 |
Re: Side note on speeds
Author: les
Date: 02-24-2020 - 05:14
For me, I have restless driver syndrome. So anytime I can leave the driving to someone else, within reason, I do it.
Years ago I did a contract in El Paso and I took their Mesa Metro Bus line to work a few times and I absolutely hated it. It was a maid run that made 10 yard spaced stops, came once a millennium and stopped at lease twice at every stop light.
I've recently engaged in another contract in the area and I have had a chance to ride their newer pseudo BRT line (BRIO) for the same route. Man what a difference pre-paid and level boarding, fewer and farther apart stops, synchronized lights and selective dedicated lanes (occurs mostly at the end of the route so not necessary to merge back into traffic) makes. One upgrade by itself I doubt would have mattered but as an accumulative affect what a difference.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to get into the argument about bus
> lanes on city streets. Those were after my time in
> the area, even in San Francisco.
>
> But I do think that commute speeds, door to door
> or at least from where you get on the main line to
> where you get off, cluster around 20-25 mph for
> long runs, 10-15 mph for short or city runs for a
> reason. Getting out of those speed bands is hard,
> even when driving yourself.
>
> My direct (as a user) observations: GGT commute
> bus (street through Santa Rosa, 101 to Pet Blvd
> then through Petaluma on street, then freeway all
> the way to Lombard St. in SF complete with HOV
> lanes in the '80s from Hamilton to Civic Center
> and Larkspur to Marin City) was carded at almost
> exactly 2 hours from the stop I got on at (SRJC)
> to off (at Polk/Golden Gate or at Howard/New
> Montgomery depending on job). That's almost
> exactly 50 miles. So, 25 mph average if my fingers
> and toes are working right. Usually a bit longer
> going home, and often up to an hour longer on
> Friday afternoons (approaching Muni speed). That
> compares with a more recent commute in the
> Sacramento area, light rail for 20 miles, in about
> an hour (can be figured by inspection - look Ma no
> fingers!). Or driving from Santa Rosa to SF (only
> done a couple of times a year, with riders to use
> the HOV lanes and get over the bridge free), in
> perhaps 10 minutes less than the bus. Or
> driving/bicycling in Fresno (7 miles in 20 min
> driving or 30 min bike; later 4 miles in 10 min
> driving or 15 min bike). Or in Santa Cruz: just
> under 4 miles in 15 min bike or 20 min driving
> (with a permit=hunting license for the
> across-the-street county lot) or 25 min bus &
> walk, all congested city streets (the bus had one
> of those signal pre-empters to use at one i/s that
> was always plugged in the afternoon). Or in Santa
> Rosa in the '70s, from near State Farm to County
> Center, through the Steele Lane i/s, in 10 minutes
> by bike or car (if my fingers are working right,
> that's 12 mph).
>
> The way I see it, transit of any kind can't
> compete on raw trip time with driving, but it can
> be close in very congested conditions. Where it
> sells (for buses) is commuting where you have a
> one-seat ride, often with the same people every
> day. Transfers kill you, even if trains are timed
> to meet the buses (BART and Sacramento's light
> rail) or run often (Muni, at least downtown). On a
> commute bus, you can get on and take a nap without
> expecting to be robbed or worse, and get off a
> modest walk from the destination. That, with
> somebody else worrying about the driving, is worth
> a great deal if reliably operated and well
> advertised. I've sometimes wondered why AC Transit
> never built up the premium-commuter clientele that
> GGT had. Admittedly it might have been seen as
> competing with BART in the years before BART got
> full. Doing it now would just be recognizing
> reality - BART doesn't have much more room to grow
> in the central area without spending really stupid
> amounts of money. And the shorter bus runs could
> be electric if somebody has a bunch of tax money
> to spend - see Foothill Transit's new runs in the
> LA area.
Years ago I did a contract in El Paso and I took their Mesa Metro Bus line to work a few times and I absolutely hated it. It was a maid run that made 10 yard spaced stops, came once a millennium and stopped at lease twice at every stop light.
I've recently engaged in another contract in the area and I have had a chance to ride their newer pseudo BRT line (BRIO) for the same route. Man what a difference pre-paid and level boarding, fewer and farther apart stops, synchronized lights and selective dedicated lanes (occurs mostly at the end of the route so not necessary to merge back into traffic) makes. One upgrade by itself I doubt would have mattered but as an accumulative affect what a difference.
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to get into the argument about bus
> lanes on city streets. Those were after my time in
> the area, even in San Francisco.
>
> But I do think that commute speeds, door to door
> or at least from where you get on the main line to
> where you get off, cluster around 20-25 mph for
> long runs, 10-15 mph for short or city runs for a
> reason. Getting out of those speed bands is hard,
> even when driving yourself.
>
> My direct (as a user) observations: GGT commute
> bus (street through Santa Rosa, 101 to Pet Blvd
> then through Petaluma on street, then freeway all
> the way to Lombard St. in SF complete with HOV
> lanes in the '80s from Hamilton to Civic Center
> and Larkspur to Marin City) was carded at almost
> exactly 2 hours from the stop I got on at (SRJC)
> to off (at Polk/Golden Gate or at Howard/New
> Montgomery depending on job). That's almost
> exactly 50 miles. So, 25 mph average if my fingers
> and toes are working right. Usually a bit longer
> going home, and often up to an hour longer on
> Friday afternoons (approaching Muni speed). That
> compares with a more recent commute in the
> Sacramento area, light rail for 20 miles, in about
> an hour (can be figured by inspection - look Ma no
> fingers!). Or driving from Santa Rosa to SF (only
> done a couple of times a year, with riders to use
> the HOV lanes and get over the bridge free), in
> perhaps 10 minutes less than the bus. Or
> driving/bicycling in Fresno (7 miles in 20 min
> driving or 30 min bike; later 4 miles in 10 min
> driving or 15 min bike). Or in Santa Cruz: just
> under 4 miles in 15 min bike or 20 min driving
> (with a permit=hunting license for the
> across-the-street county lot) or 25 min bus &
> walk, all congested city streets (the bus had one
> of those signal pre-empters to use at one i/s that
> was always plugged in the afternoon). Or in Santa
> Rosa in the '70s, from near State Farm to County
> Center, through the Steele Lane i/s, in 10 minutes
> by bike or car (if my fingers are working right,
> that's 12 mph).
>
> The way I see it, transit of any kind can't
> compete on raw trip time with driving, but it can
> be close in very congested conditions. Where it
> sells (for buses) is commuting where you have a
> one-seat ride, often with the same people every
> day. Transfers kill you, even if trains are timed
> to meet the buses (BART and Sacramento's light
> rail) or run often (Muni, at least downtown). On a
> commute bus, you can get on and take a nap without
> expecting to be robbed or worse, and get off a
> modest walk from the destination. That, with
> somebody else worrying about the driving, is worth
> a great deal if reliably operated and well
> advertised. I've sometimes wondered why AC Transit
> never built up the premium-commuter clientele that
> GGT had. Admittedly it might have been seen as
> competing with BART in the years before BART got
> full. Doing it now would just be recognizing
> reality - BART doesn't have much more room to grow
> in the central area without spending really stupid
> amounts of money. And the shorter bus runs could
> be electric if somebody has a bunch of tax money
> to spend - see Foothill Transit's new runs in the
> LA area.
