I partly understand your argument but I believe that in some cases and properly designed systems BRT can be the best option.
Before LRT construction Ottawa had a very good BRT system.
-large protected stations
-mostly grade separated
-signal prioritization
-fast speeds…
It was optimal for the commute flows in the city. (Mostly government workers from the suburbs to downtown) yes there has been a reduction in this travel but it’s still largely the same. It was one bus no transfer service from your home to work.
This is the BRT advantage, you have a “backbone” route that individual buses can get on and off at different places. If most of the ridership is leaving the office going out to a suburb as fast as possible then without having to transfer the bus hops off the BRT and becomes local service.
For a lot of Ottawa commuters LRT(really light metro) requires more transfers, and it’s not faster.
Bypass lanes line VIVA in Brampton and Vaughan are useless and expensive wastes like you described. But it can be done much better
As I mentioned, some Canadian "transitways", including Ottawa, that were implemented way before BRT became the word used to describe bus service, are a good thing on their own, that we were doing way before BRT as a concept was enshrined in practice, manuals, literature and legal language.
There is a time and place for all of these solutions. Too often, we try to force a square peg into a round hole, with the infamous LaGuardia transfer connection being a prime example.
Currently, the airport is reachable via a dedicated bus from the nearest subway station. It is serviceable but far from befitting a major airport. For years, planners pushed for a subway extension, which would have decimated neighborhoods and cost a fortune. The most recent governor killed the proposal on day one, the right choice. Rail isn’t always the best solution.
The new plan introduces BRT from the same subway stop, with dedicated travel all the way to the airport. Considering half of the route runs along a four-lane highway with virtually no intermediate stops, BRT is the ideal choice. Even better, the project, which includes massive ADA upgrades on both ends, will cost under $200 million compared to the staggering $7 billion (yes, really,) for the proposed light rail.
Light rail, BRT, and BBE are all great tools but you dont use a concrete mixer to stir your morning coffee.
I agree completely. It comes down to policies versus politics (as you put it so well). From a policy standpoint there is little reason to focus on "BRT". By all means you want to improve the bus system and this often includes "BRT" type infrastructure. Building a busway may be a very good option for a city. Similarly it may make sense to focus on a few core routes (and spend extra capital on them). But the focus on "BRT" has become a political one (at least in the USA).
For example assume an agency decides to run the buses twice as often. Can they get federal matching funds? No. What if they just make it a goal to improve the average overall network speed of the buses by 10%. Again -- no matching funds for that. But a "BRT" line -- a brand new bus route with special buses, fancy bus stops and (hopefully) off-board payment? The feds will give you money and the politicians will be happy to cut that ribbon.
Interestingly enough, it happens with rail as well. Replace a bus with a tram (and nothing else) and you can expect to get additional funding, even if the tram is no faster then the bus it replaced and you don't need the extra capacity. From a federal level, the project-instead-of-policy approach assumes that the local agency knows what they are doing. After all, why would a local agency build a tram or BRT unless it really needed one? But that simply isn't the case. Quite often the local agency is well aware of the federal funding for projects and they design their system with that in mind. Or they are chasing the latest American fad in transit without really understanding where and why it is appropriate (again, American light rail comes to mind).
Your thoughts are not unique. Stephen Fesler wrote this about Seattle's RapidRide (BRT) system: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/29/the-case-against-rapidride-and-for-funding-massive-transit-service-expansion-now/. RapidRide buses are so vaguely defined it isn't clear what they actually entail other than fancy livery and bus stops. The only substantive value in my opinion -- the one defining characteristic -- is that they have off-board payment. Thus by that definition the entire San Fransisco bus system is BRT. Perhaps that should be the goal -- make the entire system BRT!
Seriously though, the process is silly. RapidRide (like BRT projects across the country) have become political. They are not based on need or value. This would be a somewhat sensible approach (e. g. take the highest performing buses and then convert them to BRT). But instead it largely comes down to regionalism. Thus routes that already run fairly fast and don't carry many riders become BRT while routes that carry a lot of riders but are stuck in traffic (or just could really benefit from off-board payment) get nothing. To be fair, the local agencies actually have sped up some routes without converting them to BRT and the work has been great. But again, the focus should not be on particular routes or even particular corridors. It should be region wide. It is quite possible that the most cost effective thing Seattle could do to speed up the buses is add bus lanes on the approaches to its many drawbridges. That would help out dozens of different routes carrying tens of thousands of riders. But the feds probably wouldn't chip in any money so it will probably have to wait.
Très bonne lecture qui résume parfaitement le fonctionnement à deux vitesses du continent nord-américain en matière des autobus : d’un côté, des services d’autobus réduits au strict minimum, et de l’autre, des infrastructures parfois surdimensionnées. J’espère que la proposition de REV-Bus, portée par Projet Montréal, saura s’inspirer davantage de l’approche française des BHNS (Bus à Haut Niveau de Service) et qu’elle puisera dans cette ‘toolbox’ pour transformer en profondeur la perception du bus, tant à Montréal qu’ailleurs en Amérique du Nord
This really speaks to the giant issue in urban planning and public transportation. Thousands of people schooled in a language and set of terminologies that the ultimate users of the services would find gobbledigook.
Rather than trashing BRT, and rather than even using the term BRT, we should be focused on how we make buses a truly compelling consumer proposition. And I’ve barely seen anyone talking about that.
We need more marketers in this realm, but planners and transport academics seem to turn their nose up at people who create value on a shelf rather than in a factory.
I agree with your observations and ideas entirely but I am not sure we should _abandon_ the BRT concept for the reasons outlined.
Projects need to embed in the decision-making frameworks in place, regardless of whether those frameworks are good or bad. From a perspective of someone who is trying to deliver a sensible improvement that's deliverable, working within the available constraints is pretty much a must. If conceiving a BRT is the most available way of likely getting anything done within the given context, it is a problem of the framework a project tries to survive in, not the BRT concept per se.
Note also that some BRT projects in the US are, in fact, not that infrastructure-rich but indeed mostly bus priority lanes (probably the most notable and successful example of that being IndyGo's BRT).
The internet of the piece was deliberately tranchant and provocative. I am a supporter of the "in Rome like the Romans" way of doing thing, and if planners need to leverage the BRT concept to deliver bus service improvements within their given institutional framework, they should go for it. But I think that broadly talking we should push for policy reforms that make viable or incentives program-based approaches instead of project-based one, for example by creating streams of funding and technical support dedicated to these kind of programs
But then, I still can't see how BRT is 'a failed concept'. 'BRT' is simply a cloud of ideas and solutions, and then, ultimately, there is good or bad design, right or wrong context, and efficient or subpar delivery.
Program-based approaches are great; however, sometimes the only way to realise you'd had a program is to have delivered a dozen projects.
As I say in the post, it becomes a "failed concept" (a provocative label, I admit, but that was the intent to spur a discussion) when it becomes enshrined in how things are planned and funded. For example, grants are given to something that can be wrapped in a BRT project envelope, but not other diffused bus priority measures, because legislators didn't take the time to understand the implications of referring to BRT in the wording of the law. The problem is that the law often doesn't recognize the flexibility of practice, nor the possibility that a precise thing they write down in the text can effectively be a "cloud of ideas" as you refer to.
I argue that we need a better planning framework to frame transit priority measures and, in general, improvements to bus service that do not incentivize "bad" behaviours such as overscoping in design and over-tiering bus service in the general planning approach out of opportunism.
As an example, the reasons why France developed a lot of circulation-based priority planning from the 1970s on is because "circulation plans" were a juridically identified thing that could access national government grants
The Gold Line recently opened in the Minneapolis St Paul area, and I think it's a perfect example of the "project" mode of thinking. Luckily, our Metro Transit has gotten a lot better about focusing on bus route improvements, and while they still call them BRT-lite, I think these projects do a lot better job of focusing on better bus fundamentals on smaller budgets, and speedier timelines. This year we'll also open two more of these BRT lite lines - they typically follow the route of a high-ridership regular route bus service and feature better stations, off board payment, and the occassional bus lane. We'll be opening the fourth and fifth of these lines this year and I'm pretty sure none of them were even in the planning phase when the Gold Line planning started. It's frustrating to see so much money spent on somethign like the Gold Line, but nice to know that local planners are focusing a lot more on improving buses more people are going to take these days.
In Salt Lake City, the BRT does not have dedicated “rail-like” infrastructure. It is much worse because of it. however, I am doubtful spending money for dedicated infrastructure would do much. Salt Lake needs to densify #1
Some parts I agree some parts I disagree, the fundamentals section is well explained.
Though one thing I'd disagree with is the slight disdain of "fancy" bus stops. As a daily transit user, I'd consider a bus stop "Fancy" if it simply has a bench, is accessible via wheelchair, and is covered from rain/snow.
We SHOULD have fancy bus stops (accessible, gives real-time info, has a seat), instead of the random pole in the middle of the grass.
A lot of my friends find this article interesting, so we translated that with AI and post that on Chinese forum Zhihu. If you're not happy with that we can just delete it. I referenced your Substack and this article on our page
This is a great, great article. It actually understates the damage that the BRT concept is doing to transit planning in the US. I'm sorry I missed it when it came out.
Some common features of US BRT, all consequences of seeking points on a BRT scorecard:
* Dedicated lanes only where ROW is available for new construction, or where buses can run on shoulders. That's usually where the road is uncongested; the buses re-enter traffic where the congestion is.
* Local buses not allowed to use bus lanes.
* Separate stops for limited-stop & local buses on same route. (Because on-board vs off-board payment, or because center-running bus lane doesn't have platforms for local stops.) With limited-route headways 15+ min (almost always true off-peak) riders want to take the first bus that comes. Net effect of creating BRT is to lengthen headways & worsen service. Montgomery County's Flash BRT is a prime example of this.
Nice work, Marco—I think you’ve hit on an important distinction. BRT is a terrific alternative to light rail, offering fixed routing at street level for a fraction of the cost. However, BRT isn’t always an upgrade from traditional buses.
One of the advantages of city buse that is soften overlooked is their flexibility. Here in NYC, the MTA redraws Queens bus routes nearly every year, adapting to usage trends, traffic patterns, and population shifts. That’s the beauty of buses: they provide what you need, when you need it.
That said, our bus stops feel like afterthoughts. There’s no reason elevated bus curbs and better signage couldn’t serve as the catalyst for full sidewalk redevelopments.
In Houston, and this is probably true of most US cities, we could boost bus service with a simple legal change: reallocate a general lane in each direction to buses only for every four lane road with a bus route. Most local bus routes within Houston run within municipally-controlled easements. If the city is serious about improving bus service, it could do this on Monday, though it would take longer for drivers to acknowledge the changes.
I don't give a fuck about transit these days because of how we've cheapened it to appease the fiscal hawks. We won't do a subway but do an underground LRT. We won't have dedicated BRT with frequencies that are better than regular bus service but will have bus lanes. We'll build LRTs but operate as streetcars. I got tired of the circle jerk.
I loved this post because of the way that it explored the intersection of planning and politics, specifically the way that the *packaging* around certain planning interventions can drastically impact their popularity and the likelihood that they are built/adopted.
In my opinion, this "bureaucraft" - the art of getting good policy enacted - feels like a different skill set than actually designing policy. It's not engineering and planning, it's politics. Is it our job as planners to do the political heavy lifting?
My experience in NYC and Boston is that TSP is the next step for meaningfully improving bus service in these cities. My question is how do can this idea be clearly communicated in a way that makes pols care and want to implement while still staying true to the intent of the program (aka not watered down beyond recognition)? What are the core problems that need to be solved? What are the political risks? My gut says that interagency coordination and angry drivers are a big part of this question, but I don't even know what I don't know.
Good read and highlights the need to properly implement whatever rapid bus improvements are needed in a wholistic level.
In Indianapolis, I think there was a good effort to do this by re-working the system around the 3 BRT lines. A grid system that skimmed the number of routes, while maximizing performance on those, in our too much sprael city. Unfortunately, the pandemic altered/delayed that effort, and we have gotten no help from our state government. Now that 2/3 lines are open, and locals are re-aligned, ridership is going back up.
I think this approach is the right one, connecting riders to your rapid lines with better service from your local routes. Just throwing some BRT/rapid lines into a system and expecting people to somehow get to them makes no sense. If you can't also make systemwide improvements, your BRT is bound to fail.
I will disagree about the marketing aspect, though. If you have a comprehensive plan, that can be a tool to help get others on-board with funding and ridership.
I think Indianapolis and Madison are two examples of a sensible application of the BRT concept without excessive overdesign.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for proscribing the use of the term or not having better bus infrastructure in some more heavily used corridors. I'm just noticing that way too often in our continent, we miss what is really important in BRT applications, i.e., effective priority provisions to boost speed and regularity, and frequent service on a wide time span. The rest is mostly in the "nice to have" category
I partly understand your argument but I believe that in some cases and properly designed systems BRT can be the best option.
Before LRT construction Ottawa had a very good BRT system.
-large protected stations
-mostly grade separated
-signal prioritization
-fast speeds…
It was optimal for the commute flows in the city. (Mostly government workers from the suburbs to downtown) yes there has been a reduction in this travel but it’s still largely the same. It was one bus no transfer service from your home to work.
This is the BRT advantage, you have a “backbone” route that individual buses can get on and off at different places. If most of the ridership is leaving the office going out to a suburb as fast as possible then without having to transfer the bus hops off the BRT and becomes local service.
For a lot of Ottawa commuters LRT(really light metro) requires more transfers, and it’s not faster.
Bypass lanes line VIVA in Brampton and Vaughan are useless and expensive wastes like you described. But it can be done much better
As I mentioned, some Canadian "transitways", including Ottawa, that were implemented way before BRT became the word used to describe bus service, are a good thing on their own, that we were doing way before BRT as a concept was enshrined in practice, manuals, literature and legal language.
There is a time and place for all of these solutions. Too often, we try to force a square peg into a round hole, with the infamous LaGuardia transfer connection being a prime example.
Currently, the airport is reachable via a dedicated bus from the nearest subway station. It is serviceable but far from befitting a major airport. For years, planners pushed for a subway extension, which would have decimated neighborhoods and cost a fortune. The most recent governor killed the proposal on day one, the right choice. Rail isn’t always the best solution.
The new plan introduces BRT from the same subway stop, with dedicated travel all the way to the airport. Considering half of the route runs along a four-lane highway with virtually no intermediate stops, BRT is the ideal choice. Even better, the project, which includes massive ADA upgrades on both ends, will cost under $200 million compared to the staggering $7 billion (yes, really,) for the proposed light rail.
Light rail, BRT, and BBE are all great tools but you dont use a concrete mixer to stir your morning coffee.
I agree completely. It comes down to policies versus politics (as you put it so well). From a policy standpoint there is little reason to focus on "BRT". By all means you want to improve the bus system and this often includes "BRT" type infrastructure. Building a busway may be a very good option for a city. Similarly it may make sense to focus on a few core routes (and spend extra capital on them). But the focus on "BRT" has become a political one (at least in the USA).
For example assume an agency decides to run the buses twice as often. Can they get federal matching funds? No. What if they just make it a goal to improve the average overall network speed of the buses by 10%. Again -- no matching funds for that. But a "BRT" line -- a brand new bus route with special buses, fancy bus stops and (hopefully) off-board payment? The feds will give you money and the politicians will be happy to cut that ribbon.
Interestingly enough, it happens with rail as well. Replace a bus with a tram (and nothing else) and you can expect to get additional funding, even if the tram is no faster then the bus it replaced and you don't need the extra capacity. From a federal level, the project-instead-of-policy approach assumes that the local agency knows what they are doing. After all, why would a local agency build a tram or BRT unless it really needed one? But that simply isn't the case. Quite often the local agency is well aware of the federal funding for projects and they design their system with that in mind. Or they are chasing the latest American fad in transit without really understanding where and why it is appropriate (again, American light rail comes to mind).
Your thoughts are not unique. Stephen Fesler wrote this about Seattle's RapidRide (BRT) system: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/29/the-case-against-rapidride-and-for-funding-massive-transit-service-expansion-now/. RapidRide buses are so vaguely defined it isn't clear what they actually entail other than fancy livery and bus stops. The only substantive value in my opinion -- the one defining characteristic -- is that they have off-board payment. Thus by that definition the entire San Fransisco bus system is BRT. Perhaps that should be the goal -- make the entire system BRT!
Seriously though, the process is silly. RapidRide (like BRT projects across the country) have become political. They are not based on need or value. This would be a somewhat sensible approach (e. g. take the highest performing buses and then convert them to BRT). But instead it largely comes down to regionalism. Thus routes that already run fairly fast and don't carry many riders become BRT while routes that carry a lot of riders but are stuck in traffic (or just could really benefit from off-board payment) get nothing. To be fair, the local agencies actually have sped up some routes without converting them to BRT and the work has been great. But again, the focus should not be on particular routes or even particular corridors. It should be region wide. It is quite possible that the most cost effective thing Seattle could do to speed up the buses is add bus lanes on the approaches to its many drawbridges. That would help out dozens of different routes carrying tens of thousands of riders. But the feds probably wouldn't chip in any money so it will probably have to wait.
Très bonne lecture qui résume parfaitement le fonctionnement à deux vitesses du continent nord-américain en matière des autobus : d’un côté, des services d’autobus réduits au strict minimum, et de l’autre, des infrastructures parfois surdimensionnées. J’espère que la proposition de REV-Bus, portée par Projet Montréal, saura s’inspirer davantage de l’approche française des BHNS (Bus à Haut Niveau de Service) et qu’elle puisera dans cette ‘toolbox’ pour transformer en profondeur la perception du bus, tant à Montréal qu’ailleurs en Amérique du Nord
Fantastic post, as usual.
This really speaks to the giant issue in urban planning and public transportation. Thousands of people schooled in a language and set of terminologies that the ultimate users of the services would find gobbledigook.
Rather than trashing BRT, and rather than even using the term BRT, we should be focused on how we make buses a truly compelling consumer proposition. And I’ve barely seen anyone talking about that.
We need more marketers in this realm, but planners and transport academics seem to turn their nose up at people who create value on a shelf rather than in a factory.
I agree with your observations and ideas entirely but I am not sure we should _abandon_ the BRT concept for the reasons outlined.
Projects need to embed in the decision-making frameworks in place, regardless of whether those frameworks are good or bad. From a perspective of someone who is trying to deliver a sensible improvement that's deliverable, working within the available constraints is pretty much a must. If conceiving a BRT is the most available way of likely getting anything done within the given context, it is a problem of the framework a project tries to survive in, not the BRT concept per se.
Note also that some BRT projects in the US are, in fact, not that infrastructure-rich but indeed mostly bus priority lanes (probably the most notable and successful example of that being IndyGo's BRT).
The internet of the piece was deliberately tranchant and provocative. I am a supporter of the "in Rome like the Romans" way of doing thing, and if planners need to leverage the BRT concept to deliver bus service improvements within their given institutional framework, they should go for it. But I think that broadly talking we should push for policy reforms that make viable or incentives program-based approaches instead of project-based one, for example by creating streams of funding and technical support dedicated to these kind of programs
But then, I still can't see how BRT is 'a failed concept'. 'BRT' is simply a cloud of ideas and solutions, and then, ultimately, there is good or bad design, right or wrong context, and efficient or subpar delivery.
Program-based approaches are great; however, sometimes the only way to realise you'd had a program is to have delivered a dozen projects.
As I say in the post, it becomes a "failed concept" (a provocative label, I admit, but that was the intent to spur a discussion) when it becomes enshrined in how things are planned and funded. For example, grants are given to something that can be wrapped in a BRT project envelope, but not other diffused bus priority measures, because legislators didn't take the time to understand the implications of referring to BRT in the wording of the law. The problem is that the law often doesn't recognize the flexibility of practice, nor the possibility that a precise thing they write down in the text can effectively be a "cloud of ideas" as you refer to.
I argue that we need a better planning framework to frame transit priority measures and, in general, improvements to bus service that do not incentivize "bad" behaviours such as overscoping in design and over-tiering bus service in the general planning approach out of opportunism.
As an example, the reasons why France developed a lot of circulation-based priority planning from the 1970s on is because "circulation plans" were a juridically identified thing that could access national government grants
The Gold Line recently opened in the Minneapolis St Paul area, and I think it's a perfect example of the "project" mode of thinking. Luckily, our Metro Transit has gotten a lot better about focusing on bus route improvements, and while they still call them BRT-lite, I think these projects do a lot better job of focusing on better bus fundamentals on smaller budgets, and speedier timelines. This year we'll also open two more of these BRT lite lines - they typically follow the route of a high-ridership regular route bus service and feature better stations, off board payment, and the occassional bus lane. We'll be opening the fourth and fifth of these lines this year and I'm pretty sure none of them were even in the planning phase when the Gold Line planning started. It's frustrating to see so much money spent on somethign like the Gold Line, but nice to know that local planners are focusing a lot more on improving buses more people are going to take these days.
In Salt Lake City, the BRT does not have dedicated “rail-like” infrastructure. It is much worse because of it. however, I am doubtful spending money for dedicated infrastructure would do much. Salt Lake needs to densify #1
Some parts I agree some parts I disagree, the fundamentals section is well explained.
Though one thing I'd disagree with is the slight disdain of "fancy" bus stops. As a daily transit user, I'd consider a bus stop "Fancy" if it simply has a bench, is accessible via wheelchair, and is covered from rain/snow.
We SHOULD have fancy bus stops (accessible, gives real-time info, has a seat), instead of the random pole in the middle of the grass.
Hi Marco,
A lot of my friends find this article interesting, so we translated that with AI and post that on Chinese forum Zhihu. If you're not happy with that we can just delete it. I referenced your Substack and this article on our page
link:
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1927708868219242416
This is a great, great article. It actually understates the damage that the BRT concept is doing to transit planning in the US. I'm sorry I missed it when it came out.
Some common features of US BRT, all consequences of seeking points on a BRT scorecard:
* Dedicated lanes only where ROW is available for new construction, or where buses can run on shoulders. That's usually where the road is uncongested; the buses re-enter traffic where the congestion is.
* Local buses not allowed to use bus lanes.
* Separate stops for limited-stop & local buses on same route. (Because on-board vs off-board payment, or because center-running bus lane doesn't have platforms for local stops.) With limited-route headways 15+ min (almost always true off-peak) riders want to take the first bus that comes. Net effect of creating BRT is to lengthen headways & worsen service. Montgomery County's Flash BRT is a prime example of this.
One nitpick: Your early history is incorrect. The BRT concept and name were invented in the US by traffic engineers in the 1930s & 60s. They later pasted the name onto the Curitiba busway & promoted the concept via FTA & aid agencies. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/brt-bus-rapid-transit-big-philanthropy-oil-lobby/
Nice work, Marco—I think you’ve hit on an important distinction. BRT is a terrific alternative to light rail, offering fixed routing at street level for a fraction of the cost. However, BRT isn’t always an upgrade from traditional buses.
One of the advantages of city buse that is soften overlooked is their flexibility. Here in NYC, the MTA redraws Queens bus routes nearly every year, adapting to usage trends, traffic patterns, and population shifts. That’s the beauty of buses: they provide what you need, when you need it.
That said, our bus stops feel like afterthoughts. There’s no reason elevated bus curbs and better signage couldn’t serve as the catalyst for full sidewalk redevelopments.
In Houston, and this is probably true of most US cities, we could boost bus service with a simple legal change: reallocate a general lane in each direction to buses only for every four lane road with a bus route. Most local bus routes within Houston run within municipally-controlled easements. If the city is serious about improving bus service, it could do this on Monday, though it would take longer for drivers to acknowledge the changes.
I don't give a fuck about transit these days because of how we've cheapened it to appease the fiscal hawks. We won't do a subway but do an underground LRT. We won't have dedicated BRT with frequencies that are better than regular bus service but will have bus lanes. We'll build LRTs but operate as streetcars. I got tired of the circle jerk.
I loved this post because of the way that it explored the intersection of planning and politics, specifically the way that the *packaging* around certain planning interventions can drastically impact their popularity and the likelihood that they are built/adopted.
In my opinion, this "bureaucraft" - the art of getting good policy enacted - feels like a different skill set than actually designing policy. It's not engineering and planning, it's politics. Is it our job as planners to do the political heavy lifting?
My experience in NYC and Boston is that TSP is the next step for meaningfully improving bus service in these cities. My question is how do can this idea be clearly communicated in a way that makes pols care and want to implement while still staying true to the intent of the program (aka not watered down beyond recognition)? What are the core problems that need to be solved? What are the political risks? My gut says that interagency coordination and angry drivers are a big part of this question, but I don't even know what I don't know.
Good read and highlights the need to properly implement whatever rapid bus improvements are needed in a wholistic level.
In Indianapolis, I think there was a good effort to do this by re-working the system around the 3 BRT lines. A grid system that skimmed the number of routes, while maximizing performance on those, in our too much sprael city. Unfortunately, the pandemic altered/delayed that effort, and we have gotten no help from our state government. Now that 2/3 lines are open, and locals are re-aligned, ridership is going back up.
I think this approach is the right one, connecting riders to your rapid lines with better service from your local routes. Just throwing some BRT/rapid lines into a system and expecting people to somehow get to them makes no sense. If you can't also make systemwide improvements, your BRT is bound to fail.
I will disagree about the marketing aspect, though. If you have a comprehensive plan, that can be a tool to help get others on-board with funding and ridership.
I think Indianapolis and Madison are two examples of a sensible application of the BRT concept without excessive overdesign.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for proscribing the use of the term or not having better bus infrastructure in some more heavily used corridors. I'm just noticing that way too often in our continent, we miss what is really important in BRT applications, i.e., effective priority provisions to boost speed and regularity, and frequent service on a wide time span. The rest is mostly in the "nice to have" category