South American Scanning Tour Bill Vincent Breakthrough Technologies Institute

Standardization  US BRT’s are unique to each city  No common definition of BRT

Standardization  LAC systems starting to show a high degree of standardization –Station design –Fare collection –Control systems –Route structure  Suggests an opportunity to develop a “turn key” approach –Save implementation time and money –Encourage with federal incentives

BRT Networks  LAC cities tend to think in terms of BRT networks –Possible in part because of BRT cost- effectiveness  US planning is at corridor level –Miss substantial opportunities to attract new transit riders

“Dare to be Simple”  The technology is not complex but works very well –E.g., precision docking is accomplished by the driver

Capacity  BRT has more than enough capacity to meet demand in virtually any US corridor –Alternatives analysis should not reject BRT for lack of capacity (or cost) System Peak Hour Ridership Transmilenio>40,000 Metrovia >7,000 (Phase 1) 12,000 (Future) Mexico City >8,000 Pereira>3,000 9,000 (est. Max capacity)

Ability to Serve City Centers With Surface Transit

Infrastructure is Important

Many Advantages to Exclusive lanes in the Median Vs.

New Opportunities for Innovative Finance?  LAC BRT’s are almost always PPP’s –Public infrastructure –Private operators  Also have PPP’s within this structure –Fare collection and control  Private company provides fiber network, fare collection system, and control system –Takes percentage of fare revenues –May be able to sell excess fiber capacity in the future

Promotion of Non-motorized access Mixed