In our area, most politicians can not tell the difference between the snazzy new paint schemes on the bus and shiny new shelters (which give the appearance of public investment) and actual dedicated transitways which guarantee faster and more reliable bus travel times.

Whenever a cost issue comes up, the "BRT" then "can run in mixed traffic just for that segment."

Now, is this a big improvement for NYC? As a recent visitor, no doubt! Plenty of room for excitement here. Stick to your guns and make sure you get signal priority on this project, and it will be even better.

But please, don't call it BRT. The Administration has dumbed down the definition of better bus service to the point of calling new paint and skip-stop service in mixed traffic "BRT." Curitiba, Bogota, and Ottawa have BRT. NYC does not with this project, though it is a big improvement. "Select bus" is the right term.

I'd like to hear more details about the off-board payment scheme. It sounds a bit awkward. Do MetroCard holders really need a paper receipt -- couldn't the enforcement officers carry a MetroCard reader that would tell them that a rider had swiped their card?

However, as an informative post on the Tri-State blog shows, the lanes do not extend the entire route, they will only be in force during peak hours, and there is no physical barrier to someone driving or parking in them. The buses won't even have enforcement cameras (but thanks for speaking up for those, Lew). Oh, but they will have some useless branding!

So, how rapid?

http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2008/01/ending-brt-bait-and-switch-how-rapid.html

More coverage:

http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=91421
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=79736
http://poopcity.typepad.com/inwoodite/2008/03/make-way-for-th.html

JMC - you hit it right on the head. Most US cities use 2-door buses, because in most US cities transit ridership is rather low and the buses have a few people getting on and off with long distances between stops. This is bonkers in New York, where tons of people pile on and off every stop (especially crosstown) and yet the same buses are used! I'm sure that if the topic even came up some peabrain decided that additional doors were just opportunities for farebeating and nixed them.

When Toronto had articulated buses they had three doors, and it seems New Flyer and others seem to default to three-door models. NYC is the biggest fleet in the nation and deserves a model that suits its needs - go for as many doors as you can get in the next order and see what can be done to modify the current fleet.

You're so right about the poor design of that bus. It also has a very high floor, which lengthens boarding time as elderly passengers try to climb up the steep steps.

Why can't NYC have sleek Volvo, MAN, Mercedes or some other European-designed buses as most cities around the world have? Cairo, Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Bogota all manage to do it.

Buses in American cities (especially NYC), meanwhile, generally have poor ergonomics and low passenger comfort. The problem you point out with doors is one of many major design flaws of our bus fleet.

One thing to note though is that none of the above improvements will affect the idiotic provision of two narrow exits on a 60 ft long bus - the same number as a regular bus! I've been on these when they are packed and it is almost impossible to exit. They need at least two more exits (most articulated buses have four) if there is any true hope of speeding load/unload times. With two exits they are simply not appropriate for NYC passenger densities.

Interestingly there's already an example of prepayment for buses in Orchard beach-- there are subway-like turnstiles and queues for the buses that leave from there.