A rule of thumb should be whether or not a map company would include the BRT system in a map of New York City. If it doesn't appear on any map other than as a standard bus route, then it has failed to enter the public consciousness as something above and beyond normal bus services.Let's compare this with Hook's definition of BRT in Part 3:
To be called BRT, a line must be a package of physical and operational components (stations, vehicles, running ways, passenger information, services, fare collection, traffic signal priority and other Intelligent Transportation System applications) that form a permanently integrated, customer-friendly, high performance system with a unique identity. BRT operations are generally tightly controlled by a technologically advanced system to keep service regular and reliable.All of these improvements are good, so we would want them on every bus route, right? But then it wouldn't be "above and beyond normal bus services," it would be normal bus service. It would be a standard bus route.
Why aren't standard bus routes marked on maps (other than bus maps)? Because there's too many of them. So if every route was BRT, they wouldn't all be marked on maps.
The fact that some mapmakers decide to mark certain routes means that those mapmakers think they're special. Do we really not want all the bus routes to be customer-friendly, high-performance, regular and reliable? Why shouldn't they all have signal priority, prepayment, decent vehicles and adequate passenger information? For that matter, why shouldn't they all have decent stations and running ways?