Jump to content

Talk:List of bus rapid transit systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago has a BRT lane running from the central part of Trindad into the main bus terminal in downtown Port of spain. Its uses an old railroad right-of-way and service is provided by the islands privately owned jitney (Maxi-taxi) operators. Traffic counts showed that almost 900 vehicles used the corridor in peak-hour in 2005. The government is considering replacing the route with a rail line. I have pictures. FS 206.219.255.152 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florianopolis' SIT system has been removed from the list (it was under South America). The reason is because fare pre-payment is only offered to a limited number of routes, in 6 transit centers. Also, there are no bus lanes at all -- hence it cannot be called "rapid", given that all lines share the roads with cars and usually and big delays are common. 24.9.42.217 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg, Germany HOCHBAHN item is "light rail" standard gauge but smaller profile. no buses on guideways. UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.114.49 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operating and Under Construction

[edit]

The list of 'proposed' or 'planned' BRT systems is almost limitless. Every city in the US is planning 'BRT' right about now. If it's not under construction, it doesn't belong here. Theblindsage (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut has a BRT system opening in a couple of months called CTfastrak. It's small, but it's BRT nonetheless. Would this be appropriate for the article? 68.9.113.60 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! This list doesn't have a system size requirement. Ibadibam (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Systems to Remove

[edit]

Trans Yoyga

[edit]

To call Trans Yoyga a BRT system goes a bit far in my opinion. It is just an ordinary city bus system. Although for Indonesian standards it rapid. 83.82.68.206 (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.125.5 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland

[edit]

Oakland's system is not BRT. It shares the road with cars, does not require pre-payment, does not have stop light signal priority, level boarding, stations. AC Transit does not call it BRT, they call it Rapid Bus, to differentiate it from the BRT routes they are trying to build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.125.5 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary

[edit]

The only feature Calgary's "BRT" has over Oakland's is stop light/signal priority, otherwise it has no other BRT features.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.125.5 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne

[edit]

The Doncaster Area Rapid Transport falls well short of BRT characteristics and should be removed from the article. It is little more than a group of regular bus routes that use the emergency lane on the Freeway during peak times. The buses lanes, where they exist, are not properly separated, don't have traffic light priority, rapid boarding, and compete with car traffic when they reach the central city area. Listing the DART in this article gives a false impression of what Bus Rapid Transit is. I propose removing it. - MZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.235.14 (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

[edit]

I don't think the 96, 97, and 99 B-Line count as bus rapid transit lines. The 97 doesn't even use the 60-foot articulated buses that the other ones use. If anything, the B-Line system/services count as higher capacity bus lines. Cganuelas (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

[edit]

The articles List of bus rapid transit systems and Implementation of bus rapid transit by country appear to have developed in parallel, with largely overlapping coverage. I just cross-linked them at the top, with Template: See also. Both articles suffer from gaps in coverage and have need of updating, which will be easier if they are combined here. Also, the article List of bus rapid transit systems in North America should be kept in mind. I am not proposing merging it as well; it should remain a subsidiary article linked from here. The coverage of BRT systems in China could also be spun off as a separate article. Reify-tech (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge approved

[edit]

Sounds good to me. BRT has been a growing topic, and if Google turned up one or the other, I expect that's the one that got edited. I'd make a distinct page for China and North America, and move content from both pages to the new pages, with links to the old pages. Theblindsage (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Contents

[edit]

It doesn't work.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't work? Ibadibam (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of bus rapid transit systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies as BRT for the purpose of this list

[edit]

Based on the recent edit war there is a disagreement between what is to be considered BRT for the purposes of this list. Pinging SounderBruce and Terramorphous to this discussion. For the record I am of the opinion that if there is a source that calls it BRT, then it has a place on this list. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 23:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our call to make, so I'd like to rely on secondary sources (e.g. newspapers) or authoritative sources (e.g. the FTA) rather than original research. I was called to attention by an edit by Terramorphous to Swift Bus Rapid Transit, claiming that it did not qualify as BRT. Despite his opinion, the line has been described as BRT by The Seattle Times, the FTA, and industry publications like Mass Transit Magazine. It's a perfect case for this list, despite falling short of the "gold standard" of BRT in some areas. SounderBruce 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clean up the list to only show systems that fit closer to the definition of BRT (significant dedicated lanes, rapid boarding and alighting procedures etc.)[1] Many of these systems suffer from major Bus rapid transit creep and are marketed as "BRT" by local transit agencies without any of the technical features of a true BRT system. In fact only a handful in the US have enough BRT features to be called BRT.[2] Terramorphous (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As SounderBrouce has said, not our call to make. We need to go off of the available sources for that particular system, regardless if some may consider it true BRT or not.
However, I acknowledge that there are contrasts between the systems which should be pointed out. While we need to keep all the ones that have a source calling them "BRT" (even if some don't consider those systems true BRT), I feel like it is justifiable to note which ones do not meet the itdp standard for each one that has a reliable source that indicates that it in particular does not fit the standard. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/what-is-brt/
  2. ^ https://ggwash.org/view/29962/the-us-has-only-5-true-brt-systems-and-none-are-gold

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-BRT bus services in Indonesia

[edit]

This page lists city buses in Indonesia that brand themself as "BRT", even though they are not classified as BRT. I think this is misleading and could lead to the spread of false information. I don't think we should classify anything as "BRT" just because they claim it is. Otherwise, I could ask for my local government to classify their angkot as BRT so a Wikipedian can list that service here. NFarras (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems&oldid=1247894760"