Metro, buried in a press release, unveiled the paint scheme for RapidRide buses. It pulls off the trick of being both ugly and insufficiently distinct from the (relatively attractive) regular Metro buses it operates with.
But there are three doors, which is a good sign. On routes where there’s something like a restricted right-of-way, like Pacific Highway, this will be good service, although I think the rebranding business is a mistake.
UPDATE 11:30AM: Frank at Orphan Road discovers the design inspiration for these buses.
I hope you saw Frank’s take on the bus. Quite hilarious.
I can say that if they did use those for RapidRide, I would either buy a house or change jobs so that I could take it every day.
Three doors is a huge improvement though.
just how are they going to make BRT work successfully in our current traffic?
Gordon,
Click on the “BRT” label for this post to review our copious posting on this subject.
BRT is designed, by using a variety of changes and improvements, to provide a higher quality of service than a regular bus route. Don’t get hung up on the word rapid.
Interestingly enough, RTC Chair/light rail hater John Stanton cited “all those different colors of buses” as a prime example of Puget Sound’s “balkanized” transit network.
Now, we have a new color to confuse him.
If John Stanton, Norm Rice, and all the other rail opponents behind governance “reform” actually used buses, they would realize that the different color schemes actually help – not hinder – use of the system. But, if you don’t ride the bus, all those colors are apparently a sign that “the system is broken.”
If I’m looking at a long line of buses at a transit center, and I want a long haul express, I look for the blue ST bus. If I’m just headed up the street, I look for the Metro Blue/Green and Yellow coaches (what ever happened to the old Rastafarian color scheme?)
Personally, I think it’s good they are branding Rapid Ride buses differently. What I don’t like about the whole Metro PR machine is the way they try to pretend buses can be substituted for rail, and somehow the neat colors and covered wheels will improve speed and reliability. (it won’t)
I don’t get the love of three doors. In my mind it just reduces seating capacity. I’d rather have a bus with two doors and off bus fare collection, than a three door bus.
Oh, and thinking about off bus fare collection, what prevents people from getting past the fare gates by just getting onto the platform from the road side of the platform?
Nickb,
http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/2008/belred-rr-0108.html#openhouse
Metro is considering a new payment system too:
RapidRide buses will have low floors and three doors, so people can get on and off quickly. A new, trial fare payment system will allow riders with passes to pay as they enter any door. The inside of the buses will be designed to make it easier for passengers to move to seats and exits.
daimajin, that doesn’t answer my questions. Why is the third door so beloved? e.g. Is the tradeoff between capacity and boarding times a reasonable one?
And the second question, is there anything that prevents someone from bypassing off bus fare collection and entering the station from the road side of the station?
The second question first, there would be fare boxes on each door, not on the platforms according to KCM.
First question, yes, there is less seating capacity (four fewer seats on the door side, but one more seat on the other side), but it increases the standing capacity and greatly speeds embarking and disembarking the bus.