Jump to content

MetroShadow

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

MetroShadow last won the day on August 13

MetroShadow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

189 Top Contributor

About MetroShadow

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    _dividexzero
  • Instagram
    Dividexzero

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oakland, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

17610 profile views
  1. Delete 226. Add 215 and 641. And increase frequency on 225. CTA will need to give up some bays.
  2. Considering a major service change can happen during any given cycle, it might be better to wait until August 2020 anyway. Usually it’s equipment, driver availability, and/or construction with bays.
  3. Correct. One thing of note: some routes are blocked to assign ONLY a certain bus. Each run may be assigned a certain size (example: west could assign a 35’ on the driver sheet and that’s what would be sent out - or somehow you’d get a 40’). I know of at least four other divisions that does this too. Essentially if trips have higher loads than others, the larger buses (artics if Pace had any) would have priority. Same for smaller loads and a 30’ would be pushed out
  4. Bus stop standards won’t allow it, ADA requirements won’t allow it. Walkability isn’t allowed either.
  5. Great shots. /just a little homesick right now
  6. Correct but with service changes, its driver and equipment availability.
  7. Not necessarily. You can do them wholesale and implement changes incrementally. Doesn’t violate title VI, especially with wholesale restructuring. Boards may approve or amend at the monthly meetings Case in point, AC Transit has two restructuring: local service was done in phases with the public hearings done before them. Public Hearings: 2014-15 implementation dates: 2015, Summer 2016, March 2017, June 2018, December 2019, 2020-21 local: public hearing in 2017 implementation: 2018-present (the closure of Salesforce TC and driver shortages can stall it). My students wants AC transit to reject the F line changes after I spoke at the hearing and the board approved all of the changes.
  8. Neither idea works. 230 is one of those connector routes whose sole purpose to connecting mount prospect with DP and Rosemont; 250/Pulse D can make connections at DP without going out of the way back to Rosemont.
  9. Having worked there myself (different unit), from the planning/analysis side (and having taken 270 a lot), I was often frustrated with the concept that the local was slower. Not everyone is going to take the route from stop to stop; and if there's ridership between the transfer points, then great. Bus speeds are important too. The existing 270 is slow because of congestion and that lower bus speeds costs money (say $78/operating hour). The more time you spend on the road, the more it costs to operate (and those numbers add up). Remember that we can only go as fast as the idiot in front of you. The rapid/local hybrid with 10/30 overlay makes sense if your destination is a transfer point or the end of the lines. Local riders, less so. Take for example when I worked at Samtrans briefly. The ECR route (evolved from a 390/391 clusterfunk) is a 2.5 hour jaunt (3.0 hours plus in peak) running time one-way. Yes, that's a core route (several attempts to break that up, even after I left) where it is the spine of the network. The Rapid was put in place (Daly City BART to Redwood City TC/ Caltrain) to speed up trips between the two (it's faster even without TSP - and don't get me started on that). Now, the Rapid overlay is different (20 minutes peak/30 weekends) compared to Local (15 minutes all day/20 weekends). Maybe that could be the guidepost for future service (VTA 22/522 and 23/523) has similar overlays to 270/Pulse M. And I always thought that Pace was the bastard stepchild for the RTA compared to the other agencies. For us to do more, great, but also not at the risk of losing more riders.
  10. 330 and 303 are two different markets - duplication doesn't apply in this case, especially along Balmoral. Balmoral isn't served outside of the Shuttle; Important connections are available at Rosemont. 326 provided an important link back when that segment was added (2013?) 332 is a different market in its own right. 331 takes the west end of the 304 and creates a deviation at 60' frequencies. This protects any losses with 304 since 331 had better ridership and a newer market (LaGrange - Lyons - Brookfield/Riverside HS). 302 trips keep going east to Cicero. Duplication is more of an issue for longer stretches of road. To get to separate markets on shorter lengths isn't the case (see Higgins and 223/600's, 209/234)...332 covers 25th on parts and is still not a concern. Think about your destination, not so much the segment. I-190 is gonna I-190 regardless.
  11. Wrong. Apples to oranges comparison, especially (as Trainman mentioned), primarily peak service. And design standards of service would dictate that rapid rail, rapid bus, heavy rail, commuter rail are designed to take more people, farther and faster. You’re not going to do that with 1500 ridehail vehicles. And wait until the true price of a TNC vehicle becomes revealed to the passenger. The bottom has to dip elsewhere (or which is why TNC companies have started acquiring mobility companies like bikeshare or scooters)
×
×
  • Create New...