The idea of BRT was put forward to use buses in order to imitate light rail services. However, in many countries, two factors have so far limited the full development of this concept: 1) the inadequate deployment of several projects due to an approach favouring lower costs over high quality, efficient solutions; and 2) limitations in bus capacity that make it difficult for them to provide the same level of service as rail solutions.

But first, let’s adequately define the notion of BRT because the term has been much abused. According to the official industry standard, BRT is:^1,2

• A high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective services at metro-level capacities. It does this through the provision of dedicated lanes, with busways and iconic stations typically aligned to the center of the road, off-board fare collection, and fast and frequent operations.

The industry uses a scoring system to define several deployment levels ranging from basic to bronze, silver and gold.^1,2 For example, in Canada and the United-States, no gold level project has ever been commissioned (most are classified bronze or basic). It should be noted that many projects purporting to be BRTs do not meet the minimum standards of the basic level. Much more than a simple improvement in bus services, a true BRT service provides infrastructure investments and an operating model that promote speed and efficiency. In other words, a BRT system encompasses three pillars: vehicles, infrastructure and efficient operations.

As part of the ongoing European eBRT 2030 project, the UITP has identified five fundamental criteria to characterize and benchmark a BRT system⁷:

• Right-of-way (vehicle priority infrastructure)
• Frequency and service span
• Stations convenience and accessibility
• Branding and communications
• Operational performance (speed and travel time)

Two factors limit BRT services: the service capability of the vehicles themselves and, by extension, the possibility of commissioning a sufficient number of vehicles during a given period.

A standard city bus carries around 80 passengers, an articulated bus (18 m) 130, and a bi-articulated bus (24 m) up to 180. In comparison, a tram (25 to 50 m) carries 170 to 350 passengers, and a light rail system up to 600.

Another issue is that driver costs account for around 50% of a bus network's operating budget. Doubling the number of buses to double a network's capacity is therefore economically unrealistic.

This is why light rail (trams) is often favored by cities: investment costs are financed by higher levels of government, while operating costs remain reasonable for municipalities.

• Pantero offers an alternative: road vehicles with capabilities comparable to those of trams, perfectly suited to dense urban areas. We are ushering in a new era for BRT: rapid road tram services (SRTR).