I mean, the name "Arterial Bus Rapid Transit" is inaccurate at best and pretty baldly misleading IMO. It has few of the characteristics of BRT, and BRT itself is only really passable as rapid transit when it meets a set of very high standards that we've never committed to in Minnesota. IMO the better comparison is that it's a really awesome replacement for local bus service and the standard level of service we should have on our top-tier urban bus routes; comparing it to rapid transit is muddying the waters.
FISHMANPET wrote: ↑
March 21st, 2018, 10:23 am
An assertion that nobody has made ever?
Among people like us who pay a lot of attention to transit, sure, but politically this comparison happens all the time. The distinction between ABRT and BRT is nonexistent outside of Metro Transit and, let's say, Metro Transit Enthusiasts.
It only takes a couple minutes on the Strib website to find comments, letters, articles, editorials, and even state legislators comparing mixed-traffic bus service to actual rapid transit. Just look at this article,
where the headline refers to the A Line as "rapid bus service" and which goes out of its way to make cost comparisons to SWLRT. And like you said, we have a pisswater excuse in our own system reinforcing the false comparison.