 |
Re: That's not 25% of the Seattle Region, and it has nothing to do with the purported benefit or merits of these bus "lanes" ....
Author: BOB2
Date: 07-11-2019 - 16:38
les,
I know about this number, and you do know that 25% is only for an area defined as "downtown" Seattle, right?
It is a response that, once again, has nothing to do with the question.
Do take a lane BRT's in already highly congested auto corridor improve operational or travel times for bus riders, compared to the time costs, increased gas usage, and increased emissions, from taking those lanes and imposing those additional costs on them?
The answer is NO. It is not about service level, or stop placement, it is about travel time cost savings to bus users offsetting time cost penalties on drivers. And, based on the evidence I've collected, there is very little, if any time savings, in most cases, and no "evidence" of any on street segments, like are being proposed on Colorado, or Roscoe...
I suspect that the Seattle Tacoma region has about the same transit mode split as the Southern California percentage of about 4% of total regional trips by some form of public transit, and over 85% in a cars, as a driver or a passenger.
les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think it is a question of mode capacity or
> BRT station location, I think it is
> will it work. Seattle is known to have the most
> aggressive implementation of buses in the nation
> and has a population of which most use public
> transportation. But even Seattle realizes BRT's
> limitations(Seattle is only implementing it on the
> fringes of King County). "Despite massive job
> growth, just 25 percent of workers drove
> themselves in 2017." according to the results of
> the latest annual commuter survey by the Seattle
> Department of Transportation.
>
> It isn't converting lanes to BRT that is driving
> Seattle's success, but it more has to do with bus
> frequency and convenience of access. Sure, some
> BRT features don't hurt such as pre-board paying,
> level boarding and multiple boarding points. But
> BRT in its purest form is an unnecessary evil.
>
> You still have 35% in cars which makes it
> impossible to take their lanes away. (35% of 1-2
> million is still a lot of people)
>
> [www.citylab.com]
> ttle-keeps-slashing-its-downtown-driving-rate/5532
> 80/
>
>
>
>
I know about this number, and you do know that 25% is only for an area defined as "downtown" Seattle, right?
It is a response that, once again, has nothing to do with the question.
Do take a lane BRT's in already highly congested auto corridor improve operational or travel times for bus riders, compared to the time costs, increased gas usage, and increased emissions, from taking those lanes and imposing those additional costs on them?
The answer is NO. It is not about service level, or stop placement, it is about travel time cost savings to bus users offsetting time cost penalties on drivers. And, based on the evidence I've collected, there is very little, if any time savings, in most cases, and no "evidence" of any on street segments, like are being proposed on Colorado, or Roscoe...
I suspect that the Seattle Tacoma region has about the same transit mode split as the Southern California percentage of about 4% of total regional trips by some form of public transit, and over 85% in a cars, as a driver or a passenger.
les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think it is a question of mode capacity or
> BRT station location, I think it is
> will it work. Seattle is known to have the most
> aggressive implementation of buses in the nation
> and has a population of which most use public
> transportation. But even Seattle realizes BRT's
> limitations(Seattle is only implementing it on the
> fringes of King County). "Despite massive job
> growth, just 25 percent of workers drove
> themselves in 2017." according to the results of
> the latest annual commuter survey by the Seattle
> Department of Transportation.
>
> It isn't converting lanes to BRT that is driving
> Seattle's success, but it more has to do with bus
> frequency and convenience of access. Sure, some
> BRT features don't hurt such as pre-board paying,
> level boarding and multiple boarding points. But
> BRT in its purest form is an unnecessary evil.
>
> You still have 35% in cars which makes it
> impossible to take their lanes away. (35% of 1-2
> million is still a lot of people)
>
> [www.citylab.com]
> ttle-keeps-slashing-its-downtown-driving-rate/5532
> 80/
>
>
>
>
