Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

august 🍂

a lot of US/canadian "better bus" redesigns involve more significant cuts in bus network coverage where ridership isn't offset by frequency boosts elsewhere service hours per capita for most bus systems are just too low to begin with, it's hard to see huge gains without properly funding the bus

Metro tried to make bus service better. Somehow, ridership and speeds are both downA year after Better Bus, reviews are mixed.51st.news
Обсуждение

Ответы

Jakob Creutzfeldt (I/me/mine) 🇺🇦🇬🇱

Here in CA, they built all these RapidBus lines connecting the Bay Area Rapid Transit rail stations. It never occurred to them there was already a fast and convenient way to get from one station to another. In order to create this rider free system, they killed half of the feeder lines.

august 🍂

another factor: these network redesigns cut a lot of low-use routes that run on low-traffic streets, that tend to have favourable reliability stats. throwing more buses on high ridership corridors is good but this is also where traffic congestion is high. bus lanes/transit priority is critical here

Ответ для august 🍂
august 🍂

still, you can't redesign your way out of insufficient funding/staffing to run good service. most of the poor performing US redesigns are trying to do that with very limited resources to begin with, & leave way too many people without usable transit. see VTA or ACTransit in the bay area, for example