It’s still conflating 2 aspects. Functional importance and physical standards are different, similar to the logic in highway= roads. A route=bus could be as important as heavy rail, while not being up to the level of Basic BRT. The aforementioned misleadingly named Tokyo BRT might ironically be an example of this, and Keisei also runs the Shuttle Seven on Kan-Nana-doori (Circumferential Route 7 Avenue) . There are even “certified” “Not BRT”, while eg NYC MTA SBS may be seen as similarly important. Bus rapid transit creep - Wikipedia
For one thing, the BRT Standards only scores center-running, or one-side-running two-way along development edges (obstacles such as coasts), with turns banned. A right-side bus lane system along the sidewalk kerb may be important, but isn’t considered a “BRT”.
Besides, we need to consider routes vs infrastructure. Open BRT systems can travel on a BRT corridor in the core section only. How long does the traveled length, or the BRT corridor needs to be? These are all questions that needs to be considered. So BRT seems a distraction away from the inherent need of distinguishing importance. We can take it into account, but that doesn’t need to be the centerpiece and decisive factor.
1 Like