Talk:Bus rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buses (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hi all, just a quick note to say thanks for starting the BRT page, could someone please add a link from this page to our website?
It's a portal to the Australian Bus Industry, and contains some really useful BRT resources and links.
The links to Monash Institute of Public Transport, Professor Graham Currie's work in BRT v LRT, and numerous conference presentations would add depth to this page.
Emily (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emily. I've added a follow-up about how to usefully add content to Wikipedia (rather than just website links) at the User_talk:Ozebus#Adding content page. Hope it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


It seens that the lists of the current systems should be separate. This currently reads as 1/3 article and 2/3 lists. I think it is about time each of those lists in different countries or continents should be separate pages. So where it says multiple is right. Really this article should only have exampls where appropriate, not all the systems in the world. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody has objected after over two weeks i am going to try to split this but i could really do with some help splitting this. Simply south (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality question - Ottawa's claim of 10,000 pass/hr/direction[edit]

"Ottawa, Ontario operates one of the largest BRT systems in North America, with over 200,000 daily riders on the Ottawa Transitway, achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction."

This sentence contains two statements which are, at best, questionable. However, I've decided not to place a "neutrality questioned" flag for the moment, in the belief that consensus can be worked out.

"... over 200,000 daily riders on the Ottawa Transitway ..."

The operator has acknowledged (to an associate) that this figure includes "all" bus lines and passengers using the downtown reserved lanes (on Albert and Slater streets). Thus, passengers traveling "only" within downtown Ottawa, and those using bus lines which do not operate on the "transitway" system proper, get counted. This practice is misleading.

"... achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction ..."

This does not occur, and has never occurred.

To be blunt: if there is a place along the Ottawa transitways where one may stand and count 10,000 passengers riding past a fixed point during a clock hour, then that location is a closely guarded secret.

(Together with certain other details, such as time of day, season of year, and so forth.)

I have attempted to obtain clarification from the operator for more than a decade. This has been promised - multiple times - but has not been provided.

Conclusion: "Five-minute flows" of perhaps 700 - 900 passengers do occur on the Ottawa Transitway, and at multiple locations.

In other words, there are are multiple locations where one may stand and count 700-900 passengers riding past a fixed point during a five-minute interval. But nowhere is this sustained for a 60-minute interval.

The maximum hourly volume on the Ottawa transitway system is on the order of 5,000 - 6,000 passengers per hour per direction. That's impressive, but way short of the figure claimed.

Whether briefly or not, these issues need to be addressed in the article for the sake of NPOV. Ldemery (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate this point again, while your individual observation may or may not be true, you need to cite the factual based evidence to support your assertion before your point can be accepted. The reason is simple, in addition to OC Transpo's continued claim of supporting both 200,000 weekday passengers/day and 10,000 per hour per direction[1], this claim is also cited by independent studies by research organisations such as the Transportation Research Board in their report TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, TRB, Washington, DC (2003).
Repeating a big lie, more often, does not make it true.Eregli bob (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have some additional factual information to add to this discussion on this topic then you are free to provide it . . . along (of course) with it's independent reference source as required by the Wikipedia policies of Verifiability. If you just want to vent then feel free to do so on any appropriate social media site . . . but Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing opinions. Bigglesjames (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
And even accepting what you say could well be true, but this is not unique to the Transitway. "There is little doubt" that your claim could, and is, made of many transit systems, bus and rail. We have to at least be consistant and perhaps it is better to make changes to Wikipedia based on evidence (even disputed evidence) rather than an individual's opinion. Bigglesjames (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The Transportation Research Board didn't do an independent study but just quoted OC Transit's numbers without auditing them. Here's an independent source that actually counted the number of passengers on the Ottawa Transitway and describes the claim of 10,000 passengers per hour as "A Legend": Ottawa Transitways: The Legend of 10,000 Per Hour.
Their independent assessment was that it actually carries between 3,500 and 5,000 passengers per hour, and that the OC Transit folks are just blowing smoke. By contrast they personally counted 8,000 passengers per hour on the Calgary C-Train, and thought the Calgary estimate of 10,000 phd was highly believable. (Calgary Transit's numbers are somewhat inaccurate, but mostly because the system is growing like Topsy and they are more concerned with getting the doors closed on the trains than with counting the passengers)
I wouldn't count on getting credible numbers out of OC Transit for the following reasons:
  • They went about 450% over budget on building the Transitway, which suggests they're mathematically challenged.
  • They ran out of capacity immediately after finishing it, which suggests their forward planning isn't all that good.
  • The city is facing several hundred million $$$ in lawsuits over their recently canceled LRT system.
  • The mayor has been indited on criminal charges for allegedly trying to bribe an opponent.
So you can make of that what you will, but I would tend to believe the chances of getting a believable answer out of the city government (or their lawyers) range from slim to none, and Slim just left town. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I just checked the author of the aforementioned article, and it appears to be one Leroy W. Demery, Jr. who may well the same ldemery who made the original post under this heading. So, it may be the same person who has counted the passengers and wrote the article who is questioning OC Transpo's numbers. Well, it's a small world. However, if I had counted the numbers and come up with a completely different total, I would question it too. I've only counted the people on the Calgary C-Train, which is relatively simple. With buses its tougher - when overloaded they don't come on regular schedule, they come in bunches, and they don't consistently get packed full. However it would be really difficult to get up to 10,000 phd using ordinary transit buses. London double-deckers, maybe. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Bigglesjames: Mr. Demery has already explained that he has attempted to get clarification from OC Transpo on this issue for over a decade and failed. As his study (linked by RockyMtnGuy) shows, he has measured this on several occasions. Moreover, in 2003, the Rapid Transit Expansion Study listed then-current ridership levels and the maximum was 7,000, not 10,000, yet the 10,000 number has been quoted for well over a decade. D P J (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Three comments in response. Firstly, I must commend RockyMtnGuy for the checking and coming back to note the point on what he thought was a potential authoritative source . . . there are many who would have kept this to themselves, so thanks.
Secondly, if the actual commuter bus usage for Ottawa Rapid Transit is such an issue, why not sort the issue out on that article rather than this one ?
Finally, (and more importantly), Wikipedia has a range of policies including a policies of Verifiability and No original research that define what does, and does not align with Wiki's Five pillars. As the first article states:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

'Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

Have a read and I hope you understand my issues with the above :) Bigglesjames (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is yet the mathematical aspect which readers here have deliberately (mis)interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is passengers per hour to mean "count for 60 minutes". Not less justified is to take that as a flow unit, similar to speed miles/hour, m/s, mathematically defined as the limit of a difference ratio. The words peak flow strongly hint towards the latter usage. Of course it is not written for how many minutes this flow is sustained.

"... achieving peak capacities of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction ..."
This does not occur, and has never occurred.

Sorry to be blunt: it helps to read carefully and have a grasp of maths. Because

[...] a place along the Ottawa transitways where one may stand
and count 10,000 passengers riding past a fixed point during a clock hour [...]

is a different quantity. Mathematics (mean value theorem) tells you (first quantity)>=(second quantity).

My question: what is the point in sourcing reliable sources when one does not get the maths right? -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Essen tunnel buses[edit]

re: The use of buses underground in Essen my information comes from various sources, including my own visits and German Wikipedia.

When I addeed a link to my own website I received a 'spam' warning - I hope that the editors of this page will accept that link as being 'on topic' for this page! (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Essen buses from the "In Tunnels" section, because it doesn't seem related to the environmental issue discussed in this section. The paragraph seems to focus entirely on Essen, so I'm not sure it's relevant to any other section of the article. Folklore1 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I understand and agree with your sentiments in relation to the Essen Bus tunnels, I am concerned that this information is being lost to the Wikipedia as it is not replicated elsewhere. In fact, with the development of Hybrid buses and Dual-mode buses, buses are tunnels is likely to become more viable and hence an important advance in Bus Rapid Transit based solutions. Essen does not have an article dedicated it's special forms of bus services. I will propose readding this information into the Guided Bus as it is more closely related to this topic. Bigglesjames (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Guided buses seems a more appropriate place for the Essen Bus tunnels, as an example of guided bus systems. Folklore1 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the Essen article, I now think the best place for info about the Essen bus tunnels would be a section within the Essen article or, with additional material, a stand alone article with a link inside the transportation section of the Essen article. Folklore1 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really 'pioneering'?[edit]

"Pioneering research has been conducted by two American researchers about how Bus Rapid Transit brands are applied, and how BRT systems are visually identified."

This sounds a lot like sock puppetry, in fact, so does the section. Is there a specific award that distinguishes this paper? Fooburger (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


I've rearranged this article and revised the wording somewhat to make it easier to read and understand. It still needs citations to supporting sources for much of the text.Folklore1 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The following note was recorded in the "References" section without an online citation anywhere in the article.: "Gardner, G., Cornwell, P., and Cracknell, J., The Performance of Busway Transit in Developing Cities, Transport and Road Research Laboratory Research Report 329, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom, 1991" I wasn't able to find the source document at the Crowthorne DOT website; it was apparently too old to be listed anymore. Without a citation in the text, I do not know whether the note is actually relevant. So, I'm removing it from "references."Folklore1 (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "Wikify" and other general repair tags, because I think the article has reached the point where tags at specific problem locations would be more helpful. Please tag specific spots in the text where you think citations are needed. For other improvements you would like to see, please add a note here on the discussion page. Folklore1 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with light rail[edit]

The last paragraph of this section states that light rail "is known to attract significantly higher passenger numbers." Is this statement true? Perhaps it should be revised for a more neutral tone.Folklore1 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not have hard numbers here, but experience in Germany says yes. One hint de:Schönbuchbahn I would guess 1000 bus passengers per day pre opening. Forecast for rail 2500-3500 pre opening, already exceeded on first day of operation. Nowadays 7400 passengers/day. Stadtbahn Karlsruhe is a similar story... -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this intended to suggest the results of something like a controlled experiment? Jim.henderson (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am aware of a few studies and reports that refute the above attractiveness. Probably the most well known is "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus" from Transport Policy 2002. Quotes from the conclusion section follows:
Two empirical studies have been examined in order to investigate ridership attraction of rail compared to bus . . . According to the estimated coefficients of these dummies, there is no evidence that the light rail service is preferred to the current bus service.
These results are reinforced by the reviews of 'before and after' studies and previous analysis. Thus, the principle conclusion of this study is that rail and bus services which provide similar service attributes have the same ridership attraction.
This conclusion implies that high performance bus service can well be a substitute for rail service . . .
The findings of this study implies that there is no justification to the introduction of a rail preference bias in a mode choice model which is employed to analyze alternative transit services including both rail and high quality express bus.
from Conclusion section of paper "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus" by Moshe Ben-Akiva and Takayuki Morikawa, Transport Policy 9, (2002) 107 - 116
This position is supported by both UK and FTA policies that require sensitivity tests when model preference settings have been applied to transport models. Bigglesjames (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Had a quick look at that paper. I note that it is based on data from the US (Washington DC and Boston MA) with mainly metro systems and little if any tram/streetcar network. Part of the de:Schönbuchbahn success story is to lure non-captive passengers aka car users (even Merc drivers). From the several quotes in [2] I find two remarkable. First in Munich: bus 3,600/d, tram forecast 11,000/d, tram real 18,000/d (slides 9 and 10). Second Berlin: switch from bus on bus lanes to not-the-newest trams, +100% (slide 13), IMO coming close to comparing like with like. And this in a city where politics endeavours to push BRT-style bus (Metrobus) and with at best lukewarm support for efficient tram operation (slides 19-21). There is the German word de:Schienenbonus (=rails bonus). In the case such thing were not to exist, I wonder why there is a track record of tram passenger underpredictions. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I post my evidence from a published research paper on ridership attraction from an international journal dedicated to this topic. This paper itself notes its authors (inc credentials); data sources; has been peer reviewed and is cited by other papers.
You post your evidence from a pro-light rail powerpoint (without even an author or listing of its data sources) that was itself sourced from the personal website of a professional political researcher for the German Green Party. Everything stated may be true but as real research evidence this doesn't meet the grade. Please see my earlier comments on Wikipedia:Five pillars under Talk:Bus_rapid_transit#Neutrality_question - Ottawa's claim of 10,000 pass/hr/direction above. Bigglesjames (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this powerpoint paper does not have a bibliography. Of course I would have preferred otherwise. However, I take it as a hint where to look for data sensitive to the light rail "is known to attract significantly higher passenger numbers." statement validity question. I am not in the field of learned traffic research, however, I am in contact with peer reviewed papers in a different research field. And reading the Ben-Akiva paper, in particular towards the conclusions section, I become critical. If my job were in the field of traffic research, I probably would comment on that paper (adding myself to the citations list ;-) ). For instance, The findings of this study implies that there is no justification to the introduction of a rail preference bias... reads to me "disprove effect X", and while a meaning "does not prove effect X" is fully justified, the "disprove" meaning I sense as a non-native English speaker cannot be based on the paper's data. Sorry for getting into research mode here on wikipedia. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BRT vs Express Bus service[edit]

If it looks like BRT but doesn't swim or quack like BRT, is it BRT? There seem to be a few services that are currently identified as BRT but that appear more to be Express bus service with a few advanced features. RapidRide (Seattle) and AC Transit are two examples. Rapid Ride (Albuquerque) is an example of an article that, in this contributor's opinion, more accurately describes the service. So where do we draw the line between BRT and rapid buses?

I found the table in this article quite interesting, albeit unsourced. It might be useful to create a rapid bus service article to differentiate the two. Ibadibam (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally, I would propose covering express bus services effectively within Public transport bus service, making reference to it in this article and also mentioning it in the proposed 'Busway' article - see below for my proposal. Another article would seem to be be confusing, but a redirect from such an article title to 'Public transport bus service' would probably make sense in my view. I am not convinced we really need a whole Express bus service article actually. PeterEastern (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have ridden express bus service (in Austin, TX) it is drastically different than the BRT system here in Eugene, OR (EMX). Express bus service tends to be more of a longer distance bus (think greyhound, but within a city) that only stops at one or two places per route but the stops tend to be typical bus stations. The BRT is high frequency, regular stops at specialized stops, alternate ticketing scheme, etc. I haven't ridden the systems you describe Litch (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That's often true in the U.S., where many agencies operate express buses that run partly on freeways and serve suburbs or distant neighborhoods. Other areas may have express buses that operate a similar route to local buses, but on a limited-stop basis, stopping only at major cross-streets and landmarks. Many newer pseudo-BRT systems operate like the latter, with the addition of a few BRT-related innovations like offboard fare collection and signal priority. But it seems to me that this isn't really a sufficient service upgrade to qualify as BRT. The EMX system you mentioned operates partially in dedicated bus lanes, which is a core feature of BRT. That seems to me to be an important dividing line. Ibadibam (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

PeterEastern Rewrite of BRT Article[edit]

User:PeterEastern has just completed a substantial rewrite of the Bus Rapid transit Article without notice or consultation. While appreciating the effort made to clean up this article, this rewrite has arguably moved some information to the wrong place and removed other information that arguably should be retained. I am especially dissappointed with the virtual elimination of the BRT vs Light Rail discussion section given this is an ongoing area of contridicutory views by authors. That said, I do not want to follow PeterEasterns example and simply commence another round of changes and reverts but follow Talk page guidelines. The following further updates are suggested:

  • Remove the statement "Intermediate stops increase the headway, and limit a BRT lane to about 10,000 pph, even with passing lanes in the stations." that is both uncited and in obvious contridicition to the figures in the table that follows this.
  • Restore some of the the content that was under the old heading "Comparison with light rail" including  :
    • In contrast to BRT, light rail and tram systems require the placement of rails for the entire line
    • Update the Light Rail Capacity based on actual usage rather than theoritical capacity as outlined under the Light Rail article "Most light rail systems in the United States are limited by demand rather than capacity (by and large, most North American LRT systems carry less than 4000 persons per hour per direction), but Boston and San Francisco light rail lines carry 9,600 and 13,100 passengers per hour per track during rush hour." to align to the real world figures outlined in the Performance Section
  • Move the Light Rail Costs into the "Comparison with light rail / metro systems..."
  • Add "Many BRT systems, such as Ottawa's OC Transpo and Brisbane's South-East Busway, are based on multiple bus routes sharing a common dedicated busway to bypass congestion,..." to the "Priority" Section
  • More work also need to be done on the "Main features" Section. The rewrite may be more logical but it included excessive pruning of information added over years by many authors. The article needs to also capture the wide range of systems that are aruably still BRT (such as LAs very successful Metro Rapid service) but don't meet the criteria of "BRT systems will normally include most of the following features:".

The article is now different but, IMO, not improved. Comments ? Bigglesjames (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In hind-sight it probably would have been appropriate to have put a note of my intentions on the talk page before embarking on my edits, however as is often the case, the edits grew from some initial tweeks to correct obvious errors into something more substantial and then into what it is. In response to the above very valid comments, can I respond:
  • I intend to do more work on the article, and there is a lot of text in the current version tha I am not happy with at is stands, either because it is in my view clearly untrue, is dubious, or simply uncitied. However... I have tried to work at a steady pace with pauses over the last 24/48 hours to allow people to respond to my changes. I agree that this claim "Intermediate stops increase the headway, and limit a BRT lane to about 10,000 pph" is dodgy, contradictory and uncited. I have left it in this far because I had not got to that section yet. Feel free to delete, if you don't I will soon!
  • I fully intend to work on the 'comparison with light rail' section which I have retained for that reason, but have renamed 'comparison with light rail/metro systems' because many BRT have been created in place of intended and unaffordable subway systems (for example Metrobus (Lahore), which is what got be interested in this article in the first place). Feel free to add more comparative cost information, but lets aim to have all claims in the article appropriately cited within the next few weeks.
  • With reference to the 'Main features' section, I felt that this would be clearer if it was purely a description of the these necessary features, leaving specific examples relating to implementations around the world to a later 'Examples' section which can illustrate how these features work together (well or badly!) in specific settings. As such I have 'parked' the text about Ottawa's OC Transpo and Brisbane's South-East Busway in this new Examples section in preparation for doing just that.
  • With respect to the 'many authors' you refer to, it was my view that the main message of the article had become obscured by the number of words, examples, claims and counter-claims, many of which were uncited and that the article was benefiting from some pruning. As is often the case, all the information was there, but not is a way that was citeable or clear as it stood.
  • I suggest that we need a source of the claim that "BRT systems will normally include most of the following features:"! I agree that there is considerable room to debate what should be in the list, and it is clearly necessary to cite it and the describe what the source says is essential. My plan was to use the BRT Standard 2013 and Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide (2007) (warning - large page pdf) documents from the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy as a primary source for such statements, unless others feel that would be inappropriate? I am just embarking on reading the relevant sections of the 800 page document! Re Metro Rapid, I am not familiar with it, however it may well make a good case study for the examples section? I am familiar with the El Monte Busway and also the Silver Line (Los Angeles Metro), both of which are in LA and LA seems to be doing loads of interesting work in this area. I have worked on a number of LA related public transport articles, including the above, and took to opportunity of a trip to the West Coast to visit LA and experience them first hand recently).
  • Again, apologies for not putting a note on the talk page about my actions and intentions until prompted to do so. I am planning to keep plugging away with this article over the next week, in collaboration with others, until we get it to the high standard that the subject deserves, unless other strongly disagree with that.
--PeterEastern (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Some further comment on the structure of the BRT Article. It seems to me that to properly implement the more structured approach we need to do some more changes to the section order. I would suggest the following:
1 Etymology
2 History
3 Main features
3.1 Priority
3.2 Quality 'stations'
3.3 High-frequency all day service
3.4 High capacityQuality vehicles
3.5 Prominent brand or identity
3.6 Environmental issues
4 PerformanceBenefits of BRT
4.1 Benefits in comparison with conventional bus services
4.2 Benefits in comparison with light rail / metro systems
4.3 In tunnels or tunnel systems
5 Costs of BRT
5.1 Cost Comparison with conventional bus services
5.2 Cost Comparison with light rail / metro systems
6 Examples
7 Environmental issues
7.1 In tunnels or tunnel systems
7 See also
8 References
9 Further readingExternal Links
The article also needs to cover two other important points. 1) that BRT is usually part of the wider bus PT services with the busway and station being shared by bus routes that also operate across roads and bus lanes providing an effective single journey trip to commuters and 2) many BRT systems enable a layered service of express bus and all-stops bus services emphasising the BRT advantage that buses can pass each other (esp at stations/stops) unlike LRT / Metro.
Comments ? Bigglesjames (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Can I suggest we pull the structure conversation out into a new section, which I will do now - based on your proposal above. PeterEastern (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable improvement in the organization of this high-importance article. You have done a lot of re-organization of material already; I trust that some of the material you have removed will reappear in more-appropriate locations, including other related articles. The comparisons with other modes of transportation are very important, and utmost efforts should be made to maintain WP:NPOV. Please continue making your editorial plans and decisions as transparent and as open as possible. Reify-tech (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new 'Busway' article[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to have an article about Busways themselves, ie highways used exclusively or predominantly by buses. The page, Busway is currently being used as a disambiguation page. I am proposing tat it is turned into an article would carry content that was relevant to both busways used in BRT systems also by other bus services which are not considered to be BRT system. It would also carry content about how guided busways are constructed and operated (as distinct from the article about Guided buses which already exists.

If people feel like joining the conversation then it might be best to do it on talk:Busway. Thanks.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Revised sections[edit]

BigglesJames has proposed a set of section names above. To make the conversation simpler, I suggest we discuss it here in this way. This following text shows the heading structure being proposed at the end of the discussion (this text will be updated as the discussion develops. The discussion about the sections follows, and will build up as normal in a talk page.

Current proposed headings, see below for dicussion. Do update these headings as you propose changes below so this always reflects the latest proposal.
  1. Etymology
  2. History
  3. Main features
    1. Priority
    2. High-frequency all day service
    3. Feeder system
    4. High quality vehicles
    5. Quality 'stations'
    6. Prominent brand or identity
  4. Considerations
    1. Speed
    2. Frequency
    3. Capacity
    4. Affordability
    5. Pollution and environment
    6. Easy of implementation
    7. Urban impact
    8. Mode Comparison Table
  5. Examples
  6. See also
  7. References
  8. Further reading
Comments in relation to the above, changes described below should be matched by changes to the above list to keep it always expressing the current proposal.
  • OK, so lets see how this works. For starters I have removed the ins and del markers. The above is still how it has been proposed by BigglesJames without the markup. I will make my proposed changes next. PeterEastern (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are my proposed changes to the headings (I have also updated the proposal above to match my suggestion. Feel Free to change it again):
  • I have added 'Feeder system' to the Main Features - was going to mention that, but I think it is a critical feature. A better title may be 'integration' or something. I need to do some more reading on the matter but I think you get the idea
  • I have removed 'Environmental benefits' as a main feature and suggest we cover it in 'Benefits'
  • I have moved cost into the benefits section, as cost seems to be a key driver. I have also added implementation time to the list of benefits, and performance.
  • I have created a top level heading for 'Comparison with other modes'. This might include a table - as included somewhere in Bus Planning Guide 2007, will look up the page number now. OK, so table 11 on page 48 looks useful. There is a useful section on other modes starting on page 47. Table 2.1 on page 54 is useful. Table 2.2 on page 55 is handy in terms of comparative cost. System capacity comparisons on page 70 and 71. Average speed comparison Fig 2.42, page 76. Service frequency comparison page 79. The table which seems to bring it all together is the 'Public transport decision matrix' Fig 2.9 on page 89.
  • I suggest we cover stuff about tunnels in with the appropriate other headings. I guess we should mention it in the 'main features' section and again under 'Environment' as appropriate.
  • Personally I prefer the headings 'Further reading' if the external links are to more detail documents, rather than to a random set of related websites. Given the content Further reading seems better in this case.
-- PeterEastern (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Happy with the suggestions except for two issues:
  • I question whether you can describe the benefits of BRT without comparative reference to the alternative solutions of incumbant (and lower capital cost) "conventional bus services" or similar capacity alternative option "light rail / metro systems" (which is why I included these into respective benefits and cost sections).
  • I am not sure that "Costs" should be in the "Benefits" section . . . one is the price to achieve the other. Perhaps we could use the headings "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" (a major disadvantage of BRT obviously being financial cost but there are others such as loss of general lane capacity). Such headings could also setup these sections to describing the benefits and costs relative to other modes and approaches which is, IMO, the key issue with selecting any transport solution.
This latter point also highlights that the article does not clearly outline situation(s) or "the problems" that should "trigger" consideration as a possible solution. BRT is a Rapid transit mode used to address several different transport problems including Traffic congestion causing PT service unreliability and/or increased travel time, lack of PT passenger capacity, and poor image for PT services. These problems, in turn, can be caused by population growth in the PT area (increased Urban density), expansion of the city (e.g. Urbanization), increased use of cars by the city population. Bigglesjames (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I do agree that in the 'benefits' section there should be some comparative information on each subject, so under capacity there would be comparative capacity information with light rail and with road capacity; under speed there would be comparative information with rail and with road etc. Personally I would not encourage the binary 'advantages/disadvantages' headings as the issues are sometimes less clear than that and we could end up with loads of edit wars on the subject. Also, to avoid any whiff of WP:NPOV I have changed 'Benefits' to 'Considerations', given that we can't prove that everything about BRT is better that everything else. I have also adjusted some of the headings within that section as well. Are we pretty much ready to go? I say that because I should have a decent slug of time this weekend to progress the article. PeterEastern (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your logic. I have suggested a slightly different order of "Main Features" headings with a view to discuss the service elements first (Priority, High-frequency, Feeder) and having stations and buses adjacent (as they should be matched with each other). Have clarified the "Comparison Table" is actually a "Mode Comparison Table" . Yes, we are good to go.Bigglesjames (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Might the examples section get out of hand?[edit]

I am concerned that the examples section could keep growing and growing with more reference to more and more systems (see recent edits re Ottawa). In my view, this section should be limited to a small number of examples which are included because they illustrate important aspects of these systems. Notability for this section is not the same thing as notable for WP itself. PeterEastern (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that examples are being added without discussion and the merits of the additional one is unclear. However this recent example is "The BRTS service of the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, India; ...", not the example of Ottawa which has been there since you created this section on 31 march this year hence my revert of its deletion.Bigglesjames (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Ottawa system an important example? Why are any of them? The "Examples" section is full of peacock words and definitely in need of better context for why a particular system is worthy of highlight in this article. Independent studies or reviews of BRT systems would be helpful sources. Ibadibam (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"passenger/patronage" figures- double count of transfers?[edit]

I think some care needs to be taken with the patronage figures on this and other BRT (and even transit pages). When a figure of "Passengers" is given it often counts a patron making a single transfer as "two" passengers; in this case there should be some qualification. The record figure for Curitiba of 2.3 million in a day includes transfers (i.e. people counted twice). Assuming those people transferred on the way to work and the way home then they would count as "four" when they only made two "trips". Technical specialists might assume this about such figures but for the general reader, IMHO, the word "passengers" denotes a single person on a continuous trip within a system. I adjusted the Curitiba daily figure to reflect this.Tjej (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bus rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bus rapid transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Surface subway" label[edit]

I have placed a "by whom" tag on the "surface subway" label near the top of this page, since the cited source does not use that term to describe BRT. Since even the most optimistic ridership estimates appear to put BRT service levels closer to light rail than subway, we should be extremely cautious about any attempts to relabel BRT as "surface subway." Assuming no subway-like ridership numbers can be located, I would at the very least argue for the use of a framing device, such as saying "sometimes referred to by advocates as ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaphills (talkcontribs) 14:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone[edit]

I have done some modest editing to improve readability and to reduce a non-encyclopedic tone in parts of the article. Remember, we need to maintain WP:NPOV in this article, and to focus on facts documented by WP:RS, rather than attempting to advocate or oppose BRT technology. Reify-tech (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)