Home Open Account Help 388 users online

Passenger Trains > NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering


Date: 03/17/15 12:28
NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering
Author: hazegray




Date: 03/17/15 12:46
Re: NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering
Author: Lackawanna484

Good article, although I think the author generalizes too much from the closely linked Washington DC / Arlington VA fiascoes. As with everything the DC council touches, the H street project has been a community issue, touching on issues of race and class, as well as operational competence. If the Arlington project was being developed in a city a thousand miles away, people would already be riding it.

The Charlotte light rail is generally viewed as successful, the Seattle lines are successful, the three lines in NJ are seen as successful, etc. It can be done, and can be done in places with far more dire economic and crime statistics than DC. Camden NJ, for example.



Date: 03/17/15 13:09
Re: NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering
Author: Lurch_in_ABQ




Date: 03/17/15 13:44
Re: NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering
Author: Cumbresfan

Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.brtabq.com/

Articulated buses on a frequent schedule stopping curbside (current ABQRide operation) seem more reasonable than building a dedicated busway in the center of the street, especially in the University and Nob Hill areas where there are only two traffic lanes (each direction) and traffic is often gridlocked. It's true that the busways (if fenced from the one remaining traffic lane) will move faster. But having "stations" less frequently would seem a disadvantage. And think about cars in the single lane stopped behind a bus on the one-remaining curb bus route -- talk about road-rage!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/15 13:45 by Cumbresfan.



Date: 03/17/15 21:28
Re: NY Times: Streetcar Revival Wavering
Author: SDGreg

As a regular rider of the Mid-City Rapid line (BRT-light, emphasis on lite) that began service in San Diego in October 2014 between SDSU and Downtown San Diego, there are two things I prefer about the ART proposal:

- The efficiency of stops of the center-running lanes with shared space in the middle versus each lane having separate stations on the outside of the two bus lanes in the middle.
- The payment kiosk in the ART station plans suggests a plan for pre-payment before boarding.

The new San Diego service is better than what it replaced - longer hours of service, greater frequency, end-to-end times a little faster. The only real element of BRT it has beyond the new buses and stations and limited stops is signal priority. In practice, that seems to have little impact on travel times or on-time performance. It has dedicated lanes for only a few blocks of the entire route.

The most import elements that would improve speeds and reliability are the following in descending order of importance:
- Dedicated lanes
- Limited stops (there are still local routes with more closely-spaced stops along the entire Rapid route)
- All-door boarding (Muni in SF is doing this successfully - http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/03/why-buses-should-let-you-board-through-any-door-in-2-charts/387739/)
- Payment before boarding
- Signal priority

In San Diego, the transit agency killed the payment before boarding as too expensive, and NIMBY business owners killed the dedicated lanes along much of the route to preserve on-street parking. That lack of dedicated lanes results in slower and less reliable times during daytime hours.





Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > http://www.brtabq.com/
>
> Articulated buses on a frequent schedule stopping
> curbside (current ABQRide operation) seem more
> reasonable than building a dedicated busway in the
> center of the street, especially in the University
> and Nob Hill areas where there are only two
> traffic lanes (each direction) and traffic is
> often gridlocked. It's true that the busways (if
> fenced from the one remaining traffic lane) will
> move faster. But having "stations" less frequently
> would seem a disadvantage. And think about cars in
> the single lane stopped behind a bus on the
> one-remaining curb bus route -- talk about
> road-rage!!



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0492 seconds