Orange Line / 35W@94: Downtown to Crosstown Project

[Southside]

As a daily user of 46th/35W Station and former daily rider of Chicago's L, I am convinced that online stations with buses running in HOT lanes provide an adequate and in many ways superior experience to trains. That said, mixing these 'LRT'-like stations with normal bus stations and routes makes it all vastly inferior to LRT. LRT's do not exit their guideway to save on a station at 66th Street. They do not wrestle with traffic to connect to the Marq/2 via 11th Street. They certainly do not exit their guideway to mix with city streets for a while.

The Red Line has already cheapened the Metro concept and if the Orange Line ever actually is implemented, it appears it will cheapen it further. I hypothesize that if BRT were actually built like a train without rails, it would be very successful in our region.

[Mdcastle]

My own opinion is any kind of bus doesn't belong on a major transit map, at least with the same ranking as other lines.- transit maps are for trains, and calling BRT a "train with rubber wheels" doesn't make it so. I had a fun time trying to find my way around San Francisco by rail because the map showed all the bus lines in addition to the rail lines which made it a confusing mess to interpret, and apparently there are several agencies in the Bay area, BART, MUNI, and I guess a couple of other by San Jose so the don't show each others lines on their maps, and don't take each others tickets.

Maybe have key bus lines (BRT, commuter coaches, express routes) be thin black lines or thinner, lesser colors- orange, yellow, silver, grey (that could still show major stops) as opposed to colors equal to rail?

[FISHMANPET]

What's special about rail that makes it worthy of a map and yet bus isn't?

[UptownSport]

Think Germany only had rail on major maps

[FISHMANPET]

What do you want a map to show you? Do you want it to show you routes that have frequent service? Is there anything about a bus that precludes it from offering frequent service? What if you want a map to show you routes that have a high average speed? Perhaps higher than the average speed of driving? While rail is more likely to offer that, there's no reason a bus can't operate in dedicated lanes that will make it quick.

I'll agree that BRT is often watered down in this country, but I don't think you should disqaulify a bus for no other reason than it runs on rubber wheels on road rather than steel wheels on steel rails. There's also nothing inherent in rail transit that makes it faster or more frequent than an equivalent bus service. The River Line in New Jersey is a diesel Light Rail that only runs between 6am and 10pm, much of it on single tracks, limiting service to every 15 minutes. While it's not bad transit, I certainly wouldn't call it great transit

[UptownSport]

Didn't speak German enough to set them straight at the time.

[Mdcastle]

When I'm looking at a major transit map, I want it to show rail lines. If it shows bus lines at all it should be in a way that makes it clear they're not rail lines. Because San Francisco has three different rail systems, and the only map that showed all three also showed bus lines and the rail lines got lost in the clutter, I had a hard time figuring out if it was feasible to take the train rather than driving in the second day we were in the city. (The first day we had to drive because we were coming in over the Bay Bridge leaving town via the Golden Gate Bridge heading north to Redwood Park).

[FISHMANPET]

But why do you not want it to show bus lines? What is it about a bus that you don't want (other than the fact that it's a bus).

[RailBaronYarr]

I think I've seen Mdcastle say in the past that he has a bias against buses from an earlier time in his life. Loud, smelly, hot (no AC), and bumpy. Won't ride them. Like a lot of people in this country, unfortunately. And not necessarily unjustified, given the complete lack of investment we've made in buses and their stop amenities over the past 50 years.

[Silophant]

Correct.

[orangevening]

I think I've seen Mdcastle say in the past that he has a bias against buses from an earlier time in his life. Loud, smelly, hot (no AC), and bumpy. Won't ride them. Like a lot of people in this country, unfortunately. And not necessarily unjustified, given the complete lack of investment we've made in buses and their stop amenities over the past 50 years.

There's a saying that nobody that has a choice takes a bus. Not completely the case IMO but close

[Viktor Vaughn]

There's a saying that nobody that has a choice takes a bus. Not completely the case IMO but close

Maybe that was true at one point, but now it's not even close. I work with a bunch of people who used to drive into the office everyday (and still could if they chose to), but started riding commuter buses in from the suburbs because they like it better. They can relax or get work done in route, don't show up tired and irrated from fighting traffic, it's actually faster when traffic is bad, and they save money. My firm moved downtown from the suburbs several years ago, and it took some of the oldtimers a while to adjust to transit, but it's one of those things, once you go bus, you never go... hmm.. not sure how to adapt that.

Another example would be young people with cars and valid drivers licenses moving to a place specifically because they could have too many drinks and hop a bus home and not incur cab fare or the expenses and hassle of a dui.

And then there is my two-year-old son. He is a choice bus rider since riding a bus is about the funnest thing ever (next to a ride on a fire engine).

[FISHMANPET]

I too base my views in an ever changing area based on experiences I had 30 years ago. Thankfully Mdcastle wasn't riding the New York city subway back in the 80s, or he'd hate rail transit too.

And since I wasn't feeling pissy enough back when Mdcastle originally posted that, I'll pose the question now:
What is inherent to a vehicle with rubber tires driving on asphalt or concrete that makes it slow, stinky, hot, or otherwise uncomfortable? What is inherent in a vehicle travelling with steel wheels on steel rails that makes it fast, clean smelling, temperature controlled, or otherwise comfortable?

And I don't ask these questions to troll or make anyone feel bad, because I understand those are legitimately your opinions based on experience. But I, and others here, would like this region to build the best transit system it can to serve diverse needs, and to do it at a reasonable cost. Many times a bus is the best choice to provide mobility and access at a reasonable price. And I want people to be able have a rational fact based discussion on mode choice, rather than resorting to "I rode a bus once and I didn't like it."

And one last question, for anybody that won't ride a bus (which in this forum is probably only Mdcastle, so again I don't mean this to be an attack on you personally), would you ride Montreal Metro system? Or any of these Rubber-tyred metro transit systems listed [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyr ... of_systems]here? If so, I'd be curious as to why you would ride them?

[Mdcastle]

Well, I'm not a politician so you don't have to worry about my views, rational or not, shaping public policy. And I never said that we shouldn't build busses, just that I personally don't use them, and I said my opinion is putting bus lines on a rail map with the same weight cheapens the branding. It does in fact irritate me when Strib commenters shout "boondoggle" at any transportation project that they don't personally benefit from.

When I was in San Francisco, the America's cup was in downtown so the Embarcadero streetcar was overloaded, and they were supplementing it with buses. Besides my perception of buses, the streetcar I knew exactly where it went. Even though the buses said "F" on them I was afraid (maybe irrationally) they'd turn someplace and I'd wind up in Oakland.

To answer your question, the Montreal metro looks like a train to me, so it's something I'd probably ride. One of my trip concepts is actually to go to Montreal (I'd fly into Boston and drive to Montreal and back to see more of Vermont and New Hampshire and upstate New York) so I might consider it if parking is inconvenient or expensive or the metro is especially convenient. Every BRT implementation I've seen looks like a bus, even if they call it "LRT on rubber" or some such declaration.

[Southside]

I suspect we generally associate buses with the poor and riding trains with sophisticated New Yorkers and Europeans. MetroTransit sending standing-room only buses to the one actual 'highway' BRT station in the system every 30 minutes certainly supports that association.

The enormous cost of government ran capital projects has decided that we need "rapid" alternatives to rail. Driverless technologies are going to revolutionize busing, possibly as soon as 2020. We just need to build bus infrastructure to allow it to be successful. A well implemented actual BRT Orange Line would be a fantastic start. A bus that's a bizarre mix of train on tires, city bus and express bus does not come close to fitting the bill.

[FISHMANPET]

Well, I'm not a politician so you don't have to worry about my views, rational or not, shaping public policy. And I never said that we shouldn't build busses, just that I personally don't use them, and I said my opinion is putting bus lines on a rail map with the same weight cheapens the branding. It does in fact irritate me when Strib commenters shout "boondoggle" at any transportation project that they don't personally benefit from.

When I was in San Francisco, the America's cup was in downtown so the Embarcadero streetcar was overloaded, and they were supplementing it with buses. Besides my perception of buses, the streetcar I knew exactly where it went. Even though the buses said "F" on them I was afraid (maybe irrationally) they'd turn someplace and I'd wind up in Oakland.

To answer your question, the Montreal metro looks like a train to me, so it's something I'd probably ride. One of my trip concepts is actually to go to Montreal (I'd fly into Boston and drive to Montreal and back to see more of Vermont and New Hampshire and upstate New York) so I might consider it if parking is inconvenient or expensive or the metro is especially convenient. Every BRT implementation I've seen looks like a bus, even if they call it "LRT on rubber" or some such declaration.

What is inherent to a bus that cheapens a transit system? Is it not possible for a bus to come frequently? Is it not possible for a bus to operate in a dedicated lane? And why would you consider the Montrial metro a train? Is it because of its frequent service and exclusive guide way? Is there something inherent to a bus that prevents it from offering frequent service or running in a dedicated service?

I don't think that every local bus route should be put on every map, but you have to look at what the map is trying to convey. Is it trying to convey routes that offer frequent service? Then why would we exclude bus routes that meet our frequency criteria? Is the map trying to convey services that run in a dedicated right of way? Then why would we exclude buses that meet that criteria? Metro Transit has a defined "Hi-Frequency" with specific criteria. The Blue line meets this criteria, as well as some heavily traveled local routes like the 16, 5, 21, and some others. Note that it doesn't include the Red Line, because it doesn't meet the criteria. They're not trying to force the Red Line to be something it's not, they've simply defined a criteria and included all routes that meet that criteria.

I've been to other cities and ridden local buses and even with a smartphone to guide me I can understand why a visitor wouldn't want to board the average local bus. If you don't know the city it can be difficult to figure out where to get off a bus once you're on it. But if there's a bus that stops every half mile or mile, and has clear signage inside the vehicle explaining the route and the stops, as well as announcement boards that announce the next stop (similar to our LRT trains), then I can pretty confidently board that bus and get to my destination.

Being afraid that a clearly marked bus is going to drastically veer of course for no particular reason, yeah, that's pretty irrational. And as to why I'm even typing this post, well,

[twincitizen]

Bigger map of the route alternatives being considered for 77th/Knox/American: https://metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/m ... ptions.pdf

For budgetary reasons, I'd like to see them opt for 3A right now (to make sure the damn thing gets funded/built at all), and eventually build the inside-lane ramp up to American Boulevard (3B) to avoid the lights & traffic at 82nd/35W.

I forgot about the meeting last night

[mattaudio]

Seems like they could build inside-lane ramps at American and 76th when 35W is changed here with the 494 interchange. This would eliminate lane weaves. In the meantime, 3A would be great.

[MNdible]

Route 1, please. If this is going to be rapid transit, it shouldn't be getting on and off the freeway every mile. Stay in the center lane.

[Silophant]

Yep. It makes me sad that, on a line they keep hyping as being "LRT on rubber tires", that they're even considering looping it off through surface streets so often. Trains don't do that, because it's not, in any sense, rapid.