Taking another look at London and probably other European cities, their wheelchair access seems simpler. The driver sees the person in wheelchair and pulls up close to the curb. The ramps (streetcar-style) deploy automatically at the center door and the wheelchair user gets on board. There are no fasteners, they tell you to put your brake on. (That might be against some Federal regulation over here.) The front door remains closed so nobody will obstruct the wheelchair. When the wheelchair user wishes to leave the bus, he or she pushes the special button to signal the driver. Process is repeated. Driver never has to get out of the seat. Disabled people in wheelchairs also ride free, eliminating the fare collection issue.

Well of course we would have to switch to an off bus payment system, or if they ever get the ORCA prepaid card going they could just require it, then it would be fast to pay as you enter, exit out the back.

The funny part of this whole thing is that they are talking about making all these great improvements to RapidRide, but don’t seem to bother making them for every bus.

For Seattle, doing the one seat rows or more bench seats would greatly help. It speeds up the boarding/alighting meaning the bus will be faster and people will spend less time standing. I don’t know how hard it is to do this but at least Metro should consider this in their next bus purchase given increasing ridership.

Justin, if riders exit in the back how will the “pay-as-you-leave” policy be enforced? Would it be reversed for that case, enter in the back and leave in the front? When the bus is packed, you’re still forced to squeeze through if you happen to sit farthest from the exit.

“I’ve been thinking about what we can do about really crowded routes like the 15 and 545, where the buses are already articulated and are still absolutely packed, and literally can’t accept any more riders. The headways are already as short as is practicable with a bus in traffic, and it’s not clear that there’s the money to put more buses on anyway.”

When ST studied costs and ridership in their mode choice process for crossing Lake Washington, phony BRT supporters (who happen to also oppose public transportation altogether) threw a hissy fit. Doug MacDonald was among this bunch. They wanted ST to compare costs between grade-separated light rail, and a basic HOV bus system. A system which Martin observes in his post. Rail-convertible BRT provides an honest comparison, because such a system provides the means for meeting ridership demand beyond just next year.

The fundamental flaw with HOV BRT lies in Martin’s statement above. At a certain point, the buses get packed, and the coaches start piling up (platooning) at stops and in traffic. Nothing like a big, long, slow wall of buses on the street when you’re in a car, and need to make a right turn.

Hence, the need to build capacity into the system the first time around.

Keep one thing in mind when you read the musings of anti-rail/anti-transit BRT advocates: they don’t care whether their program has the means to be operational or not. Since most of the Kemper Kreeps and right wing think tank types fundamentally oppose public subsidies for mass transit, operational failure = a positive outcome. Their hope is that a failed government project will then free up “market driven” transportation “solutions.” As in jitneys, and private for-profit bus operators.

Much of the privatization efforts we see coming to grand fruition with companies like Halliburton and Blackwater came evolved out of institutional breakdowns spearheaded by Ronald Reagan. They wanted to blow-up the government monopoly “stranglehold” back in the 80′s, so agencies like HUD were intentionally driven into the ground to foster private contracts who would reward the politicians who doled out money to them. You see, good, effective government services is actually a BAD thing in the hardcore conservative’s mind. And what, you ask, is the connection with transit?

Ron Sims should have caught on to the privatizing scam before signing up with that Bushie Urban Partnership grant program. The goal of this program is NOT to provide more effective public transit for blue, Bush-hating cities. The goal was to provide a carrot which would eventually lead to private, for-profit corporations to take ownership of public assets (such as roads) to advance the far-right’s agenda.

Some noted environmental organizations have also fallen for the congestion pricing trap, possibly unaware they were being manipulated by pro-freeway forces: the automobile and pavement industries, and by Big Oil and energy interests.

It shouldn’t be too tough to figure out what the trojan horse looks like, when the rubber tires are visible from the bottom of the trojan horse, and when an exhaust pipe emerges from the horse’s tail end.

it’s nice to see some thinking inside/outside the box but we need the county council and seattle city council / nickels to start getting downright demanding with metro to get changes made NOW and not 5 years from now after everyone’s forgotten.

Umm do you have any facts on this? In London people seemed to get on and off just fine, people just get moving down the stairs before the stop…

Fix THAT and it’ll help.

Just imagine the fun if we had some of the double-articulated buses!