Stop Spacing and Arterials

Rob has a good evaluation post up about the slow going Health Line BRT in Cleveland. Ultimately the planners weren't thinking of Rapid Transit and probably had too many people to please when they decided to have so many stops on the dedicated ROW. But this isn't just an issue that keeps BRT below 10 miles per hour, the T Third line in San Francisco has a similar issue. It has its own ROW down the center of Third Street, yet it has so many stops and crossings that the schedule maxes out at 12 miles per hour. Compare this to Rob's example of the Red line in Cleveland that goes 25 mph.

But its a balancing act of serving the most people possible and making the line go fast. For example the FTA sometimes goes to far and the running joke is that the cost effectiveness rating would be a great measure if you didn't have to have stations on the line. But something we might think about when planning these lines is that perhaps we don't need stops so close, and also that signal priority for buses and trains is imporant in making these generally longer haul services competitive with auto trips.

"This City is Supposed to Be Green"

Yes it is. But we have a fake green mayor. So this argument falls on deaf ears at city hall.

"I get that times are tough," Shelley Keith, 19, said as she waited for either a 14-Mission or a 26-Valencia for her trip home to Bernal Heights on Friday afternoon. "What I don't get is why cut public transportation. This is supposed to be a green city."

Transit riders get it. It's San Francisco's leadership that can't get their heads around that idea. Wake up you emerald aristocracy. It's times like these we need transit most. Congestion pricing for carbon cars anyone?

So Basically...

the TEP was just a way to figure out which routes to cut. Awesome. You know, more people would take transit if you weren't always screwing them over. Though its not just Muni. You can give a big kiss to your state legislature for giving transit the bird over the next five years. And Gavin, you can take your Gubernatorial run and shove it down your fake green... anyone else angry?

Service Levels & Income

How about this cliche fest. The Examiner writes about how San Franciscans are tougher than the rest of the bay area when it comes to walking to transit through high crime areas. But in reading it, some of the writing made me skeptical that this was a real study or whether people didn't just take stereotypes into the paper:

In places like Oakland, Berkeley and Sunnyvale, the high-crime neighborhoods tend to scare people away from using nearby transit services, the study found. Folks had a tendency to walk less in those neighborhoods, choosing to drive instead, according to a new study from the Mineta Transportation Institute.
...
“In [San Francisco] neighborhoods where there was more crime, people were most likely to use transit,” said Dr. Christopher Ferrell, one of the study’s principal authors.
...
He added that The City’s transit services tend to be located in high-density areas, which invariably attract crime.
...
As expected, those who chose to live in suburban areas were more inclined to avoid walking in high-crime areas and using transit hubs within those areas. But even in a dense urban city such as Oakland, folks had a propensity to avoid public-transit hubs in high-crime neighborhoods.

Seems to me that this has nothing to do with crime but rather to do with transit service levels & income levels & self selection. What am I missing?