Bus* Definitions

Bus, express bus, BRT-lite and BRT can all be considered steps in a progression of incremental investment a transit line, gradually increasing the capacity, performance, and reliability. The fundamental goal over these improvements is to reduce the amount of time spent not moving, and increase the average speed while moving. The different steps are distinct based on the following factors:

• Right of Way

• Station Spacing

• Vehicle Characteristics

• Service Characteristics/Headway

• Intelligent Transportation Systems elements

Bu Rapid Transit

BRT is characterized by what Vuchic calls 'semi-rapid' guideway: barrier separated except at intersections, with limited sections of mixed traffic operations. BRT stations are substantial structures with passenger amenities, typically seating, off-board fare vending, trash-cans, and informational posters, capable of supporting level boarding for non-low floor vehicles. BRT vehicles may be regular or articulated vehicles with distinct appearance, either low-floor of platform-height boarding, and multiple door boarding. Service consists of regular headway throughout the day, and reliability maintained through the use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) features. The term BRT is often misapplied to a variety of inferior systems lacking many of these characteristics. Neither buses in dedicated lanes (busways) nor buses in HOV lanes represent BRT.

Express Bus

Express buses consist typically consist of long-distances routes with widely spaced stops, characterized by high speeds and comfortable travel.  Express buses typically operate in mixed traffic conditions, with minimal semi-rapid guideway. Examples include on-highway buses which operating in bus-only lanes for part of the route, but as a regular bus in mixed traffic within the central city. Many express buses provide only commuter service, operating for a limited number of hours each day. For the purposes of comparability, a non-commuter express bus is presumed [1]. 

FTA BRT & BRT-lite

For the purposes of funding, the Federal Transit Agency has defined systems with more than 51% dedicated (semi-rapid) guideway as BRT, and bus routes sufficiently meeting the other BRT standards as ‘BRT-lite’. BRT-lite is a bus with BRT-sauce: running in mixed traffic, but with limited stops and ITS features such as queue-jumps. No guideway requirements, which means BRT-lite can have anything from 0-50%. Outcomes are hence variable. 

ITDP does a better job of scoring BRTs. 

Incremental Investment

Bus, express bus, BRT-lite and BRT can all be considered steps in a progression of incremental investment in transit routes, gradually increasing the speed, comfort, and reliability, moving it toward a Rapid Transit standard. Because most of these investments are in operations (greater frequency, extended hours) they are reversible. In contrast, fixed-guideway transit investments such as those funded by the FTA typically represent a complete package of Rapid Transit elements, all at once: Dedicated guideway, signal priority, substantial stations to speed boarding, wider stop spacing, higher frequency and longer operating hours. They also come with a required guarantee of minimum service standards, to ensure that expensive capital investments are properly used. Because all of the improvements happen once, simultaneously, rather than incrementally, fixed-guideway rapid transit projects are perceived as development catalysts, capable of inducing development and revitalizing nearby areas. Streetcars represent the apogee of such a catalyst: providing a sudden increase in property values in a limited area, potentially spurring new, denser development.

Feasibly, in combination with appropriate revisions to zoning and parking requirements, a new light rail line could result in substantial additional multi-family development. Multifamily development is characterized by lower car ownership, and higher density residential is associated with great transit use (more people nearby the transit station generates more riders). The influx of residential population could then trigger a surge in demand for nearby retail and services, leading to the re-use or redevelopment of older buildings nearby. Following the exhaustion of available space nearby, the oldest and most-run down buildings will be torn down and replaced by new development. At sufficiently high densities, the combination of residential density generates sufficient street-life to represent an attractive walkable urban center, which attracts further residential develop, and additional retail and services.  Walkable mixed-use districts are generally considered to be highly attractive to both college-age populations and college educated professionals, and makes it possible for the region to compete to attract such populations. 

In contrast, incremental development will generate an incremental response: there will be no sudden upsurge in property values, the process of re-use, rehabilitation and redevelopment will be spread out over more years, and new development generated will be at a lower intensity. Incremental investment will never make the nearby area a ‘hot’ neighborhood. Correspondingly, the feedback loop of benefits to the area will be slower, the annual return on capital lower, and the whole area less attractive to developers. 

Fixed guideway rapid transit systems also offer an opportunity to attract ‘choice’ riders to the system, who elect to ride transit out of choice, rather than lack of alternatives. A fully implemented rapid transit route is exponentially better than it’s non-rapid equivalent due to the synergy between the elements: frequency and longer operating hours. Vehicles move faster and spend less time stopped, making is possible to provide the same amount of transit service with fewer vehicles. The combination of high frequency and dedicated guideway improve the reliability of the transit route. But the improved reliability of a central rapid transit ‘spine’ makes a transfer-based transit network feasible. It becomes possible to transition from a ‘hub-and-spoke’ based network toward a ‘fishbone’ arrangement of a rapid transit spine and bus ‘ribs’. Transfer-based transit networks are more efficient than centralized hub and spoke arrangements