Simple Answers To Simple Questions
Want to know how we can speed up buses on Van Ness, one of the busiest routes in the City?
No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.
…I should not that ’speed up’ does not have to mean actually making the buses achieve higher miles-per-hour (MPH) levels - it could just mean increasing the ‘average speed’ of a trip by doing some BRT-like things, like removing stops, doing traffic signal timing, etc. I wanted to put this up in the main post to be fair, and it was meli’s comment that reminded me of this fact. This ‘increase average speed’ or ‘decrease trip time’ argument is well taken, but BRT proponents haven’t yet - that I know of - dealt with the fact that making buses into BRT or ‘express’ buses actually speeds them up in the MPH department - and as a pedestrian and cyclist and livable streets advocate, I don’t like the idea of making huge, fast-moving, multi-ton chunks of steel and glass move even faster on our city streets.
Leave comment (3)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
November 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Why not? Have you ever ridden a bus going up Van Ness? Not everyone can or wants to ride a bike, and if the public transit absolutely sucks, people are going to drive.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It could use an express line or something. The repetitive stops (I think) often make it slower. Could use a 49A-49B etc. that would skips stops therefore making it move forward faster. I dont ride the bus that much, so what do I know, my mom does though. But when I do I always think of the people that do ride it very often/daily and it could use lots of improvements obviously. Never mind that it is also a highway and I kinda get upset at people fighting to ride on it, when a block east is Polk st. which is such a better street to ride on. Anyways -
November 5th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
i’m with better transit, julie - i just don’t like the idea of speeding up buses. they’re already good at killing people. why make them more effective at that task? that’s what ’speeding up buses on Van Ness’ is about - speeding up buses, handing Van Ness over to buses - taking it away even more from walkers and bikers - if that’s even possible - making walking and riding on Van Ness even more difficult and dangerous. BRT proponents say that BRT is safer for pedestrians and bikers. There is no proof for that claim at all. None. In fact, the only evidence I’ve seen directly contradicts this claim - more pedestrians are killed, and they’re even chased off of roads that go BRT - they simply stop walking on/near/around them. I suspect the same is true for bicyclists.
we should give people the option to ride to their destinations. right now it’s just not realistic for most people because riding can feel so incredibly dangerous, and often is a terrible experience. Sunday Streets is a better indication of what we can achieve with a bike-friendly city.
i think most people can ride a bike, and if we allowed them to, most people would ride a bike. i think most people would want to ride a bike if the streets allowed it - right now, they don’t. the only people who bike in this city are totally crazy. on a 10-point scale for bike-friendliness, san francisco is about a -3. that needs to change. speeding up buses - making the streets even more hostile to walkers and bikers - is not going the change we need.
there’s actually very little evidence that new or improved bus service attracts new riders - especially people who own cars. for attracting new riders - people who would otherwise drive - there is ample evidence to suggest that rail solutions are better than BRT/bus solutions at attracting new riders. if we were serious about transportation in this town - serious about getting people out of their cars - we’d be building more rail (and bike) infrastructure, not more bus infrastructure.