🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1bc609ad.0307170830.31ecaaec@posting.google.com>,
Ronald Kappesser <rrkap@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I agree that the 72R isn't BRT.  That's why I described it is rapid
>bus.  However, I think the 12 min headway is a problem because it
>eliminates the speed advantages that it has.  One of the reasons that
>Metro Rapid has been successful is that service is both fast enough
>and frequent enough to attract new riders.  I think that the risk of a
>12 min wait or being stuck on a slow bus is enough to make the service
>much less desirable.  Also, I don't think having the 7PM end in the
>service is as much of a problem, because there is other service along
>that route.
>

Recently, MTA has been moving away with that with their recent lines.
The 761, a similar corridor in density to San Pablo, has 30 minute
frequency on Sundays, and worse yet, *17* minute frequency during
the midday (now how am I supposed to plan my life around that,
especially since the times are not listed on the schedule?) Yes,
Wilshire is really frequent. But even Ventura is at about the 
same level as San Pablo, if not slightly less (13 minute service
middays). Of course, all rapid lines have weekend service, even
when it isn't that justified.

The other thing MTA has moved away from is simplicity. Many riders,
especially those from outside the area, don't know that Westwood
is east of Santa Monica or that Sherman Oaks is north of Westwood.
Ask someone from New York where "Montebello" is and you will 
probably get a blank stare. This cuts down on the ease of use of
the rapid bus. Now, at least riders from out of town on a shortline
will get a free continuation transfer if they aren't at their
final destination. With the advent of day passes, those people
will have to pay another fare, based on how the MTA is going.

>> The 72R is the first of several "BRT" routes AC wants to implement. Because
>> it could work without lane removal, it was the low-hanging fruit that could
>> be done first. Some of the others could be more contentious.
>> 
>
>This is also the case with the first Metro Rapid lines
>
>> The 51, for instance, often bunches up as it makes its way along College
>> Ave. A few years ago, AC proposed a modest plan to remove up to a dozen
>> parking spaces so that they could create a queue-jumping lane for buses
>> at Ashby during peak traffic times. The cretins in the Berkeley Public 
>> Works dept vetoed the idea for fear of upsetting merchants -- basically 
>> favoring several dozen shoppers over the needs of >10000 bus riders.
>
>LA has also had big problems on the 720 getting on street parking
>removed.  The compromise has been rush hour only bus lanes.

And even that requires a big EIR. I mean, you're just reconstructing
the right lane to concrete and putting in some shelters. What do
you need an EIR for? Yet there's that, there's "coordination meetings",
and all the rest. All for a simple change of an existing "fake lane"
(rush hour only lane) to bus usage.


-- 
Hank Fung					         fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Bears!			             http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus