In designing a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, various design choices are made. This article introduces a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) approach to examine the effectiveness of combinations of BRT characteristics (design choices) and their impact on ridership and occupancy . Robust factors for ridership in most configurations are, in line with expectations, offering a high frequency and easily accessible vehicles. Branding as a special tire is in some contexts like services around airports or campuses, not part of effective configurations in terms of ridership. However, success in generating higher average trip occupancy levels is achieved with coaches that are branded as a higher level of service. These regional services that fill in gaps in rail, combine long stop spacings with a shorter headway during morning peak hours. Based on enhanced bus services with a wide variety of BRT characteristics (n = 141), the followed method can be considered as a first step. To obtain more specific results, it is recommendable to narrow down the focus to bus services that have more characteristics in common. This study underlines once more that gaining ridership with enhanced bus services, is more than just offering a service in high frequencies.

To gain ridership, bus services need to offer more than just high frequencies. An attractive system design for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a result of various configurational choices concerning infrastructure, rolling stock and operations. To find out which configurations are preferred by potential and current passengers, a Discrete Choice Experiment was carried out in The Netherlands. For this study, eight BRT characteristics were included. Results (n = 1019) show that four characteristics are valued the most: frequency, service hours, reliability and stop spacing. The attractiveness of three different service formulas or configurations is evaluated. The more conventional bus configuration is preferred by the majority of the respondents. However, a considerable amount (25%) of respondents that prefer this configuration does not consider using this service formula. Configurations that either address offering more passenger comfort or higher capacity, do seem to be attractive to distinct passenger segments who are more likely to actually use the service. These appealing BRT configurations address different types of passenger segments and therefore could coexist on certain routes.