[SecretAgentMan]

OK Where do I start? I’m going to try and address a number of issues as succinctly and completely as possible, while trying to keep it brief.

Rapid Bus is a limited stop service like the existing 101 and 103, BRT and LRT. Express Bus is not the same thing. Express Bus is more like commuter rail in that its goal is to connect remote locations as quick as possible. To this end, there are usually few stops in the middle of the route, and the vehicle takes the fastest possible route, usually a highway or rail corridor.

Limited stop services serve the entire length of a corridor with stops spaced more or less equally (somewhat closer than average in denser areas & somewhat further apart in less dense areas). Stops are spaced further apart than local services like regular bus or streetcar, focusing on speed over accessibility.

M1EK is absolutely correct that it is the limited stop service pattern that makes up probably 90% of the speed advantage. This is true whether you are talking about bus or rail.

Think of it this way: travel time lost to congestion on the Drag is probably not more than a few minutes at its very worse. People’s perception of the time lost is generally far greater than reality. When you take those few minutes in the context of a 20 mile trip, it has very little impact on the average speed of the trip.
Consider that each bus stop may take an average of a minute for passengers to board and unboard. If a bus stops every three blocks, the stops make up the majority of the time over a 20 mile trip. If the frequent stops cause the bus to get out of sync with the signal progression set up to serve cars driving a consistent speed, the bus pays a further penalty by having to stop at more lights. Reducing the number of stops and making the stops as fast as possible is the key to improving speed. Tools such as signal priority and even dedicated lanes may improve speed somewhat, but their chief role is to improve schedule reliability. Schedule reliability is critical when a transit network relies on timed transfers to make connections. If a local feeder bus has limited frequency, and a connection is missed, the passenger has to wait quite a while for the next bus.

So yes, Rapid Bus is largely a rebranding of the existing limited stop services, but it also is an upgrade to that service. Rapid Bus will have a more frequent schedule, so that alone will require additional buses. If Cap Metro had to continue using existing buses, they would have to reduce service somewhere else to offer more frequent service on the 101 and 103.

There are other features of Rapid Bus that are borrowed from light rail beyond limited stop service. Cap Metro probably will not begin procurement of the buses until after the budget is passed by Congress, so the exact buses are not known, but they have indicated their criteria in the Rapid Bus application to the FTA. The buses they wish to procure are low floor, with multiple doors to speed loading and unloading, similar to light rail. The aforementioned signal priority system will increase schedule reliability, and may increase speed somewhat. The buses will be equipped with GPS, and the stops will be equipped with real-time schedule information signs that will indicate if the bus is on schedule, and when the next bus will arrive. They will probably consider at least some of the buses to be 60 foot articulated buses that will have greater passenger capacity than standard 40 foot buses. Some manufacturers also make alternative fuel and/or hybrid buses intended for BRT use.

Any transit system that is to maintain existing service, let alone improve service, has to buy new buses on a fairly regular schedule. Buses do wear out, after all. It is fairly common for the FTA to fund the majority of bus purchases throughout the transit industry. Cap Metro is also receiving Stimulus funds to purchase other new buses.