{SA} VIA's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Plans Unveiled

[sirkingwilliam]

I have narrowed the choices down to:

thinkingrail.com

thinkinglightrail.com

thinklightrailsa.com (and its variants)

lightrailforsanantonio.com

[alexjon]

You could very well highlight that there's smaller cities with massive rail expansion like SLC, Utah

[oldmanshirt]

Ok, I need a little clarification on something. I'm gathering from a few of the comments here that because VIA doesn't buy into LRT, that means there's little chance of it happening in the near future. But if a LRT starter line gets put on the ballot and the voters approve it, how much authority (if any) would VIA have to resist it? Wouldn't the voice of the voters prevail?

[KeepSanAntonioLame]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

I have narrowed the choices down to:

thinkingrail.com

thinkinglightrail.com

thinklightrailsa.com (and its variants)

lightrailforsanantonio.com

I like the last one.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

Ok, I need a little clarification on something. I'm gathering from a few of the comments here that because VIA doesn't buy into LRT, that means there's little chance of it happening in the near future. But if a LRT starter line gets put on the ballot and the voters approve it, how much authority (if any) would VIA have to resist it? Wouldn't the voice of the voters prevail?

LRT getting passed on the ballot in the land of Cox is not very likely, regardless of how hopeful any of us are. And I doubt VIA would want to play ball in replacing their BRT with LRT, no matter what the vote says.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

this is for real.

might this "light-rail bias" erode with high gas prices?

Simple answer....no.

The light rail bias has been around before this high gas crisis. Some people see the bus as "dirty", but they would ride rail.

By the way, SA will be paying more to have BRT now and have to convert it later on. Buses are higher maintenance for one thing. Metro found it was cheaper to just go with LRT and not having to wait. Besides, BRT is usually just a component to an overall transit system (in North America). Not the main, integral part (like what VIA is doing).

[alexjon]

So much for Boston being a great example of BRT being cheap: http://www.transit.stunningabsurdity.com/?p=136

[alexjon]

Oh, and: http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/07/end-brt

[STLtoSA]

[QUOTE=sakyle04;3704441][QUOTE=STLtoSA;3704423]That would suck if I worked with people that think that they are too good for the bus. But would you really care what your co workers think? I know that I would not.

we actually live near downtown and commute outside of 1604, so that may be where the anti-bus sentiment comes from - the crowd that has never seen one within 5 miles of their neighborhood.

I understand that...

This is why I don't believe that any light rail should go beyond 410, unless access to the airport and/or Medical Center.

Commuter rail should go out to 1604, but there is no reason why LRT should go out to Stone Oak, Helotes, or Shertz.

[Trae]

Commuter rail from Austin to SA right? I don't think commuter rail would work in immediate SA. Do many people work Downtown?

[oldmanshirt]

If SA can get this BRT, the RN/DT streetcar, and the SA-A commuter rail up and running or at least u/c by '12, that would seem like a pretty big accomplishment at this point.

[M1EK]

The problem with BRT isn't that people are bad for not wanting to ride buses - it's that people are smart to not want to ride buses - because for the most part, buses suck, if you already have a car and don't have to pay a lot of money to park.

If your only answer to this is that you work with people who don't mind riding the bus, then this is a complete waste of time - any investment of this magnitude that is incapable of attracting new riders who previous drove is incredibly foolhardy.

[alexjon]

My roommate's workplace is less than a 35 minute walk from where we live, but he won't take the bus or walk. He gets free parking and the gas he uses is minor.

Me? I take the bus in the morning because it takes me about as long to wake up as a bus ride takes. I walk home in the afternoon since it's healthy and I end up beating the bus home.

Buses suck.

Oh! And think about this one: Greyhound costs $20 to do the Portland-Seattle run usually, but most people take the train, which costs between $72 and $84

[Trae]

Okay, now buses don't suck completely. They are good for connecting the neighborhoods with the rail lines (transfers). Waiting on the bus is guaranteed to be a longer wait than waiting on the rail though.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Oh! And think about this one: Greyhound costs $20 to do the Portland-Seattle run usually, but most people take the train, which costs between $72 and $84

this is because we're elitists and don't want to mix with "those people".

Kevin posted a good story about Cap Metro riders recently, which showed that once people realized that the bus wasn't so big and dirty and scary, it was a good option for them - whether they were saving money or just generally enjoying their commute more (anyone remember books - how would you like an extra hour a day to read them?).

We should be enlightened enough around here to be able to be PRO-RAIL without having to be ANTI-BUS. I think we all agree on the value of mass-transit in the society we would like to see. We can push for one without de-valuing another. More ridership (no matter the mode) will only bring us a greater wealth of options in the future.

[alexjon]

But BRT is anti-rail at its most fundamental level. Look at how it's marketed.

I don't like the bus based on speed and poor time-value savings. If I'm going to go up to Edmonds to go watch Orcas and Humpbacks, I'll take a city bus, but I walk almost anywhere that is under 5 miles away since it's generally faster.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by alexjon

But BRT is anti-rail at its most fundamental level. Look at how it's marketed.

I don't like the bus based on speed and poor time-value savings. If I'm going to go up to Edmonds to go watch Orcas and Humpbacks, I'll take a city bus, but I walk almost anywhere that is under 5 miles away since it's generally faster.

Ya, the marketing is what it is... I don't have to bash Starbucks' coffee if I think McDonalds' coffee is superior (or the other way around), even if the entities themselves decide to do engage in a marketing war.

I generally think coffee is good and I think everyone should be allowed to experience it. If that means encouraging the drinking of subpar coffee so as to introduce the benefits in general, then I think I should be for that...

[M1EK]

BRT (and Rapid Bus) is inevitably pushed as an alternative investment to rail, and the dollars are scarce, so it is damn well important to point out that it performs very very poorly compared to rail.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

Ya, the marketing is what it is... I don't have to bash Starbucks' coffee if I think McDonalds' coffee is superior (or the other way around), even if the entities themselves decide to do engage in a marketing war.

I generally think coffee is good and I think everyone should be allowed to experience it. If that means encouraging the drinking of subpar coffee so as to introduce the benefits in general, then I think I should be for that...

Subtle attempt at getting onto my level with the Starbucks dig and coffee references. Love it.

For the record, I don't like BRT. I don't want BRT. I hate it. I'd much rather they go with 60' artics and cut the number of stops, and I've said this.

M1EK nailed it on the money issue, something that is monumentally important up here with our BRT plans. The county executive up here made an illegal money grab in trying to amend the regional transportation ballot proposition with money for his BRT scheme, which is getting more expensive each year.

While the regional agency is putting in BRT anyway on a corridor that will be getting a new bridge (longest floating bridge in the world, btw), they are simply using a Rapid Bus form-- stations with normal 60' artics that traverse existing HOV and dedicated lanes -- the county executive wants all rail expansion to be in the form of BRT, full stop.

What he's proposing in several instances is to stop up corridors that require consideration for rail with his BRT. He's putting BRT and facilities heading north-south on an eventual LRT route, which will head east-west. Can you see how this could cause problems? The facilities in that station area would be blocking both elevated and grade-separated ground-level alignments.

He also gave the go-ahead for one local developer to build a network of tunnels through the downtown of the second densest non-Seattle core in the immediate Seattle region without the required EIS and Draft EIS process. The tunnels would effectively make the LRT line move several blocks away and away from the primary access points outside of that downtown's transit area. He has stated he also wants to consider BRT in that city, again, making elevated rail very difficult to put in.

American BRT is a con-job.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Subtle attempt at getting onto my level with the Starbucks dig and coffee references. Love it.

I am beginning to better understand the adamant opposition to BRT...

Thanks for the patient responses and the knowledge.