 |
Re: Before it was a Bus route-Special dispensations? And, busways are "cheaper" so what;s your point?
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-25-2019 - 20:16
Yes, bus guy, on a train site, they are, in fact cheaper to build than rail projects...so what's your point?
Yes, s, there are about a hundred and one ways to make the Orangeline work better. This would include the use of higher capacity multiple articulated vehicles. And, despite the tendency of nut jobs on Altamont, and useless troll to attribute everything to some deep dark conspiracy, there is no need for any special "papal dispensation" from the almighty Gavinator, or even by the great leader our own big Cheeto in Washington (depending on your particular preferred brand of paranoid political conspiracy theory...?), in order to buy larger capacity busses. Yes, there are "buy America' and lack of vendor issues, but these can be overcome, if there is a will to do so.
I've seen some work that questions the cost effectiveness of larger busses as to there "economies of scale", given other cost factors. These multi-articulated buses are, however, used successfully used throughout the world, to increase bus capacity, and could potentially alleviate some of the Orangeline peak capacity problems. And multi door loading can improve dwell times and "speed up" service, at least marginally.
It has been a largely "local" political/institutional decision at MTA, from the first, to run the Orangeline as a kind of "poor man's" light rail, forcing unnecessary transfers, with systemic capacity problems, and peak bunching, numerous traffic conflicts (for which"they are putting in gates and "pre-rail" grades separation).
And now, it is a purely "local" political decisions that it is likely going to be converted to a "rail" line, to ameliorate the ever whiny, and never satisfied Valley, even though it is the worst rail investment in terms of new riders in LACMTA's list of projects.
I'm okay with other more cost effective alternatives. Not every transit solution is to do rail. And. LA's bus system has been neglected and not restructured to work "with" the rail system. which as the busses too, decline in productivity in the worsening traffic congestion. Which is resulting in declining ridership. B
The reality is that LA-and greater Sou Cal, is a huge megalopolis, with significant travel needs, and terrible traffic congestion, and more rail, urban, regional, and intra-regional, including a two hour LA SD service, and a connections to Brighline via Palmdale to Vegas in under 4 hours does make some sense, from a population and travel base, the size of Sou Cal. Which is, the last time I checked, about 5 times the size of Maz's Switzerland, but about the same geographic size.
Yes, s, there are about a hundred and one ways to make the Orangeline work better. This would include the use of higher capacity multiple articulated vehicles. And, despite the tendency of nut jobs on Altamont, and useless troll to attribute everything to some deep dark conspiracy, there is no need for any special "papal dispensation" from the almighty Gavinator, or even by the great leader our own big Cheeto in Washington (depending on your particular preferred brand of paranoid political conspiracy theory...?), in order to buy larger capacity busses. Yes, there are "buy America' and lack of vendor issues, but these can be overcome, if there is a will to do so.
I've seen some work that questions the cost effectiveness of larger busses as to there "economies of scale", given other cost factors. These multi-articulated buses are, however, used successfully used throughout the world, to increase bus capacity, and could potentially alleviate some of the Orangeline peak capacity problems. And multi door loading can improve dwell times and "speed up" service, at least marginally.
It has been a largely "local" political/institutional decision at MTA, from the first, to run the Orangeline as a kind of "poor man's" light rail, forcing unnecessary transfers, with systemic capacity problems, and peak bunching, numerous traffic conflicts (for which"they are putting in gates and "pre-rail" grades separation).
And now, it is a purely "local" political decisions that it is likely going to be converted to a "rail" line, to ameliorate the ever whiny, and never satisfied Valley, even though it is the worst rail investment in terms of new riders in LACMTA's list of projects.
I'm okay with other more cost effective alternatives. Not every transit solution is to do rail. And. LA's bus system has been neglected and not restructured to work "with" the rail system. which as the busses too, decline in productivity in the worsening traffic congestion. Which is resulting in declining ridership. B
The reality is that LA-and greater Sou Cal, is a huge megalopolis, with significant travel needs, and terrible traffic congestion, and more rail, urban, regional, and intra-regional, including a two hour LA SD service, and a connections to Brighline via Palmdale to Vegas in under 4 hours does make some sense, from a population and travel base, the size of Sou Cal. Which is, the last time I checked, about 5 times the size of Maz's Switzerland, but about the same geographic size.
