A network which relies on people to have no other options before they're likely to use it is not a very good network! What are their frequencies, what are their travel times.... https://twitter.com/urbanophile/status/959464896160256000 …
-
-
The push for frequent networks is important! Passengers hate waiting, and frequent service makes many more trips and combinations of trips easy--but BECAUSE it's important, we can't just pat ourselves on the back for achieving minimum qualifications! 4 per hour? MORE per hour!
Show this thread -
At least as recently as 2015, LA had plans for dedicated ROWs and 5-minute headways in the busiest parts of the city...did the plans get scrapped? Approved but not yet implemented? http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2015/03_march/20150326othersectorbrcitem2.pdf …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The solution, IMO, is to actually build infrastructure bthat guarantees dedicated ROW. That doesn't necessarily mean trains, but painted bus lanes on just some sections of a bus route aren't cutting it.
-
And frankly, I think we planners need to move away from this weird acceptance that "bus is just as good as rail" when in most cases that is plainly untrue. You need to invest so much to ensure a fully efficient network that rail seems like a better investment in comparison.
-
yes bus is only arguably "as good" as rail when it also has an exclusive ROW, high frequency, proper stations...and even then I'm not convinced; even in very controlled circumstances the bus is bumpier and lurches more, doesn't go as fast as trains could (cough Silver Line) etc
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.