From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Rail on Geary (Was: Re: rail technologies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:07:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <painpc0@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <180e0jINNjoo@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>> Muni is going to a proof-of-payment system on the Metro 
>> cars.  (This is from their 1991-2000 capital plan.)  That means 
>> that they will be able to hook several cars together with only 
>> one driver, and people will be able to enter and exit from all 
>> the doors.  This gives a much higher capacity *and* faster time 
>> in stops (because there will be more entrances), with one driver, 
>> just like a single bus.
>
>You could use proof of payment on limited stop buses also.  Given
>three wide doors on the artics, that should give about equal dwell
>time at stops.  The main stumbling point with proof of payment on
>local service (rail or bus) is that it's too easily avoided.  You
>see the fare inspector and get off at the next stop.  That can
>happen with either rail or bus.
 
POP seems to work pretty well where it's used.  Getting off BART at the
El Cerrito Del Norte station during afternoon rush hour -- the lines
take forever; I've been in one line that wasn't clear even when the
next train came in, thus ensuring perpetual lines -- has made me wish
strongly for POP.  I have noticed that POP is used a lot more on rail
than on buses; I don't know why.  In any case, the other advantages --
higher capacity, reduced driver cost -- remain.  My understanding is
that the reason they want to go to POP on Muni Metro is less for time
than to save the extra driver.  One POP officer can cover a lot more
trains than one driver, especially since a POP officer's main function
is to ensure honesty anyway.  ("Oh no!  Better not try to cheat.")  And
at eight-block-interval stations, it wouldn't be that easy to get off
at the next stop.

>> Moreover, most of the streetlights on Geary are rather long (that 
>> is, Geary gets a much longer green than the crossstreets) so 
>> that it wouldn't be too much of a burden to auto traffic to have 
>> signal pre-emption (where a remote control in the light rail car 
>> controls the traffic lights).
>
>You'd still have to stop for pedestrian traffic, since pedestrian
>signals generally last 30 seconds.  Streets like 19th also probably
>couldn't be preempted.
 
At big streets like Park Presidio or 25th Avenue there would be LRT 
stations anyway, so it wouldn't matter as much if the streetlight was 
there; you've got to wait in either case.  Pedestrian traffic is 
significant along Geary but it's not really a pedestrian business 
street like Clement to the north.  If you put pedestrian signals in 
with "press the button and wait to cross" buttons I don't think it 
would be all that significant.  It would be better than what they have 
now, although I suppose you could do some of that with 38L buses too.
 
>How about reserving the outside lanes for bus service?  Then both
>the locals and limiteds would benefit.  They could do this right
>away for the capital cost of some signs and paint.
 
Most-for-the-least is always a good plan, but you can't reserve outside 
lanes; deliveries, people turning right, people waiting for parking 
spaces, and so on, all use outside lanes.  I've never heard of an 
outside lane being reserved; just inside lanes.  And, as I'm sure you 
realize, inside lanes wouldn't help that much.  
 
>How frequent are the current 38L's anyway?
 
Very frequent.  Approximately one every 7 minutes both during peak 
periods and during the day.  From the schedule it looks like there is 
one regular 38 bus for each 38L bus, a ratio that probably would 
decrease (less local service) if light rail service were initiated.  
Looks like there is no evening 38L service, though; just 38 service.
 
>Regarding NIMBY and elevated structures, are there many houses
>actually facing Geary?  I don't get out there often, but I remember
>that it was almost all commercial.
 
Houses do not a neighborhood make.  There are actually some residential 
stretches along Geary, outer Geary especially but not exclusively, but 
even when there are not, the first building once you get around the 
corner is a residential unit whose inhabitants usually feel like they 
really live on Geary.
 
>Regarding the tourist draw, I know it's not a big factor, and
>shouldn't be built just for that (unless it would make money,
>which it wouldn't).  However, Skytrain reports that a lot of
>riders are visitors, and every bit helps.
 
We sure have interesting discussions here on bc.transportation, eh -- 
huh, what was that? :) :) :)
 
Hmm?  Well, I haven't seen BC Transit's figures on this kind of thing.  
Still, SkyTrain goes to some important places in Vancouver -- the 
passenger railroad station, the "Science World" museum, New Westminster 
Quay, as well as everything of much importance downtown -- I can't 
think of anything the casual visitor could possibly be interested in 
along the Geary route, except the Cliff House and the Palace of the 
Legion of Honor, neither of which are terribly important draws compared 
to the Golden Gate Bridge or Pier 39 or Golden Gate Park or the cable 
cars.  (The route would go to Union Square, presumably, but I suspect 
few tourists would find it terribly convenient from downtown 
origin points.)
 
 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
Newsgroups: ba.transportation