Bus Rapid Transit System: Pros and Cons

BRT can be labelled as a more flexible mass transit compared to others because it allows other tire-based vehicles in the guided way to facilitate interconnection and performance enhancement (Deng and Nelson 2011).

Moreover, considering the political aspect of mass transit planning, BRT implementation can be done rapidly like before the next election cycle which makes it attractive to them. Notwithstanding, enactment of BRT in developed countries is slower than elsewhere due to planners’ and decision-makers’ preference for metro or rail systems and also due to funding regulations, including extensive public participation processes (Nikitas and Karlsson 2015). BRT is associated with a complex set of actors and stakeholders within the social and technical dimensions of the city which makes it difficult to implement and operate in a flawless manner. Studies show that neither BRT have only advantages over other public transport modes nor the stories of implementing BRT systems are always successful ones (Nikitas and Karlsson 2015). However, BRT can be seen as second best to rail-based alternatives though it is less permanent than a rail system. Urban planners often question the land development stimulation ability of BRT based on this argument. The fact that BRT is cheaper to implement than a rail system does not offset its capital intensiveness. On the flip side, BRT is far more expensive than any conventional bus system. The funding approval process is often time-consuming, as reducing the time window for the actual project implementation. Contestation arises from the car owners as constructing dedicated busway means constraining space for cars from the road. Although, in theory, it says implementing BRT can increase the amount of road space for other vehicles. Thus, implementation of BRT is entirely restricted by institutionalism rather than by inherent conceptual problems. The bus with High Levels of Service (BHLS) in Europe can have a substantial influence when implemented as part of the “co-modality” concept promoted by the EU—for instance, the coordination between public transport fleet operations and parking management systems to promote dedicated busways for BRT (Nikitas and Karlsson 2015). The following table provides an outlook on the advantages and disadvantages of a BRT system according to its various attributes.