Editing Bus rapid transit (section)

=== Comparison with light rail ===
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2014}}
<ref name=":5" />After the first BRT system opened in 1971, cities were slow to adopt BRT because they believed that the capacity of BRT was limited to about 12,000 passengers per hour traveling in a given direction during peak demand. While this is a capacity rarely needed in the US (12,000 is more typical as a total daily ridership), in the developing world this capacity constraint (or rumor of a capacity constraint) was a significant argument in favor of heavy rail metro investments in some venues.

When TransMilenio opened in 2000, it changed the paradigm by giving buses a passing lane at each station stop and introducing express services within the BRT infrastructure. These innovations increased the maximum achieved capacity of a BRT system to 35,000 passengers per hour.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/More-Development-For-Your-Transit-Dollar_ITDP.pdf|title=More Development For Your Transit Dollar. An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors|page=20|first1=W. |last1=Hook |first2=S. |last2=Lotshaw |first3=A. |last3=Weinstock|publisher=Institute for Transportation and Development Policy|date=2013}}</ref> The single-lane roads of Istanbul Metrobus had been frequently blocked by Phileas buses breaking down, causing delays for all the buses in a single direction.<ref>"Happy with Metrobus, when there is no better alternative". ''Hurriyet Daily News''. 22 July 2009. Retrieved 5 November 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web|language=tr|title=Uzmanlar Uyarmıştı Ama Yanan Metrobüsün Faturası Ağır Oldu |url=https://gurmedia.nl/uzmanlar-uyarmisti-ama-yanan-metrobusun-faturasi-agir-oldu/ |website=Gurmedia Haberin Merkezi |date=25 March 2015 |access-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>{{verify source|reason=Originally cited as a web source but without a URL. Now found but need verification from a Turkish reader that it supports the text|date=August 2023}} After focusing on Mercedes-Benz buses, capacity increased to 45,000&nbsp;pph.<ref name="mercedes-benz-bus.com"/> Light rail, by comparison, has reported passenger capacities between 3,500&nbsp;pph (mainly street running) to 19,000&nbsp;pph (fully [[grade-separated]]).<ref>G. Gardner, J. C. Rutter and F. Kuhn (1994). ''The performance and potential of light rail transit in developing cities.'' Project Report No. PR69. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.</ref>

There are conditions that favor light rail over BRT, but they are fairly narrow. These conditions are a corridor with only one available lane in each direction, more than 16,000 passengers per direction per hour but less than 20,000, and a long block length, because the train cannot block intersections. These conditions are rare, but in that specific instance, light rail might have a minimal operational advantage.

The United States Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) summarized in the report "Mass Transit – Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise", the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provided funding for the construction of heavy rail and of light rail at that time, but not of BRT. The FTA funding of BRT "rather focuses on obtaining and sharing information on projects being pursued by local transit agencies".<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |title=GAO-01-984 Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-984.pdf |access-date=5 October 2023 |website=United States General Accounting Office |pages=25–33,30}}</ref> In spite of this different funding the capital costs of BRT systems were lower in many US communities than those of light rail systems and performance often similar.<ref name=":5" /> The GAO stated, BRT systems were generally more flexible compared to light rail<ref name=":5" /> and faster.<ref name=":5" /> "While transit officials noted a public bias toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference for rail over bus when service characteristics are equal."<ref name=":5" />