Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) unveiled 5 new light rail alternatives for Project Connect on an open house March 21, 2023. These alternatives differ greatly from the original plan proposed to voters in 2020 when the project was overwhelmingly authorized through a property tax increase. The original plan promised an underground light rail system downtown and an airport connection, now both seem to be unlikely. ATP must re-evaluate core principles of the project to stay on budget, deliver transit connectivity promised to the voters, and create the backbone for a 21st century transit system for the region. Light rail is too expensive, too slow, lacks regional expansion potential, and will be instantly outdated when implemented. eBRT is already authorized by the ballot language and the contract with the voters. No additional elections are required for this change. When paired with the future potential of AEV transit, this approach provides the best solution for Austin today and in the future. eBRT provides a reliable system backstop if AEV technology does not advance as quickly as projected. eBRT by itself would provide better, faster, and cheaper to operate service than LRT. An AEV system with a tunneled backbone will have major equity benefits across the City and regionally, replacing existing transit lines with superior service. To maximize the project benefit, the system must provide regional connectivity in addition to connectivity with the City of Austin. The lower cost per mile to deploy eBRT and AEV enables a larger and more connected system to be built today and in the future. This is an opportunity to cement Austin as the global center for transit innovation.

1. A BETTER PATH
FOR PROJECT
CONNECT
Brian Gettinger, PE

2. A SCALED BACK VISION
Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) unveiled 5 new light rail alternatives
for Project Connect on an open house March 21, 2023. These
alternatives differ greatly from the original plan proposed to voters in
2020 when the project was overwhelmingly authorized through a
property tax increase. The original plan promised an underground light
rail system downtown and an airport connection, now both seem to be
unlikely.
ATP must re-evaluate core principles of the project to stay on budget,
deliver transit connectivity promised to the voters, and create the
backbone for a 21st century transit system for the region.
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 2

3. PROJECT CONNECT SCALED BACK
COMPARISON
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 3
All scenarios estimated to cost $5 billion including 40% contingency
Scenario
Total
Length
(miles)
Elevated
Length
(miles)
Tunneled
Length
(miles)
Number of
Stations
Estimated
Ridership
(Average
Daily)
Cost per
Mile
On Street: 38th to
Oltorf to Yellow
Jacket 9.8 0.25 0 15 30,000 $500M
On Street: North
Lamar to Pleasant
Valley 9.8 0.25 0 14 39,000 $500M
On Street: 29th to
Airport 10.1 2 0 13 28,500 $485M
Partial Elevated:
29th to Oltorf to
Yellow Jacket 8.7 0.9 0 13 26,500 $563M
Partial
Underground: UT
to Yellow Jacket 6.6 0.9 0.9 10 20,000 $742M
Initial Investment
Scenarios
Total
Length
(miles)
Elevated
Length
(miles)
Tunneled
Length
(miles)
Number
of
Stations
Estimate
d
Ridership
(Average
Daily)
Cost per
Mile
Orange Line 11 1.3 2.2 15
54,000-
74,000
$242M
(4/2020)
Blue Line 8.2 2.2 0.8 11
16,000-
19,000
$220M
(4/2020)
Total 19.2 3.5 3.0 26
70,000-
93,000
Initial Investment as Proposed June 10, 2020 Scaled Back Alternatives – March 21, 2023
1. Less than half the length and half the number of stations
2. Near elimination of grade separation
3. Costs two to three times as much per mile
4. Less than half the projected ridership

4. INADEQUACIES OF THE PROPOSED
SCENARIOS
Reduced length and
connectivity
The proposed options are less than half
the length and number of stations as
promised to voters in 2020.
Only one alternative goes to the
airport, a major hub for visitor travel
and workforce.
Limited connectivity will drastically
reduce ridership and usefulness of the
system.
Gold Line has been completely deleted.
South Austin connectivity along
Congress has been deleted.
Elimination of grade
Separation
The promised tunneled system
downtown has been essentially
deleted.
At grade solutions will be a
major disruption to downtown
traffic.
At grade solutions will have
slow operating speed, reducing
the usefulness of the system.
Proposed elevated
section downtown
Elevated solutions downtown
will be a blight to Guadalupe
Street.
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 4

5. 20XX A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 5
At grade transit downtown will:
1. Create safety risks for vehicles, pedestrians, and trains
2. Snarl existing car, bus, cycle, and pedestrian traffic at intersections
3. Create massive disruptions to traffic and businesses during construction
4. Operate at very low speed for safety of trains and the public
5. Limit pedestrian and bicycle access across the corridor due to barricades
Transit in downtown Austin
must be grade separated.
AT GRADE TRANSIT DOWNTOWN IS NOT THE SOLUTION

6. THE FATAL FLAW
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 6
Light rail is too expensive, too slow, lacks regional expansion
potential, and will be instantly outdated when implemented.
Overhead catenary powered rail was new in 1907
when the New York, New Haven and Hartford
Railroad electrified its rail system.
Austin is known for being unique and innovative.
Over 100 years later it deserves a better and more
innovative transit system for the 21st century.
Austin can be the last city in the US to build a
new light rail system, or the first city to think
differently about a generational transit
investment.

7. EXISTING TRANSIT MODES ARE NOT
VIABLE
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 7
Fare Box Recovery
Trend
All Modes
2013 – 36 cents
2014 – 36 cents
2015 – 36 cents
2016 – 36 cents
2017 – 35 cents
2018 – 33 cents
2019 – 32 cents
2020 – 18 cents
2021 – 13 cents
Implementation of light rail will condemn the taxpayers of Austin and Travis County to perpetual funding
problems.
Per the National Transit Database in 2021, for each dollar spent on operating costs per trip across all
modes and all transit systems, only 13 cents are recovered through fares.
Light rail was one of the worst performing modes at 7.2 cents.

8. CAPMETRO
RED LINE FARE COLLECTION VS. OPERATING COSTS
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 8
$2.48 $2.13 $1.97 $1.92
$1.50
$0.75 $0.46
$20.79
$23.06
$21.74
$23.17
$19.31
$22.53
$28.28
12%
9% 9%
8%
8%
3%
2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Fare
Recovery
Percentage
$
Million
Revenue Collection ($M) Total Operations ($M) Fare Recovery
Source: National Transit Database
The cost to
operate
Project
Connect as
light rail will
likely exceed
$100 million
per year.

9. THE CAPACITY FALLACY: AUSTIN DOESN’T NEED RAIL
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 9
Assumption:
Austin needs light rail to
meet ridership demand.
Fact:
Austin has a lower population density than Houston and
lacks the density and the transit ridership to justify
spendings half a billion dollars per mile for at grade light rail.
277 292 385
739 809
1,021 1,097
1,235 1,239
1,376 1,461 1,479 1,546
1,772 1,818
2,039
2,536
2,680
2,892
3,543
Light Rail – Existing Systems – Passengers per Hour
Nearly every transit system outside of NYC, SF, and LA, has ridership well
below the full utilization of rail. These systems were overbuilt, wasting
billions of taxpayer dollars and function at a small fraction of their design
capacity.

10. IF NOT LIGHT RAIL, THEN WHAT?
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 10
21st Century Transit using Autonomous Electric
Vehicles
1. Forward Adaptable ‘Dumb’ Infrastructure (Trackless Rubber
Tire)
2. Automated/Autonomous Operation
3. Self Propelled Electric Battery Power
4. Street Legal Vehicles with Rubber Tires
5. Dedicated Guideway Maximizing Grade Separation
6. Regionally Expandable with Express Service Ability
7. Level Boarding with Unassisted ADA Accessibility
Advantages Compared to Light Rail
1. Lower to construct – smaller & lighter vehicles.
2. Lower cost to operate – automated operation.
3. Demand responsive – no empty buses/trains.
4. Flexible service for transit-dependent and choice riders
5. Cost effective for regional expansion

11. 2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 11
Problem
Current automated/autonomous (AEV) transit
projects are only a few miles in length and have
not been implemented as a city-wide transit
system.
Solution
Project Connect can be redesigned for initial
operation with battery electric buses (eBRT) and
drivers before transitioning to fully autonomous
operation.
By the time the infrastructure is fully constructed,
eBRT operation may not be required AEV
technology is rapidly advancing and new
vehicles are expected to be in production by
2025/2026.
eBRT provides a reliable system backstop if
AEV technology does not advance as quickly
as projected. eBRT by itself would provide
better, faster, and cheaper to operate service
than LRT.
CapMetro has been operating electric buses since 2020 and is constructing an electric fleet facility in North
Austin that can accommodate 214 buses. In 2021 CapMetro approved the purchase of 200 electric buses.
eBRT: THE BRIDGE TO AN AUTONOMOUS FUTURE

12. 2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 12
Construction Cost
The median cost of rail projects ($575.7 million
per mile) is approximately 15 times higher than
the median cost of BRT projects ($36.1 million)1
Operating Cost
Per National Transit Database in 2021 BRT
operating cost per vehicle revenue hour is 46%
less than light rail
Vehicle Cost
Light rail vehicles cost >$10 million each and
have high maintenance costs for parts. An
electric bus is approximately 10-20% of the cost
of an LRT vehicle and provides more operational
flexibility.
Station Cost
Larger light rail vehicles require larger stations,
which vastly increases costs, particularly for
underground stations.
“For many high-density corridors, BRT is going to be
a better, more cost-effective option than rail.” –
Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation
1 https://reason.org/commentary/managed-lanes-and-brt-can-optimize-mass-transit-systems-for-todays-cities/
eBRT: THE BRIDGE TO AN AUTONOMOUS FUTURE

13. AUSTIN: THE LABORATORY FOR TRANSIT INNOVATION
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 13
Austin is synonymous with innovation.
This is an opportunity for Austin to leverage its
tech industry to transform transit as we know it.
Transforming Project Connect with AEV’s presents an
opportunity for Austin to be a laboratory to scale the use
case for AEV’s in transit including:
 Vehicle speed. Increase from 20-30 mph to 50-60+
mph
 Travel distance. Increase from miles to tens of miles
 Number of fleet vehicles. Increase from 10 to
hundreds
 Number of stations: Increase from 3-4 to 20+
An AEV system with a tunneled backbone will
have major equity benefits across the City and
regionally, replacing existing transit lines with
superior service.
Images Courtesy of
Oceaneering

14. THE AUTONOMOUS TRANSIT FUTURE
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 14
There are multiple projects in development for
autonomous and automated transit systems in dedicated
guideways.
1. San Jose Airport Connector – Glydways
2. Greenville/Spartanburg Airport – Oceaneering
3. Jacksonville Transportation Authority – Beep
4. Ontario Airport Connector – TBD
GLYDWAYS
Proposed vehicles are all smaller than standard
electric bus and can function within an eBRT system.
OCEANEERING
BEEP

15. THE AUTONOMOUS TRANSIT FUTURE
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 15
Many new AEVs debuted at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January 2023
in Las Vegas. These vehicles are expected to be in production by 2025/2026 and
create additional options for system operations. These vehicles are designed for full
autonomous operation in mixed traffic.
The ZF Company
ZOOX
HOLON
Proposed vehicles are all smaller than standard
electric bus and can function within an eBRT system.

16. WHY eBRT AND AEV’S INSTEAD OF TRAINS?
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 16
1. Less expensive to build per mile
a) No rails
b) No electric catenary wires
c) Smaller diameter tunnels
2. Smaller and less costly stations
a) 400 ft long underground station for rail compared to a 100-150
ft long station for bus/AV
3. More flexible routes
a) Rubber tired vehicles can make tight turns and even leave the
system onto the existing road network without additional
infrastructure
4. Shorter headways
a) For the same ridership capacity wait times will be 3x to 10x
shorter. Targeted at 5 minutes or less.
5. Single seat ride anywhere in the system
a) All stations have a siding so vehicles can pass, enabling
express service
6. Expandable
a) Lower cost per mile, express service, and ability to operate
above or below grade means the system can expand regionally
7. Steeper grades possible with rubber tires
a) Rail max 6% for 1,000 ft. Rubber tire can easily do 8%+ without
a distance restriction. Allows system to match topography and
reduce cost for stations
A 28-ft diameter tunnel provides enough space for bi-directional traffic and egress
Standard Bus
12-ft travel lane 12-ft travel lane
NFPA 130
Egress Path
Standard Bus

17. WHY GRADE SEPARATE?
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 17
Grade separation benefits all transit systems but offers an even greater
value proposition for AEV systems.
1. Express service – no cross-traffic impacts at intersections
2. Limited to no impact on existing traffic flow in right-of-way
3. Easier to permit due to reduced public and environmental
impact
4. Simplified automated operations due to reduced interactions
with traffic and other variables
5. Even faster operating speeds are possible due to reduced
risk of impairments to the guideway
6. Weatherproof – if underground
Image Courtesy of Southland Holdings, Inc.

18. WHY TUNNEL?
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 18
1. No traffic congestion and impact to existing traffic flow
2. No weather impacts
3. No impact to view corridors or the streetscape
4. Additive capacity to the road network
5. Silent construction and operation – no noise or vibration
6. Fastest operating speeds due to the minimal interaction with the
surrounding environment
7. Simpler and shorter routing – go under water bodies, buildings,
roads, open spaces.
8. Preserve surface space for other uses.
9. Expandable and adaptable for future uses.
Although more expensive than at-grade or elevated guideways, tunneled
guideways maximize the benefits to transit and minimize the community
impacts.
Image Courtesy of Southland Holdings, Inc.

19. TUNNELED GUIDEWAY CHARACTERISTICS
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 19
38-foot diameter Mill Creek Tunnel in Dallas. Same rock formation (Austin Chalk)
that is found in Austin for less than $45 million per mile (2017). Image Courtesy of Southland
Holdings, Inc.
1. Large cross section for bi-directional traffic
a) Allows passing vehicles and improved emergency
access
b) 24 ft minimum diameter for existing AEV’s
c) 28 ft minimum diameter for electric buses
2. No high voltage power – battery-powered vehicles
3. Permitted under NFPA 130
4. Underground stations sized based on ridership demand
5. Annular space available for other utilities like fiber
6. Follows existing public right of way without impacts to
traffic and the community
Austin is one of the most cost-effective
places to tunnel in the United States
Images Courtesy of Oceaneering

20. AUSTIN TUNNELING CONDITIONS
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 20
Austin has a history of long history of successful, cost-effective
tunnels.
Favorable Geology
• The Austin Chalk is one of the most favorable tunneling conditions in the
county
• Soft, stable, and dry rock formation
• Previous projects in Austin have demonstrated fast advance rates (200+
feet/day) using tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
• 4x to 10x faster than elsewhere in the country
• Favorable geology and minimal groundwater flow also simplifies and reduces
the cost of underground station excavation.
Low-cost Environment
• Favorable geology reduces the technical complexity of the project and
therefore its cost.
• Many experienced tunneling crews familiar mining in the Austin Chalk.
• Tunneling costs in Austin are not comparable with NYC, San Francisco,
Seattle, or Los Angeles where the geologic and labor markets are more
challenging.
Roadheader excavation on the Walnut Creek Tunnel
38 ft diameter TBM on the Mill Creek Stormwater Tunnel

21. AUSTIN TUNNELING HISTORY
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 21
Tunnels Purpose Owner Diameter Length Tunneling
Method
Year
Completed
2023 Cost 2023 Cost per
Mile
Waller Creek Tunnel Stormwater City of Austin 20-26 feet 1.1 mile Roadheader 2015 $80M $70M
Jollyville Transmission
Main
Water City of Austin 12 feet 7 miles TBM 2014 $160M $23M
Downtown Wastewater
Tunnel
Wastewater City of Austin 10 feet 3.5 miles TBM 2012 $70M $20M
Onion Creek Interceptor
Tunnel
Wastewater City of Austin 10 feet 8.4 miles TBM 1978 Unknown N/A
Parmer Lane Tunnel Water City of Austin 8 feet 2 miles TBM 2019 $45M $22M
Crosstown Tunnel Wastewater City of Austin 12 feet 11 miles TBM 1973 Unknown N/A
Govalle Tunnel Wastewater City of Austin 11 feet 8 miles TBM 1988 Unknown N/A
I-35 Stormwater Tunnel Stormwater TXDOT 20+ feet 5 miles TBM Proposed
2024
TBD TBD
McNeil Transmission Main Water City of Austin 10 feet 2 miles TBM Proposed
2023
TBD TBD
Williamson Creek Tunnel Wastewater City of Austin 10 feet 3.6 miles TBM Proposed
2024
TBD TBD
Shoal Creek Tunnel Stormwater City of Austin ~20 feet ~2 miles TBD TBD TBD TBD
Austin has a history of successful tunneling projects across the city and is planning more.

22. eBRT & AEV: A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT
CONNECT
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 22
Utilizing eBRT and AEVs, the initial benefits of Project
Connect can be restored through an innovative, world class
transit system.
1. Segment 1: Tunnel 183 to Airport
• 28 ft diameter for two lane electric bus or 3 lane AEV transit
• Stations: 1 (Airport)
• Length: 1.8 miles (soil)
2. Segment 2: Surface Pleasant Valley to 183
• Dedicated Center Running BRT Lanes with signal priority and level
boarding stations
• Stations: 4 (Pleasant Valley, Faro, Montopolis, Yellow Jacket)
• Length: 2 miles
3. Segment 3: Tunnel Auditorium Shores to Pleasant Valley
• 28 ft diameter for two lane electric bus or 3 lane AEV transit
• Stations: 4 (Auditorium Shores, Travis Heights, Lakeshore)
• Length: 2.6 miles (mixed rock & soil)
4. Segment 4: Tunnel 47th Street to Auditorium Shores
• 28 ft diameter for two lane electric bus or 3 lane AEV transit
• Stations: 5 (38th, 29th, UT, 15th, Republic Square)
• Length: 4.1 miles (all in rock)
5. Segment 5: Surface North Lamar Transit Center to 47th Street
• Dedicated Center Running BRT Lanes with signal priority and level
boarding stations
• Stations: 4 (Transit Center, Crestview, Koenig, 47th Street)
• Length: 2.5 miles
5
2
4
3
1

23. eBRT & AEV: TRANSPORTATION MODE
COMPARISON
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 23
Travel Time Assumptions
eBRT/AEV in Tunnel = 60 mph
eBRT/AEV on Surface = 35 mph
Project Connect LRT = 20-25 mph
Route
North Lamar
Transit
Center to
Airport
North Lamar
Transit Center
to Republic
Square
State
Capitol to
Airport
Auditorium
Shores to
Airport
Travel
Time
(minutes)
Existing a Bus 76 32 45 34
Project Connect LRT 40 20 20 <20
Rideshare or Personal
Vehicle in Traffic 20 20 35 30
Better Path eBRT 25 15 15 10
Better Path AEV <20 <10 <10 <8
Service
Frequency
(minutes)
Existing CapMetro Bus 20 10 15 15
Project Connect LRT 15 15 15 15
Rideshare or Personal
Vehicle in Traffic 5 5 5 5
Better Path eBRT 5 5 5 5
Better Path AEV Instant Instant Instant Instant
Rider
Fares
Existing CapMetro Bus $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25
Project Connect LRT TBD TBD TBD TBD
Rideshare or Personal
Vehicle in Traffic $30 $15 $25 $25
Better Path eBRT TBD TBD TBD TBD
Better Path AEV TBD TBD TBD TBD
5
2
4
3
1

24. eBRT & AEV: COST COMPARISON
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 24
5
2
4
3
1
Cost Assumptions $M
Rock Tunnel Cost per Mile $120
Rock Underground Station Cost $150
Soil/Mixed Tunnel Cost per Mile $200
Soil/Mixed Underground Station Cost $225
Surface BRT Improvements per Mile $30
Surface Station $10
Reach
Segment 1:
Tunnel 183 to
Airport
Segment 2:
Surface on
Riverside
Pleasant
Valley to 183
Segment 3:
Tunnel
Auditorium
Shores to
Pleasant
Valley
Segment 4:
Tunnel 47th &
Lamar to
Auditorium
Shores
Segment 5:
Surface on
Lamar to N
Lamar Transit
Center Totals
Length (miles) 1.8 2.0 2.6 4.1 2.5 13.1
Geology Soft Ground N/A Mixed Rock N/A -
Underground
Stations (Rock) 0 0 0 5 0 5
Underground
Stations (Soil) 0 0 3 0 0 3
Surface Stations 1 4 0 1 3 9
Estimated
Linear Cost
($M) $364 $60 $524 $492 $76 $1,516
Estimated
Station Cost
($M) $10 $40 $675 $760 $30 $1,515
Estimated Total
Cost ($M) $374 $100 $1,199 $1,252 $106 $3,031
40%
Contingency
($M) $150 $40 $480 $501 $42 $1,212
Estimated Cost
with
Contingency
($M) $524 $140 $1,679 $1,753 $148 $4,243
Average cost per mile with
contingency = $323 million
Reduction of $150M per mile
With 10x the grade separation

25. A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 25
System Features Initial Phase
eBRT
Future Phase
AEV
Project Connect
Light Rail
High-Capacity Transit X X X
Level Boarding X X X
ADA Accessibility X X X
Standing Access X X X
Grade Separated in Downtown X X
All Electric Operation X X X
Automated/Autonomous X
Express/Skip Stop Service X X
On Demand Service X
<5-minute headway X X
Opportunity for Last Mile Delivery X
Easily Expandable X X
Regionally Expandable X X
Cost Per Mile $323M $485M+
Average Operating Speed 40+ mph 50+ mph <25 mph
Airport Connection X X Unclear
 Lower cost
 Faster service
 Shorter headways
 Lower operating cost
 Future flexibility

26. FUTURE EXPANSION POTENTIAL
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 26
To maximize the project benefit, the system must provide regional connectivity in addition to connectivity
with the City of Austin. The lower cost per mile to deploy eBRT and AEV enables a larger and more connected
system to be built today and in the future.
North/Northeast Austin
• Extend the main line to Tech Ridge as initially planned with money saved using eBRT
• Revisit the Gold Line on Trinity with a Northeast Urban Spur along Dean Keaton to Dell Children’s & Mueller
• Further extend regionally along the MoKan ROW to connect Pflugerville, Round Rock, and Georgetown. Partner with the cities as well as CTRMA,
Williamson County, and TXDOT as this area is outside CapMetro’s service area.
Northwest Austin
• Continue Red Line service as rail and build last mile connectivity with AEVs to improve accessibility at key destinations (The Domain, Cedar Park).
East Austin
• Develop the Green Line as planned as rail using the existing tracks owned by Cap Metro to provide service to Colony Park, Manor, and Elgin in the
fast-growing East Side. Utilize AEV for last mile connectivity.
Southeast Austin
• Extend the main line past the airport to the Gigafactory, Circuit of the Americas, and the other developments southeast of SH-130 and 71.
South Austin/I-35 Corridor
• Extend the main line south along Congress as initially planned to Slaughter
• Further extend regionally along I-35 to Buda and Kyle in dedicated HOV lanes to relieve traffic congestion along the interstate.
West Austin
• Spur west across Downtown to Mo-Pac/Tarrytown. Consider another spur across Lady Bird Lake to connect Zilker Park and Barton Creek Square.

27. eBRT AND AEV: A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT
2023 A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT 27
eBRT is already authorized by the ballot language and the contract with the voters.
No additional elections are required for this change. When paired with the future
potential of AEV transit, this approach provides the best solution for Austin today
and in the future.
 Lower capital cost – $150M less per mile
 Better, faster service – grade separation triples the operating speed, shorter headways
 Lower operating cost – BRT is 46% less than LRT, AEV drops the cost by an additional
25%
 Lower impact – 65% tunneled include the entire downtown corridor
 Adaptable with future vehicle technology – future proof AEV compatible
 Transit built for the rider – express trips and premium service
 Expandable to provide regional benefits
This is an opportunity to cement Austin as the global center for transit innovation.

28. THANK YOU
Brian Gettinger, PE
https://www.linkedin.com/in/briangettinger/
Twitter @talltunnelguy
A BETTER PATH FOR PROJECT CONNECT
2023 28