I'm not so sure.
What base benefit does that provide over a typical bus? Its doesn't get you where you're going necessarily faster or cheaper.
It looks like a cafe on wheels. Cool in concept, but it seems classist. People who actually need to take the bus likely won't have the technology necessary to use a system like that.
To me, it looks like a way for people with money to enjoy a bus ride without having to be around poorer people. That may not be their intention, but it looks like the result.
What base benefit does that provide over a typical bus? Its doesn't get you where you're going necessarily faster or cheaper.
It looks like a cafe on wheels. Cool in concept, but it seems classist. People who actually need to take the bus likely won't have the technology necessary to use a system like that.
To me, it looks like a way for people with money to enjoy a bus ride without having to be around poorer people. That may not be their intention, but it looks like the result.
To be honest, you're right. It's over the top luxurious.
But I was looking at it more from being non-stigmatized (simply due to not carrying any baggage) and mostly being a privately run thing. The street cars of St. Louis' heyday were private companies competing.
Why can't a similar model work today? It doesn't have to start with fixed rail like the street cars were or the N-S Metrolink that we all want would be. It can start with a fresh bus system.
The ideal change might be getting our public system running better, smoother, and more efficiently. But man has that been a struggle.
So I'm just offering up the idea of privatization as an alternative. I wish I had the money to to put in the same location as my mouth.
But I was looking at it more from being non-stigmatized (simply due to not carrying any baggage) and mostly being a privately run thing. The street cars of St. Louis' heyday were private companies competing.
Why can't a similar model work today? It doesn't have to start with fixed rail like the street cars were or the N-S Metrolink that we all want would be. It can start with a fresh bus system.
The ideal change might be getting our public system running better, smoother, and more efficiently. But man has that been a struggle.
So I'm just offering up the idea of privatization as an alternative. I wish I had the money to to put in the same location as my mouth.
- 1,792
I think reworking the current bus system is the easiest and most urgent step to take. Eliminate routes with lowest utilization. Increse frequency on more popular routes. Adjust routes to be more intuitive. Work with streets dept and MoDOT to make the road system more compatible to buses.
Buses need to work for regulars, but it also needs to be easily understood by noobs. Otherwise you can't capture new ridership.
Take a queue from Apple. Intuitive use trumps functionality.
Buses need to work for regulars, but it also needs to be easily understood by noobs. Otherwise you can't capture new ridership.
Take a queue from Apple. Intuitive use trumps functionality.
Seattle to Ask Voters for $900 Million (property tax) in Transportation Funding
http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/03/20/s ... n-funding/
http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/03/20/s ... n-funding/
- 9,559
From the article...
![]()
with a little something for everybody
The routes, frequency, and reliability.wabash wrote:What isn't intuitive about the bus system?
You can't trust our bus system to get you where you want go go, when you want to go, by when you need to get there.
The routes are all mangled. The frequency isn't high enough. They take too long. And they're often late.
We can't do that much about the late part. We can do a little bit about the length part (we don't need stops every 2 blocks). We can do as much as the budget will allow about the frequency part. We can do a TON about the routes.
The routes need to be simplified. Simple E-W, and N-S routes running on key corridors would do wonders. I can't figure out why we haven't moved to this already.
^We must be thinking of different bus systems.
The one I'm used to has pretty intuitive routes and runs on time. Name any major street in the city - it has a designated bus route. I suppose the frequencies could be better but that's the case for any system, and a bus schedule and/or smartphone pretty much takes care of that inconvenience.
The routes for the 1 & 2 are pretty crazy, but that's because that's how Wash. U. wants them.
The one I'm used to has pretty intuitive routes and runs on time. Name any major street in the city - it has a designated bus route. I suppose the frequencies could be better but that's the case for any system, and a bus schedule and/or smartphone pretty much takes care of that inconvenience.
The routes for the 1 & 2 are pretty crazy, but that's because that's how Wash. U. wants them.
I agree. Frequency is about my only major complaint.wabash wrote:^We must be thinking of different bus systems.
The one I'm used to has pretty intuitive routes and runs on time. Name any major street in the city - it has a designated bus route. I suppose the frequencies could be better but that's the case for any system, and a bus schedule and/or smartphone pretty much takes care of that inconvenience.
The 1 and 2 used to be run by Wash U's shuttle buses and vans. I still remember when Metro took them over.wabash wrote:The routes for the 1 & 2 are pretty crazy, but that's because that's how Wash. U. wants them.
Weird thing was the 2 route used to run through the Moorlands and DeMun neighborhoods. Once they switched to Metro buses everyone freaked out and the routes got changed to move them out.
The reason given for why the #2 doesn't run through DeMun because it couldn't make one of the turns.
They used the short Metro buses which were the same length as the airport shuttle style "vans" Wash U. had been using. The main complaint was the noise of the buses, but there was an underlying anti- Metro bus (and who is riding them) sentiment. Metro even offered to switch to the Call-A-Ride vans and the neighborhood still said no.quincunx wrote:The reason given for why the #2 doesn't run through DeMun because it couldn't make one of the turns.
Trust me: I lived in the neighborhood at the time and was active in the discussion.
Well another neighborhood resident told me that was the reason.
No, the #2 line run by Metro was always the smallest of their buses. The vans run by Wash U was much shorter.
No, the #2 line run by Metro was always the smallest of their buses. The vans run by Wash U was much shorter.
It's a little less mangled than I thought, but I still will argue the simplicity of the system. There are are loops and cut outs and even changes of direction all over.
http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/S ... em_Map.pdf
Too many of our bus routes try to take people to one place. So many of then are structured so that the run to or near downtown. Personally, I think that's poor design. I guess my ideal system requires a transfer most of the time, but I'm okay with that.
If you're southwest of downtown, I think you should hop on a bus that goes straight north, get off when you're due west of downtown, and hop on another bus that takes you into downtown.
That—to me—is intuitive. And it ensures that every area of the city is covered with decent frequency.
http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/S ... em_Map.pdf
Too many of our bus routes try to take people to one place. So many of then are structured so that the run to or near downtown. Personally, I think that's poor design. I guess my ideal system requires a transfer most of the time, but I'm okay with that.
If you're southwest of downtown, I think you should hop on a bus that goes straight north, get off when you're due west of downtown, and hop on another bus that takes you into downtown.
That—to me—is intuitive. And it ensures that every area of the city is covered with decent frequency.
They are probably responding to folks who don't like broken transfers or waiting in unfamiliar and scary places to transfer.
Transfer times and broken transfers are the worst part of a low frequency system. We could afford a higher freq system if it didn't have to serve such a large land area.
Transfer times and broken transfers are the worst part of a low frequency system. We could afford a higher freq system if it didn't have to serve such a large land area.
That's what the 70, 90, 95, and 16 do. Although the 10, 11, or 30 will get you Downtown faster.jstriebel wrote:If you're southwest of downtown, I think you should hop on a bus that goes straight north, get off when you're due west of downtown, and hop on another bus that takes you into downtown.
That—to me—is intuitive. And it ensures that every area of the city is covered with decent frequency.
That's 4 buses. That hardly covers a city our size underre the plan I'm talking about.
Further, downtown was just one example. I simply N-S and E-W set of bus routes could get you ANYWHERE in the city without having to know the routes. THAT would be intuitive.
Further, downtown was just one example. I simply N-S and E-W set of bus routes could get you ANYWHERE in the city without having to know the routes. THAT would be intuitive.
- 1,868
If you need to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time your options are usually "take a bus that goes directly from A to B once per hour" or "don't bother". If you aren't just using the bus to commute to your work in one of a few key employment centers, good luck.
But I wouldn't say it's "unintuitive", it just seems that way because it isn't worth anything in most cases. If you want to make it intuitive, post signs on every bus stop that say "just drive".
But I wouldn't say it's "unintuitive", it just seems that way because it isn't worth anything in most cases. If you want to make it intuitive, post signs on every bus stop that say "just drive".
^^I should have been more clear. Those four lines are just for Southwest City, which sounded like the part you were interested in. Having a system where you can get on without having to know the bus route is an interesting idea. Even in New York where the grid is completely straightforward it's a good idea to make sure you know where the bus is going before hopping on.
But, I think MH kind of alludes to the fact the the bus either works for you or it doesn't. I find it pretty quick, clean, convenient, affordable, and easy to use. But it's definitely not for everyone, and there are certainly always ways to improve it.
But, I think MH kind of alludes to the fact the the bus either works for you or it doesn't. I find it pretty quick, clean, convenient, affordable, and easy to use. But it's definitely not for everyone, and there are certainly always ways to improve it.
^I'd agree with that. What do you do when you're in another city with a subway and looking where to go? You check out the map on the platform or on the ceiling in the subway car. Having that on our bus system would be helpful.
Having express buses would also be great on major lines. That would speed up the service. Say Hampton, Kingshighway, Grand, and Broadway have express services that only stopped at the major stops (like the time point stops). All of those hit or get very close to metrolink stops. Wouldn't it be great if you lived in deep north or south city and it only took you ten minutes to connect to a metrolink station instead of a half hour?
Having express buses would also be great on major lines. That would speed up the service. Say Hampton, Kingshighway, Grand, and Broadway have express services that only stopped at the major stops (like the time point stops). All of those hit or get very close to metrolink stops. Wouldn't it be great if you lived in deep north or south city and it only took you ten minutes to connect to a metrolink station instead of a half hour?
I guess what I'm saying is that in a city where we don't seem particularly close to improving our fixed rail transit lines to being any more useful, it'd be nice if we invested in a very straight-forward bus system than ran frequently.
Even if you're okay with the current system, would anyone dislike a system that was simply full of N-S and E-W lines, with the ones on major corridors coming every 15 minutes and the other every 30? Or something like that?
Our bus system just isn't very useful right now. I live in front of a stop and work right by a stop, and it's just not useful. Because of frequency and length of trip.
Even if you're okay with the current system, would anyone dislike a system that was simply full of N-S and E-W lines, with the ones on major corridors coming every 15 minutes and the other every 30? Or something like that?
Our bus system just isn't very useful right now. I live in front of a stop and work right by a stop, and it's just not useful. Because of frequency and length of trip.
- 9,559
Senate Bill 540 the 2+2+2+indexed gas tax hike- Voted Do Pass S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee
Progress.dbInSouthCity wrote:Senate Bill 540 the 2+2+2+indexed gas tax hike- Voted Do Pass S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee