Sure looks like the Hi-frequency service, but with Hi-speed as a bonus. ( And Hi-service on Hi-platforms?) Just call it Hi! : )
I went to China earlier this year. One of the things I wanted to do on this trip was try out the old tram line in Dalian. This is similar to our old streetcars. It runs in the middle of the streets and some of the stops do not have platforms, so you are let off in traffic or in the middle of a roundabout. But I noticed something about the way it was set up that got me using the bus more than usual. The trams and buses were done exactly the same. They had route numbers, the same signage, and dedicated stops (usually) with platforms. (See 'bus' stop below.)
It was remarkably easy to navigate even without a map or with little familiarity with the city. Even my limited Chinese was not a problem, though many places had English signage too. (Chinese was easier because I often only knew the Chinese name of the destinations.)
What's the point? This arterial brt bus connect rapid max thing we are trying to do is called in China, "the bus", (in Chinese 巴士 bāshì). To be clear, they have BRT there, and it is quite different. (See pics here
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=738298). It is called BRT. Clever.
In most cities in China, buses are given priority, have their own lanes where the street is large enough, and the routes stick to the large streets without diversions. Buses stop at every stop, which is labeled. Paying is easy, the price is on the payment box and often on the side of the bus next to the door. Usually it is 1元 (yuan), which you pay with a coin or a bill dropped into a box. (It is never 1.75) Sometimes both doors have a box. You get used to having coins on you. They are ubiquitous. There are no transfers.
Before the "this isn't China" argument, let's be clear why I mention this. Its appeal is simplicity. There are no schedules, no this fare at this time, that at another, no need for three coins you seldom have, no stop requests when you think you may be near where you are going but if you don't know what it looks like maybe you passed it, oh dammit! If this is kind of what we are going for with this system, we are getting overly excited with branding and studies and thinking we're on to something new. We are not. This is simplified, user-friendlier bus service. It is something we can do incrementally, on portions of routes, or on new routes.
We can simplify graphics and enhance stops. Just looking at what was learned from the Snelling route tells us something. If most people use 20 stops, make those the 20 stops. You don't need a map to navigate it, just a list of the stops will do, especially if the stops are a little more descriptive - "Hamline University" instead of "Snelling Ave & Hewitt Ave". Honestly, which one of you could find Hewitt Ave or even heard of it? The time points are not quite the same. The #3 has a time point at Eddy Hall but not Dinkytown. There is one at Eustis and Como, but not St Anthony Park. The map takes up two pages. By the time you decipher where you are going you've missed the bus.
You only need to get deeper into the info when people want it.
First layer: simple route - stay to a main street; simple description - a list of stops; simple schedule - approximately every x min.
Next layer, more detailed map, exact schedule.
An Arterial Bus Corridor (ABC, get it?) is nice, but let's not pat ourselves on the back so much over it. This kind of system is common in many places. We should learn from them. Or as Steve Jobs may have put it, "The killer app of the transit system should be the bus." Our buses are far from a killer app.