by institutional uses and those with diverse mixed-uses.
The typologies also highlight challenges and opportunities for improving TOD around BRT. Only “City Center” and “BRT-Oriented Satellite Center” station typologies showed adequate integration between the pedestrian environment and public transport. The “Urban Center” typology, exemplified by Curitiba, is poised for improved BRT integration, with appropriate densities and mixed-uses (Figure 2). The “Nexus” station typology, as seen in Goiânia, represents a common challenge for urban planners (Figure 3). These stations and terminals should facilitate intermodal transfers, often sacrificing local access and TOD orientation.
Compared to other typologies, we found limited evidence of stations related to employment or commuter centers. This may result from the limited role of mixed land uses around stations and terminals, which are prominent in other typologies. A possible explanation is the high level of mixed land uses common in Latin American cities, contributing to low variation across station and terminal areas.
Regarding housing policies, the “Neighborhood Center” and “Green Areas” typologies present an interesting combination of distance from city centers and the presence of low-income housing. Located far from activity centers, these stops are more likely to feature green spaces, social housing, and sometimes informal housing. Latin American cities often exhibit steep land price gradients, with prime access areas having higher prices than peripheral areas. These two BRT station typologies raise questions about BRT’s potential to increase housing segregation and mobility burdens for low-income populations.
Alt Text: A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station seamlessly integrated into a vibrant mixed-use urban center. The station serves as a crucial public transport station, surrounded by commercial buildings and residential areas, promoting transit-oriented development.
Station Typology Analysis and Planning Perspectives
Our analysis of 82 BRT stops in seven Latin American cities revealed diverse urban development patterns. Some typologies exhibit TOD principles. Others show land uses, roads, infrastructure, and development characteristics that do not promote TOD. Still, other typologies show ongoing development, with vacant land and consolidation processes. Finally, some stations capture urban conditions common in Latin American cities: informal housing far from activity centers; large-scale commercial developments (shopping centers or big-box stores) generating private commercial and sometimes public spaces; and a relative lack of public open spaces. This information is valuable for planning TOD around BRT systems, given their rapid growth in recent decades. Around 146 cities worldwide now have some form of priority bus system.
Understanding the type of urban development around BRT stations is crucial for station area planning and integrating TOD into regional growth strategies. Robert Cervero (1998) argues that transport investments should be preceded and guided by a successful urban development vision, necessary for creating sub-centers around transit stations. Cervero highlights the experience of Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Singapore, suggesting the importance of developing visions at both regional and station area scales to ensure TOD success. In fact, expanding TOD typologies in the United States are partly based on their ability to sustain long-term TOD planning. For example, Denver, Colorado’s typology was vital in creating a land use and planning vision for existing and future light rail station areas.
Visions of future urban development types and locations are crucial in planning and are often part of foresight exercises, where typologies should be considered by decision-makers, planners, and the public. Foresight in planning is often a prerequisite for effective TOD station area planning. The Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) suggests developing a plan including public participation, project marketing, and a regional TOD strategy. Achieving these aspects requires a vision of the urban development type possible in the planning area. Visions are particularly important for public engagement, tangibly presenting planning outcomes and improving understanding of density, mixed-use, and station access decisions.
The next step in our research is to determine the causes of the identified urban development patterns. In some cases, the urban environment has radically changed with BRT investments, while in others, major changes have not occurred. Market forces and urban development regulations largely determine development and revitalization outcomes. Measures to unlock development potential near BRT stations include changing land use regulations, relaxing density limits, or reducing parking requirements. This coordinated strategy between land use planning and the transport sector is the cornerstone of TOD.
Alt Text: Public transport stations situated in a dense urban environment, serving as a critical transport hub. The image emphasizes the role of public transport stations in facilitating mobility within high-density urban areas.
About the Authors
Daniel A. Rodríguez is Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology, and Director of the Carolina Transportation Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on the reciprocal relationship between the built environment (including BRT systems) and passenger behavior.
Erik Vergel-Tovar is a Fulbright Fellow and doctoral student in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an architect with a master’s degree in Urban Management, Planning and Development (cum laude) from the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) of Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. His research focuses on the relationships between urban transport (particularly BRT systems), land policies, urban development, and low-income housing.
References
Atkinson-Palombo, C., & Kuby, M. J. (2011). The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 189–199.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The new American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions. Urban Studies, 46(10), 2019–2043.
CTOD. (2008). Station area planning: How to make great transit-oriented places. Washington, DC: Reconnecting America.
Deng, T., & Nelson, J. D. (2013). Bus rapid transit implementation in Beijing: An evaluation of performance and impacts. Research in Transportation Economics, 39(1), 108–113.
Dittmar, H., & Poticha, S. (2004). Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block. In H. Dittmar & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development (pp. xiii–253). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Metropolitan Planning Commission. (2007). Station area planning manual. Oakland, CA. http://ctod.org/pdfs/2007MTCStationAreaPlanningManual.pdf
Renaissance Planning Group. (2011). A framework for transit oriented development in Florida. Orlando, FL. http://www.fltod.com/renaissance/docs/Products/FrameworkTOD_0715.pdf
Steer Davies Gleave. (2009). Sacramento regional transit: A transit action plan. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Regional Transit.
