Should We Build BRT? 

I think BRT is ok but it should be built with provisions to allow for light rail if there’s enough demand and a higher capacity transit mode is needed

The HealthLine BRT in Cleveland has completely transformed Euclid Avenue, and spurred development throughout a corridor that was completely left for dead 20 years ago. It has been a real game changer to be sure.

As long as it doesn't become BST (busses stuck in traffic).

BRT should compliment frequent rail services, not replace them. BRT is perfect for suburban branch lines or connector routes between larger services. It's not an excuse to avoid building a rail-based backbone to your city's transit network, even if you're planning to upgrade your busway to a Light Rail system later down the line.

Indianapolis has no choice but building BRT...and state politicians are trying to ban that, too.

San Antonio is definitely guilty of creep when it comes to the BRT lines it has. Its first line, Route 100 Fredericksburg seems like a proper BRT line. But Route 102 Military and Route 103 Zarzamora are basically regular bus routes that run more frequently than the others.

Jacksonville’s first coast flyer “BRT” now has 30 min headways 😭😭

Taking this from the Twin Cities angle, where BRT costs have been standardized and we've been building a lot, it is a good stop gap to improving transit in the US. Even BRT-lite solutions with a solid emphasis on standardized high quality stations, as per the Twin Cities BRT stations, you can quickly and cheaply build out a network in a few years. We are already 5 lines in and going down the alphabet for each new line. Rochester MN is even building a BRT line with up to 5 minute frequency and dedicated lanes! I don't think the ITDP's standards should be taken without scrutiny though. They think fare gates on BRT is better than proof of payment, which is definitely wrong. Great video once again!

The pittsburgh BRT are good for when they were built. They need some in motion charging trolleybusses tho 👀

That Adelaide guided busway you showed at 0:56 is quite the interesting system. The history behind it is that the greater Adelaide area experienced significant growth during and after WWII, and thus so did the number of vehicles registered. By the mid-1970s, transportation had become a problem in the northeastern suburbs. This led to a study that concluded that a light-rail would be the best option. However, there was opposition because people thought it would interfere with the well-designed layout of the city proper, and that light-rail vehicles would be too noisy. In search of a replacement for the light rail project, they examined the O-Bahn system in Essen in what was then West Germany by Daimler-Benz. The system was seen as far superior to previous proposals because it used less land, made less noise, was faster and of course as mentioned here as a reason for BRT, it cost less. In addition, its unique feature of a non-transfer service direct from suburban streets to the city center made it more attractive. With this system, the buses use a guide-wheel, which protrudes just ahead of the front wheels. It is connected directly to the steering mechanism and steers the bus by running along the raised edge of the track. Adelaide's track is 12 km/7.5 mi long and includes three interchanges at Klemzig, Paradise and Tea Tree Plaza. With its interchanges, it allows buses to enter and exit the busway and to continue on suburban routes, avoiding the need for passengers to transfer to another bus to continue their journey. Not to mention, the O-Bahn has sump buster devices to prevent cars.

This video does a nearly perfect job of discussing BRT. There are only two slight problems however that needed more screen time, 1. BRT costs more than light rail after 10-15 years due to all the extra maintenance. This is extremely important. We are trading off slightly lower (20-30% lower) construction costs vs light rail for much higher operating costs into perpetuity! This is a rotten deal. And the BRT line costs even more if it becomes popular and needs to expand capacity. You can always add a second car to your light rail trains. You can't with BRT. You need more operators which are by far the most expensive part of transit. 2. We need to pay more attention to BRT creep. If we can't fix it then BRT is not for the US. Yes, the video talks about it, but still not enough. There are no US "BRT" systems that measure up to the international standard. None. Literally all of them were watered down below real BRT status. It's like a watering down epidemic in the US! It is infinitely easier to water down BRT projects in general, and our political system is uniquely apt at watering down projects. This is exactly why our politicians and transit planners absolutely looooooove BRT. It's not just that it's cheaper in the short term with the high costs being hidden in future budgets. It's the fact that they can build some substandard turd and still pretend like they've built a "rapid transit" line.

St Pete FL has a relatively new BRT line called the Sunrunner. It’s pretty good overall but could be better with some signal priority and more frequency. Though once the TOD around the stations start to happen I do hope they are able to increase the frequency to like 5-7 minutes from its current 15-30 minutes.

Also it's worth mentioning that much of the cost of LRT and rail is the alignment. Full bus-highway type BRTs are generally not that much cheaper to build than light rail or metro despite offering lower capacity and much much higher labour costs. BRT is good as an enhancement for existing, well-used bus services or as a transit improvement for smaller cities but definitely not as a discount transit solution for all of our transit problems.

The brt opened in Winnipeg as the blue bus and has been really good, especially the frequency during rush hour which is around every 3minutes. So I would say if implemented correctly it’s a good way of rapid transit

Charleston, SC is building a Bus Rapid Transit line which I at first thought was silly, but after reading through their environmental survey I understand it. A private company owns the rail ROW and didn't want to share with light or heavy rail.

Cincinnati Ohio is building two BRT corridors (Reading Road and Hamilton Avenue) starting next year. They are planned to run every 10 minutes (and then interline from University of Cincinnati to the Riverfront, thus every 5), use mostly dedicated lanes, transit signal priority, level boarding, off-board fare collection, and electric articulated buses. I think for Cincinnati, BRT is very good because it's something that can actually get built instead of the many good idea but failed proposals for light rail. Cincinnati and Ohio are both very hostile to transit so the fact that Cincy has an option that can improve transit at all is very good. SORTA (Cincy's transit authority) is very interested in TOD for these corridors to get more ridership. I hope to see things go well for it and not get watered down. The Streetcar is rail based transit for Cincy yes, but it is almost entirely in mixed traffic with no transit signal priority, and it's much more limited in how far it can go than BRT will be. I think Streetcar expansions that are not redundant with the BRT would be very helpful for serving more of the main urban core area though.

Awesome video and glad the random footage I got while in Albuquerque made it into your video. I will have to get more footage of my adventures for future videos. And if you ever make a Rio Grande Plan video I can get whatever footage you need!

Can you do a video on the LA Metro Orange BRT. Looks like there are plans to spend several hundred million to upgrade it. Construction starts this year. It seems like a unique project from the little data I've been able to find. Once the upgrades are complete, it seems it will be the most light rail like BRT in the country. Thanks.

Speaking of the GRTC Pulse, I actually got to ride it when I was still living in Henrico County, VA. My only wish is that they should really extend the Pulse line to the airport, And maybe have one on West Broad Street.

Even though there are dedicated lanes, the bus service may not be significantly faster than before. It still runs on surface after all. Some BRT lines went back to local bus service only such as Las Vegas MAX on N. Las Vegas Blvd. The Cleveland HealthLine example is often mentioned in many videos, I have been on it, but I don't find it amazing. Stops are frequent just like local bus. Everyone still has to pay or swipe a pass at the farebox. What's annoying is that island platforms will require riders to board at the middle (front) door and then walk up front to pay. If I were to ride HealthLine end to end, Red line subway is still better and faster. In some cases the BRT route just replaced the local and limited stop bus routes altogether. For example, AC Transit Tempo on International Blvd, it may be faster than the 1 bus, but slower than the 1R. There are some BRT amenities, but stops are frequent. Worse part of all, it runs parallel with the existing BART line, no one would spend an hour to ride the BRT from Downtown Oakland to San Leandro while BART is available. If insisit on taking the bus, even bus 40 on Foothill (few blocks away, just a local bus) seems faster than the rapid bus on International.

BRT is what every city wants to say it has when most end up far more like a rapid bus. less stops, some lanes and TSP and nicer stops

Nice to see San Diego in one of these transit videos 😁

BRTs are good for suburbs that are in the process of increasing density

Denver is STILL in the engineering phase of its FIRST BRT down Colfax, some 7 years after starting this current iteration. They’re going all out to engineer the perfect premium final product without knowing anything about how well it’ll work & how people will respond to it. This is my biggest issue: when you’re doing something for the first time, iteration & phasing upgrades typically creates a better end result (BRT creep UP!)-politics aside of course. The following lines can be created with more features based on experience from previous lines. Some lines don’t need

My problem with BRT is using it as a cheap alternative to actually building true rapid transit, for example with rails and/or on a segregated right of way - unless you REALLY are strapped for cash or something, BRT as a replacement for trams or god-forbid a heavy rail metro system just isn't sustainable - Bogota and Jakarta are proof of that, they will need a proper metro system. BRT should always be 'buses AS rapid transit', a standard and program for improvements to bus services, applicable everywhere. There's no point building a bespoke bus guideway on one section, when a red painted road will do fine. Or using special vehicles, special fare payments or limiting the kinds of service that use a particularly upgraded section of bus infrastructure. Most of the time so called 'Gold Standard' BRT isn't even using trolleybuses. It should just be BUSES.

I ride the UVX BRT route in Provo pretty frequently. Overall I think it is pretty good and convenient

My city, San Antonio, has plans to build 2 lines so far. At this point, rail seems DOA here so I’ll take what I can get.

Atlanta seems to be going all in on BRT for it's new lines, and is already seeing creep. Instead of all in its own ROW, now they are saying 85%. They did talk about signal priority, now, not so much. That is the huge problem with BRT. Politicians expect it to cost less and when it goes over their preconceived budget, they start slowly nibbling away at it until it's just a glorified bus that doesn't get you anywhere any faster. LRRT is a commitment. BRT done this way isn't

the BRT in Provo Utah has changed Provo, it would actually make me not want to drive and take the front runner and use the BRT.

*Shows Indianapolis*: "A smaller city that can't afford the initial cost of rail" Oh the burn!

MY COUNTRY GUATEMALA APPEARED THERE (TRANSMETRO), sadly, this project along with transmilenio (in bogota) has doomed our cities to not have a proper public transportation system.

All great points! Calgary's initial BRTs weren't much except a few queue jump lanes that give the bus a head start at a traffic light. It's since morphed into two new BRT lines that have dedicated right of way through much of the routes (MAX Purple and MAX Yellow). It doesn't have full signal priority, but it does have the sensors (as do most heavily trafficked bus routes) that will extend a green and overall be aware that a bus is waiting, and shorten its wait. Only part of Calgary I've experienced that buses have to wait at a light for 2+ minutes is at the intersection of Crowchild Trail and Kensington Road NW. It's a terrible highway with a traffic light that divides the community.

I agree that BRT can be great but has its place. While large cities and metros with a population of 5 million+ shouldn’t even consider substituting high capacity metro lines with BRT (see Bogota), smaller cities and medium sized American cities can use it to quickly improve their transit network and cut down on travel times significantly.

Love the San Francisco footage. But did you know that San Francisco recently built a BRT route, on Van Ness Avenue? Now, it ended up costing a lot more than a BRT should for one of the same reasons the Union Square/Chinatown Muni Metro line did - because they had to replace the >100-year-old sewers at the same time. Unfortunately, I hardly ever take Van Ness Avenue - there's just nowhere that way I need to go on the regular. The last time I did, for a series of weekly appointments at a physical therapy clinic up that way, was while it was still under construction. I got to eagerly watch its progress over that time while being stuck riding a bus in even more constrained car traffic while that was happening. But I have had a couple of opportunities to ride it, and it's _great_ - a *huge* improvement over how things were, and a clear demonstration of the inherent superiority of the bus vs the car for moving large numbers of people through a traffic corridor, now that one can compare them side-by-side. One lane of bus moves _so_ many more people _so_ much faster than two lanes of cars. And I've heard a lot of criticism that BRT isn't the way to go and it should be light rail instead. But for that to make sense to do on Van Ness, it would have to replace all of the bus routes that currently roll there, which means building new light rial _all over._ Which I'd love, of course - but seeing how hard it was to build just _one_ short (too-short) new Muni Metro line, I really don't see that happening. I'm afraid that, for the next decade or two anyway, BRT is the tool for the job on Van Ness. Though there are improvements to be made.

I think brt systems are generally overlooked by urbanists, brts are awesome and if done right they can be comedically good. A good example is istanbul metrobus, its awesome. Line is around 45 miles in lenght and uses buses in 4 different size smallest being 60 feets long THE SMALLEST! And the longest ones system uses are 82 feets long bi articulated buses. There is also plans to use 130 feets long buses from crrc's art series on the line. Other than buses frequency on metrobus is excellent, in the rush hours buses runs on every 15 SECONDS and this means your buses must have great performance and istanbul really take that seriously, in fact istanbul municipality take role in development of newer buses on the system. And of course system has great ridership with around 800k riders DAILY on average and over a million riders on some days A MILLION dont forget that most used metro line in istanbul, m2 line, usually has around 650k daily riders which is crazy in fact metrobus is the second most used transportation way in the istanbul after regular buses. Thats why i think brts are awesome.

Really awesome vid as always and I enjoyed the cat animations. One bit of feedback is i think there were just a few too many instances of super quick text pop ups that I think distracted from the video a bit

I live in DC so the two main BRTs in the DC-area (Flash BRT by RideOn and Metroway by WMATA) are uh...interesting lol. Metroway sadly lost a lot of its utility when the Potomac Yard Metro station opened, since it's main goal was to connect local areas of southern Arlington and northern Alexandria with fast growing density. The biggest of those developments was Potomac Yard which...now has a Metro station like I said. On Richmond Highway/US-1, it has center-running bus lanes which is pretty cool and the stations (besides the last stops at Pentagon City/Braddock Road Metro stations) are definitively nicer than most Metrobus stops. Unfortunately, there's a lot of mixed traffic segments so even though it's not on the BRT Standard, i'd struggle to call it anything other than Basic. Flash BRT is more interesting and far more useful since it extends northeast from the Silver Spring Metro station up into upper Montgomery County via US-29 and has two lines. The lack of dedicated lanes for most of the route on both lines significantly hurts it sadly, as does the questionable signal priority, but it's still a surprisingly fast bus for what it is, and gets decent ridership to the point where RideOn is adding more Flash BRT lines which is neat. I would still call this Basic BRT though lol. In conclusion, DC BRT is not great, though our local busses are improving at a fairly rapid rate thanks to the ever-increasing amount of bus lanes in the city. There's a reason that DC is known for Metrobus/Metrorail and not the BRT lines is all I'll say lol.

I think BRT is great. I also think the "fake" BRT's, or enhanced services are great too. Sometimes it's not always necessary to get all of the BRT stuff. I would say where I seem to be disappointed with these systems are some of the headways.

This was super informative and inspirational. I just moved to Norfolk VA and the city itself does have a light rail line but Chesapeake to the south of Norfolk is entertaining BRT and I'm so disappointed that it's even a thought. Initially to the best of my knowledge, they wanted to connect to Norfolk's light rail. Nothing changed about that publicly but this week a post was made on Instagram saying that they were studying Richmond's BRT to see if it's a "good fit" for Chesapeake and I'm like "WHUT!? what about the train!?

BRT is good for middle cities in particular, however too much cities build BRT instead of tram/light rail to save money while it would be more adapted. For instance in France we are building a lot of BRT whereas it does not always respond to the needs for instance the TVM in Paris suburb.

Another great video. Two things you missed. A drawback is even if you’re running articulated buses, there’s only so much capacity on those vehicles, so light rail will have less labor costs as one operator can move more people. The one benefit is, for burgeoning systems, if implemented correctly, it can be upgraded to light rail if demand warrants.

Yes BRT is the most underrated form of effective public transportation. The speed and low capital cost is incredible. Almost every case for BRT falls apart unless if you live in very high dense areas. As far as energy usage per passenger, I’d like to see real data for this because LRT may not have rolling resistance, but energy lost in transmission wires can’t be overlooked and buses are becoming more energy efficient. The BRT in bogota has a capacity of nearly 50,000 passengers per hour per direction. The capacity and productivity of BRT when done right is astounding and dedicated bus right of ways should be immediately integrated into almost all road networks and new developments should have a minimum number of bus only lanes. When you look deeply into the majority of arguments for rail over BRT is they just don’t think buses are sexy, and that’s insane. There are rail lines that have been built where they could have had 5 times the lane miles in BRT but people decided on rail for no logical justification.

I think a question that small cities should ask is if they should save money for a future light rail network, because once costs are out of the way, light rail is just better.

Microsoft Surface mentioned

My city has at least one BRT that's worthy of Silver ranking. It lacks the off board payment, but it has dedicated law ways, signal priority and digital information boards on the nice platforms telling us when the next bus is, plus other non BRT bus routes that run along the same road benefit from the same upgrades

So excited to see my local BRT featured in your video (GRTC: Pulse) but bummed that you neglected to mention that it qualified as Bronze. For a while there, it seemed to have fallen off quite frankly but recently, they've made service improvements so all is good.

Would like to add that level boarding is actually a thing with buses installed with optical guidance systems which use lane markings (typically two tightly spaced dashed lines in the middle of the lane) to align the bus with the platform but sadly it's not a very common technology in NA, imo efforts should be spent on improving the existing bus network via measures like signal priority, bus lanes, increasing stop spacing to ~300m, increased frequency, more bus shelters and better route planning and they should serve as the arteries to a robust rail based backbone

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Denver Moves Transit plan. The regional transit authority, RTD, built out an impressive amount of rail service. The only problem is that so little of it serves any dense urban neighborhoods. Denver is planning to build out a strong BRT network to fill in the gaps of the rail lines and better serve its urban core. It seems like a good solution to a very suburban minded regional transportation network.

Yeah especially in the context of the US and Canada, planning BRT is like wanting to built rapid transit but immediately giving up.

San Diego has major BRT creep with their Rapid bus lines, but they also don't really call them BRT either. Partial bus/bike lanes on the 215 line that just runs down a stroad are an example

Albuquerque Rapid Transit has been great, and definitely has encouraged me to use transit much more than in the past. The level boarding critique is true, tho. For every ART driver that pulls the bus up to the platform perfectly, there are two that seem scared to even try.

I support PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) even more

I think we should have nothing but BRT-buses and light rail in cities. Current structures - at least in Denmark - doesn't work, and delays are just happening too damn often for no other good reason than them not being prioritized over normal traffic.

LA Metro needs to build better and more true BRT lines with dedicated ROWs. They need to replicate around the County what they did so successfully with the Orange BRT line. So they compliment access to the rest of the subway and light rail lines on LA Metro. It would help with the first/last mile issues too.

My mindset: build it small, then scale up as the demand increases Start with BRT. Any municipality can do that. Upgrade to Light Rail once the BRT system hits capacity. Then upgrade the Light Rail to a metro system once the light rail hits capacity. Pay for what you need, that way if it doesn't work out, you don't have as massive of a budget failure.

connecticut mentioned

BRT is great for those corridors that have ridership that standard buses are finding difficult to cope with but not quite busy enough for rail. It's also good to build ridership along corridors that could make great rail corridors down the road. BRT allows a city's populace to get a taste of rapid transit and can be the great tool in building transit ridership. But, as you said, most cities just end up building a regular "limited" bus route, which negates all the benefits of BRT, namely the "rapid" part. "Rapid" doesn't mean "faster", it means "rapid". Without the "rapid" part, which includes not only the speed, but also the fast boarding and alighting, you end up with a regular "limited" bus route which won't build high ridership, it won't increase transit ridership, because to those who have a choice, it just looks like the buses they already avoid and ends up not doing much to increase access or offering meaningful alternatives to driving.

all mass transit should feed rail (as u stated) in most cases

Since many bus routes don’t need BRT, but could benefit from some of these, a great video would be to review & rank each of them as they impact reliability, timeliness, safety, comfort, etc. helping viewers identify where in their systems these features could be added as bolt ones would be useful. Also include fare free zones or routes.

BRT is a tool like any other transit mode! Sometimes it makes sense for BRT, especially in cities where funding is limited and dedicated BRT lanes and service increases could make a significant different for the average rider. Other times BRT is somewhat of a cheap cop out for when Light Rail should really have been built, with much more permanent infrastructure that isn't so easy to strip away with defunding (BRT creep)

for what i can think, one major problem on brt is in the actual city, cities are too big and dont have the mix use nescessarie to be able to create a robust and frequent brt while being afordable for the citie, i know there are places that did but most cant

W video

Howcome in areas where we need not a buss (DEATH BY HOT OR COLD) We only get a buss on a 3 hour schedual cause it's all alone on a route to windy and long to think about

I live in Miami and we have a 20 mile long bus way which is being updated to be BRT i wonder if it will be useful

you should check out the OCstreetcar opening in 2024 in Orange County, California:) Also the transit in OC sucks! The bus frequency is every 30 to 40 minutes! unbelievable and what’s shocking is that Los Angeles is literally the neighboring County of Orange 😭

Laughing at the Microsoft Surface in the "Surfaces" montage.

Bro you gave more negatives than positives

BRT is awesome 🎉we need more of it.

Shits a scam Our city is broke. They couldn't plow last winter. All it does is make congestion a lot worse. All speed limits now reduced, lanes are bus only. Bus stops on both sides of a lane. So yes 4 busses can all stop at the same time completely stopping all traffic. And now added tons of new stop lights.

One lane wasted for a bus is ridiculous

I found this to as usual for transit and urbanist RU-vid be sorely lacking in legitimate examples of the pros of BRT, and almost functioning as a pseudo-light rail promo video. As a huge transit nut, and deeply entrenched in urbanism, this is a problem that is like a fast acting cancer in the community. Everyone's got this weird adoration and whoring out for LRT attitude and mentality. I think the most incredibly ironic part of it is just how much most of these video often coo & rave about how "state of the art" and "great" TriMet's MAX system is, when in reality, it's terrible and proves constantly why LRT is a horrible idea that deserves ZERO support, and BRT should be the go-to always. Allow me to give the list of pros BRT has that crush LRT. 1. BRT does not require or have a limit on how many buses can be ran, and how close together they can run either (they can form a conga line no problem unlike LRT) 2. BRT in reality can match and even top LRT in capacity per mile because of the prior 3. BRT is infinitely cheaper both in the short term and long term (yes it IS FAR cheaper than LRT overall through the lifetime of the systems) 4. Buses can detour and reroute if need be, whereas trains CANNOT. If something happens on the LRT system, it will strand and potentially cripple the line or system entirely until whatever it is is fixed or cleared. Buses do NOT have this issue at all. 5. TRUE BRT is also impervious to traffic congestion, as not only does it have it's own ROW or lanes the entire length of the lines, and priority signals, but a correctly and strictly enforced system with harsh penalties for violators would ensure even the most arrogant and rich of offenders stop interfering with the line (revocation of license or permanent ban on operating a motor vehicle of any kind on the roads alongside egregiously high fines that increase by 2x each violation until the third, where it would skyrocket in the territory of $50k+ fine alongside that permanent ban) 6. There is plenty of ability to have crossover with other BRT lines, rail lines, and other transit modes whereas with rail, you can't cross lines without either having a logistic nightmare, or, a really expensive set of stations with a flyover or under section for the crossings. 7. Plenty of other benefits including some you yourself noted in this video. When done correctly a true BRT system cannot be beaten at all by any other mode of transit, including any other types of bus lines. It just cannot be touched or competed with. Articulated buses are also key. You have to use high capacity buses, artics are always correct here because double deckers take noticeably longer to board and disembark. Here's the correct way to make a true BRT line: - Priority signals at ALL intersections. - Bus lanes the entire length of each line. - All buses have the systems on board that automatically capture photos and video clips of violating vehicles in the lane, which automatically generates a report and sends its to the respective police departments for enforcement - Strict, unalterable laws that offer HARSH penalties without ability to lower or otherwise get out of being charged with no matter what that are aggressively enforced by police (aggressively meaning quickly and sternly.) These penalties realistically would begin at around a $2500 fine for a first offense. $5000 fine and a one year suspension of your driver's license or permit for a second violation, with a third violation going up to $10000 fine, 3 year suspension of license/permit and impoundment of your personal vehicle of which the violation(s) were committed in. The fourth and final violation would be the one made specifically for the richest aholes with the most arrogance as only they'd be dumb and egotistical enough to even consider risking it, let alone do it a fourth time - A fine of at least $100K, permanent revocation of license without ability to be allowed to regain it ever again, and permanent impoundment of all personal vehicles (likely being sold at police auction). - Buses run AT LEAST every 8 minutes at peak times, preferably every 2 1/2 to 5 minutes at peak, with all other times being at least every 15 minutes, preferably every 10-12 minutes. Adjusting these times _slightly_ in less dense areas/lines is acceptable as this typically would result in lower demand and ridership. The key word is slightly. So instead of every 4 or 5 minutes, every 8 minutes is good at rush hour, with every 15 minutes being fine outside of peak demand times. But lines that connect to and through denser urban environments will need to be as frequent as possible in order to ensure all demand is met with allowance for some extra space on each bus. -All stops need to have the most basic amenities which are full covered seating, with room to stand as well as for at least two ADA users, at least one trash can, lighting, and a digital live time board/schedule. - HIGH quality buses and interiors on said buses (use TriMet as exactly how NOT to have your buses made/interiors done) - Ensure that along and around the lines, pedestrians have the same priority as the buses do at intersections (pedestrians being the same priority as buses is a imperative key to a properly made transit line and system) - Keep the stops and buses clean and well maintained at all times with no excuses. If needed, hire or select a portion of staff to form a dedicate team specifically caring for these BRT lines and vehicles All in all, inter-modality is imperative and key to a properly develop and ran metro area and city, not just a properly made and ran transit system. But people need to stop listening to all the "experts" who are consistently bought out and paid the big bucks by the lobbies of light rail (yes, it really does exist) and corporate development firms. Light Rail is NOT the answer, and it is far from this weird almost omnipotent mode of transit so many of the big urbanist and transit channels seem to always talk it up to be. It is more of a detriment than a quality mode of transportation. Factually speaking, LRT as the US makes it is NOT what LRT was even made for in the first place. True LRT is the old 1920s streetcar. Or the short historic trolley line. Think Portland Streetcar and The San Diego Trolley if you're looking in the US. THAT IS TRUE LRT. Slow, short loops and lines built specifically to *_COMPLIMENT_* BUS and REAL RAIL transit. NOT to function as it's own mode of transit. And even then they're still corrupted from the real purpose of LRT because they're not in the most high density urban core of massive cities. Toronto, NYC, London, Taipei, Seoul, Tokyo, insert-chinese-city-of-choice-here, etc. That kind of massive high density core city is exactly what LRT is made for to again, compliment real rail and bus in short loops around and through that main central core. Yet here in the US, LRT is always made to mimic TriMet's MAX system, and specifically the Blue Line, which spans almost the entire length of the metro area from Hillsboro to Gresham. That is what subways and metros are for. You know, medium and heavy rail. NOT Light Rail. For proper rail and rail stock. Even regional rail and a form of IC or ICE is better fit for such use and length than LRT. That's something that's always infuriated me as a transit whore and planning nut. And the hordes of people who consistently jump in to actively defend it with a fervor of sorts. Moreover, the cost of LRT? BILLIONS. The Orange line MAX cost us $7.9B for 7.8 Miles - 80% of which already had recently laid trackway along it. That's ONE BILLION DOLLARS PER MILE. Yeah, sorry, there's not a goddamn soul who will ever be capable of having anything close to a legit defense for such BS. And for anyone who wants to say, "Well that's ONCE for ONE CASE. It's one off, dude!" you're absolutely wrong. The Green line, the line built before the aforementioned one cost $5.6B to construct, which is roughly the same distance. That was built between 2010 and 2012. Each LRT line TriMet forces on us, we foot the entire bill, and it increases on average a solid $2B each time. And now with inflation? HAHAHA, kill me. Just shoot me. And as for the efficiency or consistency of LRT compared with BRT or even normal bus service? It's a fucking joke. MAX consistently has issues DAILY. Even throwing out the consistent cancellations due to the still persisting operator shortage, TriMet has always had to keep around a contingent of around 50-100 old retired buses in order to have them do MAX's job whenever a MAX line inevitably once again becomes SOL and completely stuck/stranded. Suicides, inattentive peds, cars stuck on tracks, collisions, accidents, medical emergencies, mechanical failures of the trains, failures in the pantographs, failure of the crossing gates, failures of the signals (this one is so stupidly persistent it's insane), bridge lift issues or failures, it's too hot to run, it's too cold to run, there's a little bit of weather and they can't run the line, etc, etc, etc. And again, rail is completely screwed anytime anything happens. It becomes immediately crippled and cannot function again until whatever the problem is is remedied. So guess what mode of transit has to come out and do the job of your precious light rail? Those dirty, old, "inefficient" buses. Whoops. Seriously, it's not remotely difficult to see how infinitely superior in every single way buses are to light rail, let alone rail transit in general when it comes to serving metro areas and cities themselves. Rail realistically should not even be a consideration unless it is a high population metro area, and it is entirely grade separated and medium or heavy rail.