I think what makes high-end BRT different from “quality buses” is the separated busway (ideally, grade-separated). I’ve ridden the Pittsburgh West Busway, on a former rail right-of-way, and its grade separation makes it feel more like a train. Why not just call that “a busway”?

Though that’s not what we’re getting in New York.

Angus, BRT is more than a bait-and-switch tactic, though I have seen a lot of United States BRT presentations that begin with international examples of BRT and conclude with “well, we’re not going to be so ambitious here.”

The typical claim that BRT is “LRT but cheaper” is problematic. Except perhaps on guided busway, a bus ride isn’t ever going to feel like a train. Where real BRT systems (with dedicated busways) have an advantage over LRT is not the ride but the ability to obviate many transfers and thus connect multiple origin-destination trip pairs more effectively. Thus in many lower-density places BRT is preferable to LRT and would be even if there were no cost savings.

I do think it’s important to keep clear distinctions between “quality bus” and “BRT,” but at the high end BRT is such a different animal from the traditional city and suburban bus that it should be recognized as such for purposes of clarity (in addition to the need for branding which you cite).

The reason that we distinguish “commuter rail,” “metro,” and “light rail” from each other is not solely because they use different technology and right-of-way and because they often have cost differences to implement. It’s because they represent different philosophies in terms of their intended use or their prioritization over traffic. I suppose one could scrap these distinctions and talk about a “rail toolbox” instead, but I wouldn’t. Similarly, I wouldn’t get rid of the “BRT” concept.

New York is not that kind of place. People of all races, incomes and ability levels take buses, and most buses are overcrowded. Because of this, if you make any improvements in bus capacity or performance, people will flock to the buses. All you need to do to sell it is to get the word out, and any branding is a waste of time and money. It’s a non-New York solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in New York.

“BRT” is bullshit. It’s a bait-and-switch tactic aimed at people who’d otherwise support light rail (aka trolleys). Transit activists get sold on the idea that “it’s just like a train, but on rubber wheels, like in the Paris Metro!” So everyone thinks grade-separated, dedicated-right-of-way, multiple-units, etc. What actually gets delivered, several years later, is a bus with a fancy paint job and some glossy brochures.

I’m all for bus improvements, but I really don’t think that calling them “BRT” is going to create any meaningful improvements long-term. The PlaNYC documents recommended signal priority for a number of routes throughout the city, not just the Chosen Five. Why roll it out on only five routes, when we could do it on twenty?

Nobody sells traffic calming by saying, “It’s just like a greenway, but it’s got cars driving down the middle of it!” Just as we have a traffic calming toolbox, let’s have a bus improvement toolbox. Off-board fare collection, signal prioritization, dedicated lanes, separated lanes, enforcement cameras, next bus information. Those things can be sold separately. NYC has a large bus-riding population, many of whom are quite wealthy and view the bus as a clean alternative to the subway. This isn’t Los Angeles where bus improvements need to be packaged as a brand to overcome negative associations and get people to ride.

I’m sure Sadik-Khan and Sander are doing all they can to support bus improvements, and will continue to. Let’s give them encouragement and support, but when we think big, let’s think more subways, commuter rail improvements, and light rail. BRT is a mirage. I don’t want to see NYC activists get suckered by it.

The folks at Light Rail Now have a report on the L.A. Orange Line, as well as a number of other useful documents on the BRT bait-and-switch.

http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/rapid/overview.htm