Quote:
Originally Posted by WolselyMan
-If we're building a backbone for a bus-only freeway system, which is what a properly conceived BRT system SHOULD look like, then why is the second line jam backed with tremendously expensive bus stations located in the middle of nowhere? Since they're utterly useless as any sort of pedestrian hub, (TOD not withstanding) the only reason anyone would be in those stations is to transfer between buses. Yet that defeats the whole purpose of BRT in the first place over rail, which is the ability avoid transfers between the rapid transit and local transit part of your commute.
-If we're actually trying to build a faux LRT line where quick travel times and conveniently located stations near populated areas is emphasized over eliminating transfers between transports and streamlining journeys. Why does it take a route that is neither the shortest nor most even slightly populated? If you wanna build BRT, BUILD IT AS BRT and not as an imaginary LRT that full grown adults can use to have a game of lets-play-pretend with. I guess it's to be the "bus freeway" conception after all.
-OK, so if it is, then why are we emphasizing stations over connections to the street grid then? There's a reason we don't put bus stops along freeways. That's because a freeways purpose is not to serve populated areas right next to it, but to serve as a shortcut for long distance travel across an entire city. It's an artery, which means you want many connections to access between the local traffic system (the street grid) and the rapid traffic system (the freeway). And yet for the two most important arterial bus routes the transit way will pass over, McGillivray and Bishop Grandin, they didn't design any access points to the transitway for buses going along MGV and BG! All that money being spent building all those pointlessly overbuilt stations on Chevrier, Clarence, and Parker could have went instead to reinforcing both the grade separation and grid connections to the rest of the existing streetscape. And yet now we're going to be stuck with completely empty stations and buses along McGillivray and Bishop Grandin that will have ZERO ability to actually take advantage of this whole new busway that's meant to serve them in the first place!
Here's a radical idea. How about NO stations along the BRT line. That's right, even on the already existing first of the rapid transit corridor. All that money we spent pumping up Osborne station with steroids could have instead gone towards updating all the bus stops around it in Osborne village. You know, where all the people actually are? The buses could pick people up those existing spots, and then move onto the rapid transit corridor. That way, everything would have been used for what it's best at. The local neighborhood stops for servicing passengers, and the corridor for speeding across the city. This is so obvious to me that it makes me want to cry from how stupid the city planning department is, and how much of it is actually staffed by genuine city planners.
|
I don't mean to start another debate on this, but I just wanted to further clarify my unpopular comments in that I just didn't know that's (highways for buses) what was expected. You have to keep in mind that I'm new to Winnipeg and I don't know the history of BRT development and promises here - I just know what's done in other places and I'm basing my opinions on that.
Aside from Ottawa, I actually can't think of a system where transitways are like highways that are meant for buses to come on and off of them. BRTs in Gatineau, LA, Albuquerque, etc all use the "median-LRT-but-buses" form that you speak about.
I'm not trying to comment on which is better or anything, but just contextualize why I appear to be almost talking about the wrong thing here.
Prev
Linear Mode
