 |
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: les
Date: 07-11-2019 - 18:19
There was one BRT line scheduled for Seattle's Madison street but they've since changed the name to Rapid Ride G because of the opposition to lane loss. The only place they've been able to put BRT thus far is along 405 in which case it can also be called HOV transit accept for other BRT characteristics.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The interesting thing about all this is that there
> are precious few true (as in Curitiba) BRTs in the
> US, either existing or proposed. True BRT is a
> separated facility, much like light rail, but with
> buses rather than trains as rolling stock.
>
> Something like the LA Orange and Silver Lines is
> BRT. It mostly runs on a separate right of way and
> has station-like bus stops, similar to light rail.
> A limited-stop or express bus on the street, with
> or without fancy "stations" for bus stops, signal
> preemption, and exclusive bus lanes in bottleneck
> spots, is not BRT. It's enhanced bus service. That
> might be useful, and in cases where there's no
> practical way to build a separate bus lane it may
> be all that can be done. As Bob notes, the effect
> on car traffic needs to be taken into account;
> while some effect on car traffic can often be
> accepted if the buses are actually helped, it's a
> balancing act and too much reduction of car
> capacity results in a political liability among
> other bad things.
>
> SF has long had problems with the bus lanes on
> Mission Street. They help the buses, a little, but
> are often violated by drivers resulting in bus
> delays and accidents. At least, they've been there
> long enough that most drivers avoid Mission Street
> - just too much of a hassle. It'll be interesting
> to see what happens with Market, though, after
> their big new project to exclude private cars from
> it east of Van Ness really gets going (there's
> hope that the project will improve transit speeds
> on Market Street back into double digits).
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The interesting thing about all this is that there
> are precious few true (as in Curitiba) BRTs in the
> US, either existing or proposed. True BRT is a
> separated facility, much like light rail, but with
> buses rather than trains as rolling stock.
>
> Something like the LA Orange and Silver Lines is
> BRT. It mostly runs on a separate right of way and
> has station-like bus stops, similar to light rail.
> A limited-stop or express bus on the street, with
> or without fancy "stations" for bus stops, signal
> preemption, and exclusive bus lanes in bottleneck
> spots, is not BRT. It's enhanced bus service. That
> might be useful, and in cases where there's no
> practical way to build a separate bus lane it may
> be all that can be done. As Bob notes, the effect
> on car traffic needs to be taken into account;
> while some effect on car traffic can often be
> accepted if the buses are actually helped, it's a
> balancing act and too much reduction of car
> capacity results in a political liability among
> other bad things.
>
> SF has long had problems with the bus lanes on
> Mission Street. They help the buses, a little, but
> are often violated by drivers resulting in bus
> delays and accidents. At least, they've been there
> long enough that most drivers avoid Mission Street
> - just too much of a hassle. It'll be interesting
> to see what happens with Market, though, after
> their big new project to exclude private cars from
> it east of Van Ness really gets going (there's
> hope that the project will improve transit speeds
> on Market Street back into double digits).
