Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan
To be clear, I thought I would try to compare Rapid Bus and Light Rail.
Because all transit operating on city streets is governed by speed limits, there is little inherent difference between bus and rail in terms of speed.
|
Misleading. Everybody knows when I talk about rail on Guadalupe, I mean "in its own lane".
And if you think the congestion on Guadalupe only adds a couple minutes, you're crazy; it added at least 15 minutes the last time I foolishly tried going that way on a bus in the afternoon (north from downtown). Not 15 minutes to get through the part from MLK to 27th; 15 EXTRA minutes over what it would be with no traffic (i.e. the LRT case).
Finally, there will be no political will to move the buses (and more importantly the stop infrastructure, which can't really be 'moved') to a new corridor - it's foolish to think otherwise based on history here and in other cities. Not for decades more, at least.
Also, this:
Quote:
|
So yes, Rapid Bus is largely a rebranding of the existing limited stop services, but it also is an upgrade to that service. Rapid Bus will have a more frequent schedule, so that alone will require additional buses. If Cap Metro had to continue using existing buses, they would have to reduce service somewhere else to offer more frequent service on the 101 and 103.
|
is misleading, too. It's not just that more #101 buses would be required; it's also quite obvious that the #1 will not continue to run at the same frequency it does now once (if) Rapid Bus is delivered, so no new rolling stock would necessarily be required here for the modest service improvements being proposed. Also, the comments about it being reasonable for the Feds to buy us new buses - misleading yet again. The "small starts" program is NOT supposed to be for established transit agencies to buy new vehicles for their fleet.
Sounds like JMVC to me, once again. Shilling for Capital Metro's RB/CR plans so he keeps employed, at the expense of Austin's urban rail plan.