Talk:RapidRide

BRT or Express Bus?
This article currently describes RapidRide as a bus rapid transit system. It appears that RapidRide more closely matches what is described in the express bus service article. It does not include any bus-exclusive right-of-way on any route. RapidRide is differentiated from other commuter buses in its region only in that it features signal priority, off-bus fare collection, and unique branding. While signal priority and OBFC are major features of BRT, I argue that they're not enough for this particular service to be categorized as anything more than an improved express bus. It certainly doesn't compare to the systems discussed in the BRT article, which operate on dedicated busways. See Rapid Ride (an Albuquerque service) for a very similar bus that is described a little more accurately in the article lead. What's the opinion of the community? I'd like to see some spirited discussion on the subject. I've also started a related section at the BRT talk page. Ibadibam (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In lieu of any discussion, I'm going to go ahead and change the lead to parallel that of the Rapid Ride article. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The Wikipedia article on express bus service describes it as a bus service that is intended to run faster than normal bus services between the same two commuter points. This is more like the service provided on Sound Transit Express routes (buses make local stops in one city, travel via a highway making very limited stops and arrive in another city where it makes local stops. I would say that RapidRide is more like a limited-stop bus.


 * But I would go once step further and say that RapidRide is a limited-stop bus that has most of the features of BRT:
 * Dedicated lanes Somewhat On some lines (E Line) there are peak-hour Business Access and Transit lanes and 3rd Ave in Downtown Seattle is bus only during peak hours.
 * Busway alignment No
 * Off-board fare collection Somewhat Most major stops have ORCA card readers.
 * Intersection treatment Somewhat To my knowledge each of the RapidRide corridors have systems to give buses priority at signals.
 * Platform-level boarding Yes The new buses purchased for RapidRide are all low floor and kneel for level boarding. (It's also important to note that passengers are almost guaranteed to get one of these buses, unlike other routes.)
 * High-frequency all-day service Yes 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off peak, 7 days a week plus late night service on all lines except the B line.
 * High capacity vehicles Yes The new buses purchased for RapidRide are all articulated. (Again, almost guaranteed.)
 * Quality stations Somewhat While they aren't as nice as other stations, they are a big improvement over standard bus stops.
 * Prominent brand or identity Yes Buses have a different livery and there are separate maps for the RapidRide system.


 * The problem is that RapidRide is such a half-assed try at BRT (it was essentially an excuse to get the federal government to give money to King County Metro to purchase new buses and improve bus stops on some busy routes.) it's not a "full" BRT system like the Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles... it's not even up to the same standard as the Swift the E Line connects to. It's a "light" implementation of BRT... but I think it's BRT nevertheless. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a good assessment of RapidRide, and covers the criteria from the BRT article quite thoroughly. If we look at a better codified standard, like the BRT scorecard, there's a few more details to consider. Let's just look at the "BRT Basics" requirements:


 * colspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle" |
 * *Must score at least 4 on each of these criteria
 * }

RapidRide fails to meet the minimum "Basic BRT" score of 18, and in fact is categorically disqualified because it fails to score 4/7 on the first two criteria. There is a spectrum of features available to bus systems to enhance and modernize service. Good BRT systems implement at least some of those. RapidRide has also implemented some of those (but not the most important ones). Many of those improvements are just modernizations that are becoming common in all bus systems, like low floors, readerboards at stops, and signal priority. BRT is a rapid transit system that uses buses instead of trains. It has a minimum requirement of continuous dedicated busways at least 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) in length, which isn't satisfied by the HOV and peak-only bus lanes that RapidRide runs in. I think we both recognize that "BRT" is inappropriate for this system.

As for whether RapidRide is an express bus, I concede that it's an imperfect designation. I'd love to find something more precise. Even at King County Metro, "express" doesn't have one meaning. The 48X offers a faster alternative to the 48 local, using most of the same route. The 9X has no local counterpart, but is an express in that it skips some stops of other routes that overlap it. SoundTransit routes and some KCM routes (like the 255) are express in that they run on the freeway, but aren't actually providing an alternative, as their destinations are otherwise unserved. None of these express buses are analogous to the service RapidRide provides. I think I originally used "express" because it seems to cover the grey area between local and BRT, but after reading your observations and thinking about it a little more, it seems like RapidRide is actually more like a local bus in terms of its routes.

I've seen the phrase "BRT light" before, but it seems imprecise. It's like "dairy-free cheese". No cheese is dairy free—the full phrase would be something like "dairy-free cheese imitation". BRT light imitates BRT, but isn't BRT. In that way it's somewhat misleading. The phrase "Bus with a high level of service" (BHLS), also has some traction (example), but is used only a little more frequently than "BRT light". Metro itself doesn't use any descriptor for RapidRide—"BRT" disappeared from their materials after the project left the planning phase. Perhaps this article should follow suit, and just call it a "bus system" without further qualification. It's not very detailed, but it's at least less controversial. Ibadibam (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now I remember why I used "express": that's the way it's phrased for Rapid Ride, the similarly named, similarly painted and similarly operated route in Albuquerque. Ibadibam (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with using the ITDP's BRT standard is that while they have great examples of best practices worldwide... they don't really reflect the state of BRT in the US (I wish it did!). Consider that LA Metro's Orange Line (arguably the gold standard of BRT in the US) only qualifies as a bronze level system under the ITDP's scale. This is a bus that really truly does act like rapid transit, traveling in an exclusive right of way, stopping at real stations that are spaced far apart, no on-board fare collection. Heck, the Orange Line travels faster than some of LA's light rail lines... yet it only qualifies as bronze. As a matter of fact... as of January 2013 only 5 lines in the US scored high enough to qualify as "true BRT". Even Community Transit's "Swift Bus Rapid Transit" doesn't count as "true BRT" on that scale. The question becomes if it's not BRT... what do we call a system like Swift... let alone RapidRide??


 * One of BRT's weaknesses as a transportation technology is there is a lot ways to cut corners (to cut costs)... and most cities choose BRT because they don't have the money or political power to build a rail-based rapid transit system. Like I said before RapidRide was at best half-assed try at BRT (and really an excuse to get some federal funding for King County Metro.)


 * Part of my problem is there is some grey area between a "limited-stop" and an "express" bus. In most cities a "limited-stop" bus runs parallel to an all-stops local bus, whereas an "express" bus makes local stops in one area, has a section with no or very few stops (usually on a faster road) and than makes local stops in another area. The problem is that the words "limited-stop", "express" and "rapid" are used interchangeably and can mean different things in different cities.


 * As a compromise... I propose we call RapidRide a "system of bus lines with some Bus Rapid Transit features" or a "system of limited-stop bus lines with some Bus Rapid Transit features". RickyCourtney (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I favor your first suggestion. This is a new type of bus service that really doesn't have a good definition yet...let's just keep it generic until some term becomes more commonplace in reliable sources. Like you said, different agencies in different cities use different terminology—they can market however they choose because there's no well-defined standard. The Federal Transit Administration may have done a bad job defining BRT when they developed requirements for obtaining grants for it, and now agencies have implemented systems to match those requirements, instead of the international standard based on the Latin American model. Does U.S. dilution of the model mean that we should water down the global definition of BRT? That's a difficult question that hits at the heart of Wikipedia's deepest flaw. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)