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

2. 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. 3 What Is BRT?  BRT is.… “Think rail, use buses.” —FTA website  Evolving definition: now “road rapid transit”?

4. 4 What Is BRT?  BRT is this…

5. 5 What Is BRT?  And also this…

6. 6 What Is BRT?  And also this…

7. 7 What Is BRT?  And also this…  …and this...

8. 8 What Is BRT?  And also this…  …and maybe this. NABI 45C-LFW for LA NABI 65C-LFW concept

9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13 Cities’ Available BRT Options Alternatives:  High-end BRT  Traditional busways and bus lanes  Incremental approach

14. 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. 15 Narrow advantage of High-End BRT  Cost of new Portland streetcar: $18 million per mile

16. 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” $1.8-37.6 mil. per mile ($9 mil/mi average) —source:GAO, 2001

17. 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. 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. 19 Practical Design Improvements  New UK Exteriors & Interiors

20. 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. 21 Example #1: BRT studies on existing vehicles  60-LFW, doors on both sides

22. 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. 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. 24 Thank you For more information www.metro-magazine.com www.fta.dot.gov www.nabiusa.comwww.optare.com NABI USA, Inc:Tel:(818) 610 0970 Sales DepartmentFax: (818) 610 0335