Comments on: Rapid Bus Minus

By: Whither East Bay BRT? « Transbay Blog

Whither East Bay BRT? « Transbay Blog — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:24:01 +0000

[...] many of the public speakers in favor of the funding shift were people from Berkeley who have been vocally opposed to BRT all along (and thus showed a less than good faith interest in preserving transit service), others were [...]

By: Zig

Zig — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:47:35 +0000

Sorry for posting without the spell check

Now working in Oakland I have to agree with David on this. I am interested in BRT but am not sure it is necessarly addresses the problem with AC and transit in the East Bay in general which IMO is fare structures and integration.

And when has smart land use ever followed investment in transit in the Bay Area (other than downtown SF-and not taking about puny TOD)

I think the 1R in my experience is quite adequate and pretty empty

Phasing for BRT makes sense. We have some of the improvements already. Now lets see the the land-use and work on fares

By: transfers « by the wayside

transfers « by the wayside — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:14:39 +0000

[...] down” scenario since it lacks a very clear definition.” In Berkeley, some BRT opponents appear to be trying to do just [...]

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:37:13 +0000

First, yes, I am most negative about Tele which is my own most used route. Second, my experience w/ the Rapid rollouts so far is that the shelters are loaded w/ stuff but very late being deployed and even later having Nextbus function. Sadly, the Nextbus displays aren’t yet at some of the more critical route junctions–example; when waiting for a northbound bus @Tele & 40th. For many riders either (18, 1,1r) will do but if the preferred were soon one would wait. We are still in 2008 dependent on staring down the street. The Emery go round system of a phone # for cell calls would be quicker to deploy cheaper both to install and maintain, especially at stops w/ no shelter.
As to costs, the entire project IS in the hundreds of millions, although obviously the Telegraph leg is not the bulk.
Yes the 38 local runs faster evenings (when it shows up!) but those buses are full; the 1 on Telegraph makes me worry that when I am older and much less able to just walk, it won’t be there because the ridership is so low. Striping the center lanes for the daylight hours w/ aggressive enforcement would give the buses priority in the critica hours at a pittance.
A word about development along Tele, I have been actively involved in planning/zoning issues for over 30 years. supportive of density. Assuming that more residential above storefront buildings go up, there will be more potential transit riders. The capacity constraint is not the street it is AC’s funding base which this week was sabotaged by the Hummernator in the amount of $19 million embezzled from taxes voted in specifically for transit. That will engender another round of death spira fare increase/service cuts. In such an atmosphere how can I support overpriced bells and whistles?

On a more detailed level, AC has a bad habit of very long routes with very different loads. The 1,1R are very heavily used East of downtown Oakland but most of those passengers are off before the bus gets to Telegraph–I am the exception. The full artic on E 14th is then half empty up to Berkeley. Given the punitive transfer rules it is hard to advocate for more rational route design, but clearly the equipment is out of balance w/ the ridership. Meanwhile BTW both riders and the Board member for Richmond are asking for bigger buses on the 72,M, on weekends. (The 72R has always been a 40 footer while the locals weekdays are mainly artics)
A check of the FAQS on AC’s page admits to $250 million after making deals w/ the cities who might pony up more. If that is a legitimate current estimat $350 mill counting missing city contributiuons/ ovveruns + inflation seems more likely. That IS a lot to pay for saving 5 minutes to downtown Oakland from Berkeley. and another five to ten alng E 14h.
BTW while this plan to take over lanes on E 14th has been plodding along, an entirely different beautification program has planted trees where there had been a parking lane–are you ready to cut down the trees for the cars?

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:09:21 +0000

Hi David, thanks for writing in. This project and other BRT projects are not just about improving ride quality, but also about increasing capacity, and there is a long-term goal of intensifying land uses around fixed guideways. The more the project is diluted, the fewer long-term benefits it will have.

Spending several hundred million $$ to build special stations/platforms which will be underused is a travesty given the severe route and frequency cuts coupled with constant fare hikes.
The platforms themselves do not cost several hundred million dollars. The entire project will cost less than several hundred million dollars, even with significant cost overruns. And is your complaint only about Telegraph, which is just a fraction of the whole route? If so, this cost prediction seems especially exaggerated.

In fact in the evening when 1R’s no longer run, given the few riders/stops the local is nearly as fast.
This isn’t unusual in the Bay Area. Even on the heavily used Geary line, limited service doesn’t run past the early evenings (though it’s proposed to be extended as a TEP improvement), and it doesn’t run on Sundays at all. Similar situation for VTA’s 522 line along El Camino Real. When the line becomes more popular, perhaps the need to extend 1R service will arise.

University Ave has far denser traffic particularly on weekends and has a recently built median which would be more useful as transit lanes.
Well, I certainly agree University is another natural place for transit-only lanes, and in fact, I’ve marked it as such on the East Bay BRT build-out map. And hopefully we’ll get exactly that when the 51 is converted, though I suppose we’ll have to brace for another political fight.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:38:15 +0000

Actually, one need not be a NIMBY to oppose AC’s BRT plans. Let me first say, I am transit dependent account low vision, a regular AC and BART rider and live a block off Telegraph near Alcatraz–a ten minute walk to Ashby BART 3 or less to the 1, 1R stop. I will add that I have lived in both Chicago and NYC so I have experience of serious public transit.
So, why do I oppose full BRT on Tele? because when I come back from my favorite Vietnamese restaurant in downtown Oakland in the 7-9 PM period there are usually less than a dozen riders on the 1 or 1R . In fact in the evening when 1R’s no longer run, given the few riders/stops the local is nearly as fast.
Saturdays AC doesn’t bother to run the ‘R’s’ north of downtown Oakland because even they see the market isn’t there.
Spending several hundred million $$ to build special stations/platforms which will be underused is a travesty given the severe route and frequency cuts coupled with constant fare hikes. Remember AC surcharges for transfers which are only good for a single use.. The ideal indeed as others have said is a BART/AC monthly like the Muni Fastpass because for MANY east bay trips one needs AC both to and from BART in order to get somewhere in a reasonable time. Because AC and BART do not cooperate in a rider useful way, AC is instead trying to reinvent the express network it had before BART opened. Those routes atrophied during the AC/BART Plus pass period–a brief era of a fare structure encouraging use of both systems to best advantage.
Certainly, given BART’s poor route locations many roughly parallel bus services are needed., but auto interference on telegraph is only serious for short distances and mostly at the height of rush hour.
University Ave has fardenser traffic particularly on weekends and has a recently built median which would be more useful as transit lanes.
One further comment, staffing the “Rapid” w/ lumbering articulateds is a poor resource allocation because a standard 40′ bus is far more nimble shifting lanes and then pulling into stops.

By: Becks

Becks — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:07:13 +0000

Eric – thanks for your analysis of the report. I’ve been so caught up in election season that I’ve had less time to spend on BRT. I agree with pretty much everything said in the comments above but wanted to add another reason why BBTOP’s positions are so ludicrous: The planned BRT project barely even goes through Berkeley. The vast majority of it is in Oakland and San Leandro. So if this vocal minority of Berkeley residents manages to kill the project, they’re mostly making life more difficult for transit riders in Oakland and San Leandro. But then again, I’m guessing these Berkeley NIMBYs care even less about out of city transit riders than they do about in city riders.

By: Zig

Zig — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:07:57 +0000

the comments about making due with BART unfortunately seem to be a challenge as well

I was at the El Cerrito strip mall adjacent to the BART station today. When I think about that place or the rebuilt mall next to San Bruno station or the Costco next to South City I wonder if we can get anything right if we can’t even get simple land use down

Democracy totally out of control. I can’t see the point in ever building another BART station

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:29:14 +0000

Yeah, I’ve also had the “rip out BART and start from scratch” urge more times than I can count. Put it on actual transit corridors, rather than freeway medians — but also standard gauge the whole thing. Unfortunately, we have to make do with what we’ve got. It would be nice if we had learned some lessons, but apparently we haven’t.

By: countZ

countZ — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:08:17 +0000

This BRT controversy also unwittingly shows just how badly BART screwed up when they built it back in the ’70s. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if they had put the Concord line under Broadway and the Richmond line under Telegraph.