2. Overview of BRT Options
Peer Examples
Opportunities for BRT in St. Louis
How could BRT create a more livable St.
Louis region?
3. Can offer significant travel time savings
Provides better service & attracts ridership
Promotes economic development
Capital cost is more affordable than fixed-
guideway transit
› Facilitates more even distribution of transit
resources
› Shorter implementation time
Facilitates integration of modes and utilizes
existing infrastructure
4. Many different levels of application of
BRT features
Sensitive to context, available budget,
political support
Time savings features are critical
› Signal prioritization
› Dedicated running way
› Dedicated lanes, ramps, etc.
6. Most projects operate in mixed traffic for
50% or more of project
› Primarily arterial streets
› Dedicated running ways in corridors with
very heavy congestion (example: Cleveland
Euclid Corridor, New York M15 corridor)
› Significant travel time savings achieved
without dedicated running ways with
relatively light congestion (example: Kansas
City Troost corridor)
Source: GAO
7. Help shape identity of BRT, portray premium service
Amenities include (in descending order of popularity)
› Route maps & schedules
› Seating
› Weather protection
› Level boarding
› Safety improvements
› Greater curb width/raised curb
› Next bus displays
› Public art/landscaping
› Bicycle parking
› Physically separated passing lane
› Station located in median
› Park-ride
8. Important choice for project
› Impacts ridership capacity, environmental
friendliness, passenger comfort, overall image
All low-floor vehicles
Almost always lower emission; most common
propulsion source is hybrid diesel electric
Doors often on both sides or three-door
boarding
Easy wheelchair boarding capabilities to
reduce loading time
Docking/narrow lane guidance systems
› Mechanical, magnetic or optical
Source: GAO
9. Most projects allow onboard fare
validation (same as typical bus service)
(ex: Seattle, Kansas City, New York)
Some projects offer off-board fare
payment and proof-of-payment (ex: Salt
Lake City, Cleveland, Eugene (OR),
Reno)
› May contribute to customers’ perception as
high-quality service
› Can generate travel time savings
Source: GAO
10. Technology used to achieve travel time
savings and increase ridership through
superior passenger information
› Also improves operational efficiency, quality of
service and safety
Most common features:
› Traffic signal priority
Extended greens
Queue jumping
› Vehicle tracking systems (monitor spacing and
ensure connections)
11. All BRT systems include
some branding &
marketing to promote
service
› Strong branding
important to shaping the
identity of the line or
system and attracting
riders
› Uniquely branded
vehicles and stations
› Many systems emphasize
speed: “Max”;
“Velociraptor”; “SWIFT”;
“RAPID”
› GCRTA sold naming
rights for Health Line
Source: GAO & UTA
15. Community Transit (Everett, WA) SWIFT
SR 99 – Everett
Station to Aurora
Village Transit
Center
16.7 miles
5 jurisdictions
28 stations
14 northbound
14 southbound
16. Swift Project
Initial project cost – approximately $31.3 million
for 16.7 miles
• Approx cost per mile = $1.87 million
• Almost half the cost is for the new vehicles
• Project was $3.4 million under budget
Project was fully funded by Federal & State
grants; partnerships; and local revenues
Also obtained multiple Grants and partnership
funds for the 1st 3 years of Operating funds
17. Swift Timeline
Only 4 years from
Board Resolution to
implementation!
18. Bus and paratransit system
› 7.7 million boardings in FY11
› $32M operating budget
› Introduced BRT as a business strategy
Improve service
Increase productivity
Reduce operating cost (supplement with CMAQ)
› BRT intended to make RTC more sustainable
Provide a “greener” travel option to more people
Promote economic development
19. Develop express and
short haul feeder
service
Operate a higher level
of service
10-minute headways
between 5:30 AM and
8:00 PM.
New 30-minute local
service, CONNECT
Feed RAPID express
Provide 24-hour service
Save $5.0M annually in
local sales tax funds to
offset remaining
20. City of Reno Master Plan
Elements
Transit Oriented
Developments / Regional
Centers
UNR Regional Center Plan
South Virginia Street TOD
Downtown Reno
Regional Center Plan
Convention Center/Meadowood
Regional Center Plan
Reno City Limits
Virginia Street
21. Operational challenges overcome
Productivity and ridership increased
Stations reinforce supportive land uses and
compliment TOD efforts of the City of Reno
Cost cutting measures have helped but
revenue is still going down
CMAQ funding helped bridge the deepest part
of the Great Recession; yet funding challenges
still exist
22.
23. Why highway corridors?
› Location and trip patterns of people and jobs
› Existing service not competitive
› Inter-agency and inter-modal collaboration
opportunities
Highway corridor constraints
› Economic development is limited along entire
corridor; node-based focus
› Long routes make dedicated right of way cost
prohibitive
› Connections to bus and bike/ped modes
difficult
› Connectivity to local transit is key, may require
transfer
24. Alternatives Analysis study initiated
September 2012
› Metro; EWGWCOG; MoDOT; St. Louis
County; City of St. Louis
12-month study will identify two most
competitive corridors
Complete AA for two corridors,
focusing on cost-effective modes
Conclude with locally preferred
alternative for two projects
25. Grand Avenue is a densely developed
corridor and supports Metro’s busiest bus
route
Service problems include low travel
speed and too little capacity
Existing land use, ongoing development
and recent investments
› Enhanced transit service would leverage
those investments
26. Short-term solution to capacity issues will
likely be larger vehicles
Pursuing feasibility study that would
define a BRT project on Grand
› Technology, service plan, running way,
stations, etc.
Strong leadership, regional consensus
and federal funding are a must
27. Regional consensus about project
priorities
Transit-supportive land use
Public buy-in
Cost-effective projects
Federal funding
Leadership
› Projects must have champions to succeed!
28. Plan for implementing a system of
enhanced service
Regional consensus & public support
Detailed project definition
› Will include Downtown St. Louis component
Transit-supportive zoning & land use
Federal funding
An effective, sustainable multi-modal
transportation system
Editor's Notes
Today I would like to introduce you to what will be our region’s Long-Range Transit Plan, Moving Transit Forward. First, I’d like to talk with you a little about where the Metro Transit System is today.
14 of 20 projects in GAO study allow onboard fare validation
Swift runs through the cities of Everett, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline, and unincorporated Snohomish County as well as through the State DOT right of way. Partnership between Everett Transit and Community Transit was critical to our success Unique partnership Agreement with Everett Transit Everett – biggest city in the county – is not in our service area. Everett Transit runs only within Everett City limits and having a Partnership with ET was critical to our success Northern terminus - Everett Station - connections to other Community Transit routes, Everett Transit, Sound Transit, Island and Skagit Transit, Greyhound, Amtrak and Sounder Commuter rail. Southern terminus - Aurora village - connections can be made between Community Transit and King County metro. Stations are spaced approximately 1 mile apart Local service continues in the corridor (101, 7 & 9)
$31.3 million $3.4 million under budget. Variety of federal and state grants, partnership funds, and local revenue streams Federal funds limited to only in the vehicles. Successful in securing grants and partnerships to fund the operations through 2012.
Key dates Board Resolution 20-05 adopted on December 1, 2005 Everett Partnership Agreement signed on December 5, 2007 Service began on November 30, 2009 – only 4 short years from when it began. Swift proves that BRT is a mode that can be successfully implemented quickly and with a high level of quality.