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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS IN MINNESOTA A JOINT PRESENTATION TO THE Transportation Funding Advisory Committee September 14, 2012.
Advertisements

This is my “focus” slide, used to make sure that I’m getting the sharpest possible picture on the projection screen. It is the 1954 Freeway Plan for the.
Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles APTA A quick overview August 2, 2011.
FTA’s Small Starts Program Charlotte, North Carolina October 11, 2007.
Transit Signal Priority Applications New Technologies, New Opportunities Peter Koonce, PE APTA BRT Conference – Seattle, WA Wednesday, May 5, 2009 Technology.
11 Tunde Balvanyos, Ph.D. Bus Rapid Transit Coordinator, Pace APTA BRT May 2009.
Current as of: Feb.06, New Economic Recovery Package: Not the Cure Federal government is working on a one-time economic recovery package Package.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority THE HEATHLINE EUCLID CORRIDOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT Michael J. Schipper, P.E DGM- Engineering & Project.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Public Information Sessions November 30, 2010: City Center at Oyster Point December 1, 2010: HRT Norfolk.
Kansas City BRT Metro Area Express (MAX) TRB BRT Conference, July 21, 2008.
Dr Lina Shbeeb Minister of Transport. Jordan
Presentation to the AMP Leadership Team Moving forward. April 17, 2013.
Land Use Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: The Boston Silver Line Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin ©2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved Chapter 11 Mass Transit.
Goal: 10,000 interactions in 2015 –Extensive civic engagement Goal: To develop a great regional transit system –Update every five years –All options considered.
The Urban Transport Problem  Fifth Freedom Problem- auto convenience and privacy  Congestion- traffic overloads, poor infrastructure, vehicle diversity.
BRT Vehicle Development. New Flyer Overview  Winnipeg, Manitoba since 1930 Three US facilities  Industry-leading market share of 42%  Commercial relationships.
BRT as a Precursor of LRT? Lyndon Henry Data Analyst Capital Metro Austin, Texas TRB/APTA Joint Light Rail Transit Conference Los Angeles 20 April 2009.
Alasdair Cain & Jennifer Flynn National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Mark McCourt &
Bus Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New Route to Opportunity Josh Ellis, BRT Project Manager Metropolitan Planning Council.
South/West Corridor Improvements Service and Facility Alternatives September 9, 2014 Planning & Project Development Committee March 3, 2015.
Transit – Our transit services will provide modern, innovative, and viable travel options. Because transit facilities and services are an essential element.
Mark Phillips BSDA/Metro Long-Range Planner. The Foundation: Moving Transit Forward.
PTIS Project Update October 26 – 28, PTIS Project Objective Recommend transit investments and land use strategies for urban and rural Fresno County.
BRT Vehicles: Latest Technologies and Procurement Trends Cliff Henke Sr. Analyst, BRT and Small Starts Parsons Brinckerhoff Americas APTA/TRB BRT Conference,
1 The Aggregate Rail Ridership Forecasting Model: Overview Dave Schmitt, AICP Southeast Florida Users Group November 14 th 2008.
 Scotland’s National Transport Strategy A Consultation.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SKOPJE: NEW APROACH FOR BETTER QUALITY OF SERVICE
Green Transport Dr Lina Shbeeb Minister of Transport. Jordan.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference When is BRT the Best Option? the Best Option? 1:30 – 2:40 p.m. Paul Larrousse Director, National Transit Institute.
1/30/03 Page 1 Rescue Muni’s Recommendations for Geary Rapid Transit For PAR 1/30/2003.
Write down one word that comes into your thought when you read the following word: 15 Feb 2008 R. Shanthini Transport.
PROJECT UPDATE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #3 OCTOBER 17 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM Dakota County Northern Service Center.
1 AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback  Sign up for list  Fill out comment cards PRESENTATION 6:30 PM.
UITP PTx2 Strategy: What Role for Busses and Recommendations from UITP Istanbul Bus Declaration Kaan Yıldızgöz Senior UITP MENA Center for Transport.
1 Presented to the Transportation Planning Board October 15, 2008 Item 9 Metrobus Priority Corridor Network.
Weighing the Scenarios: The Costs and Benefits of Future Transit Service Produced for MTDB by The Mission Group © 2000 by The Mission Group. 1 Dave Schumacher.
TRB/APTA 2004 Bus Rapid Transit Conference The Results of Selected BRT Projects 2:00 – 3:20 p.m. Walt Kulyk Director, FTA Office of Mobility Innovation.
City Class Tram and reducing carbon emissions Presentation by Professor Lewis Lesley Technical Director TRAM Power Ltd. Unit 4 Carraway Road, Liverpool.
FlexBRT Project Briefing. Background Feasibility Study began in – $750,000 TEA-21 Grant to study an ITS Circulator in North Orange County/South.
NEW STARTS/SMALL STARTS. New Starts Eligibility  Based on the results of planning and Alternatives Analysis  At least 50% or more of the total project.
1 Presentation to TAC May 20, 2009 Priority Corridor Network (PCN) Evaluation Project Introduction.
Getting & Using Transit Data John Semmens Laissez Faire Institute & Arizona Transportation Institute.
Public Transportation Planning: Rapid transit solutions for adequate mass movement Mobility.
Managed Lanes and Bus Rapid Transit: Emerging New Financing Opportunities ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates Ed Regan Senior Vice President.
Regional Transportation Council Mobility Plan Workshop North Central Texas Council of Governments November 12, 2015.
Express/Rapid Bus Opportunities for Priority Bus Transit in the Washington Region Sponsored by National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Chun.
Metropolitan Council 1 Twin Cities Region Transportation Policy Plan Nacho Diaz Metropolitan Council Evaluating Economic and Community Impacts of Transit.
Amal S. Kumarage 4 th November 2015.
STEERING COMMITTEE JANUARY 24, INTRODUCTIONS 2 WHO IS ON THE PROJECT TEAM?  Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority  Ramsey County Regional.
City of Joliet - Sustainability City of Joliet Sustainability Initiatives American Planning Association National Conference April 16, 2013.
1 Bus Rapid Transit Strategic Plan May BRT Strategic Plan Evaluate feasibility and effectiveness of six BRT corridors Establish framework for.
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project July 17, Agenda 1.BRT Concept 2.Project Goals 3.Project Benefits 4.Project Corridor 5.Proposed Multimodal Access.
STATE ROAD 54/56 PROJECT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STUDY - US 19 to BRUCE B. DOWNS BOULEVARD STATE ROAD 54/56 PROJECT CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STUDY.
MODULE 3: PLANNING & DESIGN Lesson 2: Modal Characteristics and Impacts.
Public Transit & Transportation Network Companies
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ACEC Presentation May 25, 2017
Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles APTA A quick overview August 2, 2011.
Introduction This presentation will provide an overview of the transit situation in Middle Tennessee and what organizations like the Transit Alliance of.
D Line Station Plan Overview
Land Use Planning - Goals
D Line Station Plan Overview
Public Private Partnerships for Improved Bus Service
D Line Station Plan Overview
D Line Station Plan Overview
LRT, GRT, PRT Comparison Peter Muller, PE Ingmar Andreasson, Ph. D.
SCHOOL OF HIGHWAY, CHANG`AN UNIVERSITY, XI`AN, , CHINA
WELCOMES YOU TO THE COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE OCTOBER 2018.
Presentation transcript:

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 for LA NABI 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 AdvantagesDisadvantagesCost  Higher ridership potential  More choice riders  Better able to attract development  Contributes to urban design like LRT  Bigger risk  Higher cost  Longer project lead times  NIMBY and other local fights likely  Advantages 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 AdvantagesDisadvantagesCost  Higher ridership potential  More choice riders (compete with speed)  Somewhat able to attract development  Can contribute to urban design like LRT with planning, outreach  Lower vehicle cost  Some risk  Higher cost  Often longer project lead times than high- end  Pick fights with traffic engineers, allies  Often later undermined by “HOV Trojan horse” $ mil. per mile ($9 mil/mi average) —source:GAO, 2001

17 Tier 3: Incremental Approach AdvantagesDisadvantagesCost  Strong ridership potential  Lower risk  Lower cost  Short project lead times  Incremental: upgradable to higher end BRT, LRT  Less permanent, prone to backlash to remove  Ability to attract development limited  Less 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  3 rd 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 use Example #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 NABI USA, Inc:Tel:(818) Sales DepartmentFax: (818)