A Practical Approach to Bus Rapid Transit (or is it Road Rapid Transit…?) Cliff Henke NABI USA Sales and Marketing.

A Practical Approach to Bus Rapid Transit

(or is it Road Rapid Transit…?)

Cliff Henke

NABI USA Sales and Marketing

2

Vision Statements

BRT must be a logical solution between conventional bus service and rail rapid transit.

BRT should not compete with existing modes in a zero-sum, either/or game.

BRT is not ‘low-ball’ LRT.

3

What Is BRT?

BRT is.…“Think rail, use buses.”—FTA website

Evolving definition: now “road rapid transit”?

4

What Is BRT?

BRT is this…

5

What Is BRT?

And also this…

6

What Is BRT?

And also this…

7

What Is BRT?

And also this…

…and this...

8

What Is BRT?

And also this…

…and maybe this.

NABI 45C-LFW NABI 45C-LFW for LAfor LA

NABI 65C-LFW conceptNABI 65C-LFW concept

9

What is the practical approach?

Vehicles need not be expensive or complicated to be attractive

Most investment should be ‘offboard’:

Signal priority Passenger

information Attractive amenities Strong branding

10

Goal & Objectives of Practical Approach Goal:

Maximize cost-effectiveness and attractiveness of BRT mode

Objectives: Use proven, low life cycle

cost technology Use an incremental

approach Encourage innovation on

best value principles Maximize public/private

partnerships

11

Current BRT Situation

30 to 40 cities looking at BRT

Scarce federal funds available despite record levels

New starts criteria encourages practical approach (rewards lower cost, higher local match)

12

How Did We Get Here?

Delegations saw cool stuff on trips

New starts criteria: Long process Lots of competition

Many cities are getting “sticker shock”

Waiver window closing

13

Cities’ Available BRT Options

Alternatives: High-end BRT Traditional busways

and bus lanes Incremental

approach

14

Tier 1: High-end BRT

Advantages Disadvantages Cost

Higher ridership potentialMore choice ridersBetter able to attract developmentContributes to urban design like LRT

Bigger riskHigher costLonger project lead timesNIMBY and other local fights likelyAdvantages over low-end LRT very narrow

$7-55 million per mile

($13.5 mil/mi average)

—source:GAO, 2001

15

Narrow advantage of High-End BRT

Cost of new Portland streetcar: $18 million per mile

16

Tier 2: Traditional HOVs & Bus Lanes

Advantages Disadvantages Cost

Higher ridership potentialMore choice riders (compete with speed)Somewhat able to attract developmentCan contribute to urban design like LRT with planning, outreachLower vehicle cost

Some riskHigher costOften longer project lead times than high-endPick fights with traffic engineers, alliesOften later undermined by “HOV Trojan horse”

$1.8-37.6 mil. per mile

($9 mil/mi average)

—source:GAO, 2001

17

Tier 3: Incremental Approach

Advantages Disadvantages Cost

Strong ridership potentialLower riskLower costShort project lead timesIncremental: upgradable to higher end BRT, LRT

Less permanent, prone to backlash to removeAbility to attract development limitedLess able to attract choice riders vs. conventional bus

$200,000-$9.6 million per mile

($680,000 per mi average)

—source:GAO, 2001

18

Bradford Guided Bus Project 3rd Guided Bus City in UK 3.7 km length exclusive

busway (2.3 guided) $17.6 million project cost

$1.5 million by private operator, plus new buses

Opened January 2002 Future: real-time passenger

info (GPS)

Photos courtesy

FirstGroup

19

Practical Design Improvements

New UK Exteriors & Interiors

20

Recommendations from Vehicle Builder’s Viewpoint

Focus on building platforms, not high-tech systems

Focus on reliability, “making pull-out”

Be “change friendly” Willing to partner, not

lead

21

Example #1: BRT studies on existing vehicles

60-LFW, doors on both sides

22

Example #2: New road vehicles for BRT useExample #2: New road vehicles for BRT use

Attractive styling to lure “choice” riders

Up to two extra rows of seats—still on two axles and lighter weight than 40-ft. metal bus

Lighter weight body is better suited to new propulsion technologies

23

Summary

Practical approach is lower risk

Correctly shifts focus to non-vehicle improvements, where higher value is

Does not mean vehicle design is unimportant

Does mean that conventional buses should be better designed

24

Thank you

For more information

www.metro-magazine.com www.fta.dot.govwww.nabiusa.com www.optare.comNABI USA, Inc: Tel: (818) 610 0970Sales Department Fax: (818) 610 0335