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.

5. Source:
GAO

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

12. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff

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

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