Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with Zoidberg and others that providing more direct routes from the Northeast Heights and the west side (not requiring transfers) to downtown and UNM makes much more sense than this plan from the perspective of transit needs alone.
At the same time, I think improving the Central Avenue "Route 66" corridor East of San Mateo Blvd. is the most important urban improvement investment the city can make, more than Edo. UNM draws more new people to Albuquerque than anything else every single year. The more Central Avenue improves, the more appealing UNM becomes as a place to study and to work, which creates a cycle of better candidates applying for jobs and for school, and more people wanting to remain in Albuquerque after they complete their degrees.
This plan may help do that, although obviously spending $150 million on sidewalk and streetscape improvements would be a much more direct way to accomplish that goal, but then again, we got federal funds by leading the redevelopment with transit. It could actually work. San Francisco build a historical light rail line a couple decades ago that connected two desirable neighborhoods (The Castro and the financial district) but went through lots of undesirable areas (Tenderloin and Civic Center). Those undesirable areas have now all exploded with development. Hard to know how much the streetcar line accounts for that dramatic change, but the street cars are absolutely packed.
Important to remember that college age kids can be ace job creators, especially engineersEmma and UNM has a great engineering and software development program. How many of our most important tech companies were started while their founders were in college?
Zoidberg, local line bus service is going to remain intact from what I understand.
Wasn't referring to the local line (though I'd like some data either way). The rapid ride (766, 777, 790) currently runs far more frequently along the shared sections of Central than once every 20 minutes (close to 6 minutes at peak time), and we'd be losing that.
Quote:
Furthermore, auto traffic will move onto Lead/Coal and Lomas. As for capacity, Lomas is currently underutilized, it can take the shift in automobiles from Central onto Lomas.
That's specious. Through-traffic already avoids Central during rush hour, and yet there are plenty of cars on Central, because they have business on or very near Central. A few cars may take alternate routes but far fewer than would be needed. I can't walk to a business on Central when I'm on Lomas (except that one place where they meet).
Quote:
Businesses tend to benefit from BRT when properly implemented and Albuquerque actually seems to be doing this one right! Pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users tend to spend more in local businesses than auto drivers.
I think we can agree to disagree on what doing it right actually involves (I argue getting rid of the dedicated lanes and going around the spots on Central where there are no stops are what's right here). Would like to see some numbers to back up your spending assertion, given that many pedestrians, cyclists and transit users are also motorists, depending on the day and time.
Quote:
As for car traffic at rush hour, even with BRT, assuming there isn't substantial mode shift, I doubt there will be much more waiting in traffic. Our streets already handle the cars very well it seems and the studies I believe take all of this into account.
How about we meet on Central & Girard at 5:00 today and you can point out to me the smooth traffic flows? You'll have to forgive me if I'm a few hours late because of traffic.
Quote:
The one thing I do agree with you is having more North/South routes in place. Guangzhou in China has a BRT system that has buses feed into it from other areas of the city, which is somewhat atypical of a BRT system, but it works great for their city and helps take a tremendous strain off streets. Something similar I've thought would work with the system they want to build here in Albuquerque. Perhaps the Blue Line could feed into the Central BRT, maybe additional routes on San Mateo, etc.. But we kind of have to have the first segment complete before we could consider that.
Changing context is expensive. If you have super-regular (every 3 minute) bus service, it's a great compromise. We'll never have that in this town, so people just drive or get rides instead of taking multiple buses when there should be one correctly routed bus available.
Quote:
As for the cost of tickets on Phoenix's light rail system, it'd be interesting to see how much our roads/highways/freeways cost. How much of our auto traffic is subsidized by gasoline subsidies, road subsidies, etc? how much by the user? I'd imagine a lot of people would be on the buses if we had to pay the true value of gasoline and what not.
Up until the last few years, federal gas taxes paid for federally funded roads, so there's a good proxy right there. State & local taxes I believe still do pay for all the streets in question. Buses pay those taxes as well but they are heavier and cause more wear on the streets than passenger cars do. Cars may not pay their fair share but taxpayers don't subsidize their drivers (as is the case with transit).
Check out Metro's greatest hits. People will die as a result of this boondoggle. Some of us may all be in favor of seeing motorists die by not paying attention, but we can already do that without spending tens of millions of dollars to see more. For $100M, we could employ a bunch more people and double the size of the city bus fleet by buying $100M worth of rapid ride buses (that'd pay for about 150 more of them).
Instead we get a lose-lose-lose-lose deal. BRT works (in some places). Dedicated BRT works (in some places). Not on Central, not with dedicated lanes.
Zoidberg, Girard and Central handles traffic just fine! Sometimes it might seem tight, but it sure flows! I've never waited more than two light cycles to pass through the intersection at rush periods and it's just as good as any intersection in town when it's not a rush period. We are lucky that we don't have the traffic of other cities of similar size, and the ART won't be to our detriment.
I totally agree with your argument about the fear around losing rapid ride service. After I spoke with people involved, my own fears were put to ease. I love the Red Line and use it frequently, especially now that there exists an app for it! But as far as the frequency of buses go, it's rarely ever that I experience the every 6-7 minute intervals we should have. Often, the rapid ride buses (and the poor 'ole 66) get bunched up and all arrive at one time, which turns a 7 minute wait into a 15-20 minute wait. This can largely be avoided using transit lanes, and I certainly don't think transit lanes need to be bus-only 24/7, though having transit lanes helps buses stay on schedule and if properly implemented can help maintain frequencies. Supposedly, according the the folks at ABQ Ride, we should be able to put an end to the bus-bunching we experience currently. Furthermore, it appears in the new updated BRT proposal that mixed-use lanes will be employed between Uptown to Central, which hints to me that the Red Line and Green Line will simply be replaced with newer, better buses so perhaps we'll be able to maintain the 7 minute frequency if it's ran similarly. I haven't had a chance to pose any questions since this new version has been posted, but I'll leave the link here and you can see for yourself. Hopefully, they listened to me (and others, maybe yourself included) when I stated it'd be preferable if the current Rapid Ride lines would just be upgraded to BRT standards. We will see.
As for transit users/peds/cyclists spending more of their money locally, googling returned me several links. I've read of these studies in the past on various planning websites, so their are certainly many materials out there relating to this, though a lot focusses in New York. This particular link relates more toward cyclists, it seems
I'll add that as you and Abraxas have stated, it'd be nice to have more transit lines to other parts of the city. I totally agree and it's one of the main reasons I support this project. As i stated, I really think our city is doing this properly, and one area in which we see this is true is the idea that Rapid Ride buses would be able to run on new routes throughout other regions of the city. So, we will not only have a BRT on Central and that part of town, we'll have high-quality express service that reaches into a greater percentage of our city. The Rapid Ride is certainly an easier brand to sell to people who use transit rarely or infrequently, and if we have services reaching more of the city, it benefits even the motorists who might not have the ability to take the bus even if they would like to do so by taking more vehicles off the road. More people in a bus means when you or I do have to drive, it's safer, faster, and less harsh to our environment.
As for safety, from the presentations given by the City of Albuquerque as well as other sources online, it seems BRT is an improvement for the safety of all road users, including motorists. The video you posted is interesting and I think accidents are simply unavoidable, but it seems the drivers were at fault in most of those collisions and not the transit operator. The videos seem to stress the danger of unaware drivers more so than a fault in modern American transit infrastructure. Further, I don't think the city(ies) that appear in the video necessarily had the same signalling system that is planned for our own system. I know that some in Nob Hill are concerned that the loss of their median will make things more dangerous for pedestrians but the planners seemed to indicate that BRT is safer than medians because the bus lane is generally not occupied and the buses that do occupy it are very visible, the traffic is slowed by narrower lanes, and the sidewalks are also widened. Just glancing through the PDF's provided by the city, I can't find it just yet, but I did find this link through google that is a good starting point in talking about the safety of such systems. I believe the former mayor of Bogotá also gave a speech on his city's BRT and he mentioned briefly that it helped improve safety in the city, or at least in the transit department.
It seems to me that there are plenty of concerns about our BRT, but I still see it as a net gain. With improved transit city-wide, people may be able to use their cars less, or at least won't be as stranded when their cars are in the shop. More than that, it ties together urban neighbourhoods which seems to be the city's plan with the new Innovate ABQ starting soon. It also helps give us a sleek, sexy transit line like they have in cities like Denver, which attract tons of people in my age group. If we really want to be innovative, we have to be a city that competes with our peers. I'd totally be okay with simply expanding local bus service and rapid ride, but the City has really won me over and I think it'll be great.
I agree with Zoidberg and others that providing more direct routes from the Northeast Heights and the west side(not requiring transfers)to downtown and UNM makes much more sense than this plan from the perspective of transit needs alone.
Well one part of that will be there. They want to extend ART into the heart of the west side, all the way up to 98th street and to Downtown and UNM without transfers. But they do need more connectors to it like the 'Unser line' I mentioned above. Perhaps it could even be extended north past I-40 into the NW Heights/Taylor Ranch area or Rio Rancho for increased ridership.
I suppose the tentative "Orange Line" would solve some of the "NE Heights" problem. Maybe in the future they could extend ART up Tramway to the, uh, tramway, as it is the biggest attraction in town that isn't accessible by bus.
We are lucky that we don't have the traffic of other cities of similar size, and the ART won't be to our detriment.
Agree with the first part only. You're starting to sound like an ART salesman. Hard to convince a salesman he's wrong about what he's selling.
Quote:
My argument about Lomas is not at all specious. You have reason that people will continue to use Central for terminal or origination traffic, but most of the through-traffic will be forced out of the neighbourhood onto the other thoroughfares. This project will help in forcing through traffic into other neighborhoods or will have the effect of getting people out of their cars and into transit...
There are no other thoroughfares. Lomas is too far away. Silver is a "bicycle boulevard" pegged at 18 MPH, so I don't think you could mean that. Copper is discontinuous so it doesn't work. Gold, Silver, Copper.. these don't cross the railroad tracks. There's no parallel side street west of the river or west of Lomas & Central.
I also don't get why forcing cars out of a commercial district into a neighborhood of houses is somehow a worthy goal. It sounds like if you accomplish nothing more than forcing cars into residential side streets by jamming up traffic, then you'd call that a win by itself.
Quote:
As for transit users/peds/cyclists spending more of their money locally, googling returned me several links. I've read of these studies in the past on various planning websites, so their are certainly many materials out there relating to this, though a lot focusses in New York. This particular link relates more toward cyclists, it seems
Manhattan's east village is your justification for jamming up Central? Sorry, I trust the local merchant more than the New Yorker who's never had it this good for traffic.
Quote:
I'll add that as you and Abraxas have stated, it'd be nice to have more transit lines to other parts of the city. I totally agree and it's one of the main reasons I support this project.
More transit lines and this project are mutually exclusive. We can spend 100 million on one or the other (or neither). We can't spend it on both, and we're not getting another 100 million. You do realize we can't have both for 100 million, right?
Quote:
The video you posted is interesting and I think accidents are simply unavoidable, but it seems the drivers were at fault in most of those collisions and not the transit operator.
Doy.
Quote:
I believe the former mayor of Bogotá also gave a speech on his city's BRT and he mentioned briefly that it helped improve safety in the city, or at least in the transit department.
Bogotá's traffic is legendarily awful. Really bad analogy.
Quote:
It seems to me that there are plenty of concerns about our BRT, but I still see it as a net gain. With improved transit city-wide, people may be able to use their cars less, or at least won't be as stranded when their cars are in the shop.
And yet you've completely missed the point. $100MM later, transit is not improved. You can't get new places with BRT (does it stop anywhere new?), you can't get to as many places, you can't get places even as fast, and now even the local buses are slower from network effects from increased congestion on Central. This project does not improve transit; it makes transit worse.
If you want to improve transit, look at the numbers. How about the city just buys you a full-sized bus with your own driver, going wherever you want? We could accommodate at least 100 such VIP's for half the price of this boondoggle. I'd consider that a better spend of money.
Oh come on Zoidberg, Lomas is 5 or so blocks from Central, that's hardly far by car. You can easily drive into or out of Downtown on Lomas from the east and then reach destinations and parking in the core quickly. BRT will only encourage more of this behaviour so capacity will be better shared on Downtown thoroughfares. Your arguments boil down to the idea that Central should exist first and foremost for cars even though a substantial number of our transit users use Central as well, not to mention most of our cyclists living within a few miles of Central. Reconnecting the downtown grid is also a part of the Innovate Albuquerque plan the last time I read those plans, including rebuilding copper across the tracks.
You have failed to substantiate any of your arguments, including yours concerning the idea that traffic will become more burdensome for motorists. This chart by the MRCOG demonstrates daily traffic on our city's roads. Central between Downtown and EDo handles about 21000 vehicles daily. A road with two lanes in each direction can easily handle upwards of 18000 vehicles daily (and this excludes usage from transit I believe, of which Central benefits greatly!). Even if a few thousand of these trips are diverted to Coal (which isn't anywhere near capacity), Lead, Lomas, and MLK, the East-West traffic through the area will be fine and will be perfectly capable of absorbing these changes in inflow and outflow, not to mention the increased transit ridership stimulated by the rapid transit system. Lomas is undercapacity and well-equipped to manage new vehicle traffic flowing into the core. Central between Downtown and Old Town was reduced to three lanes, yet it almost always seems empty despite carrying over 11,000 vehicles per day. Yet at the same time, the "road diet" there has stimulated many people to hop on their bikes or walk.
Your only proof of this system being dangerous is your video which has no weight whatsoever. It is senationalist and ignores the fact that motorists are at fault for the vast majority of road deaths. Many of those clips come from the light rail in Houston, TX which has successfully lowered the number of accidents using new signalling approaches as I already said our system would have from the start. Despite Houston having having one of the highest crash rates in North America, these crashes were rarely fatal. Safety on streets have slowly INCREASED there and we have seen more people ditching their rides for the rapid transit, even in car-loving Houston. Nonetheless, the segment of streets on which Houston built its first light rail line had pre-existing high collision rates, again making your arguments weak.
If you want safer streets, slow down cars. Fast cars = deadly collisions.
You state we can't expand the transit system at the same time as constructing the BRT. I simply disagree, as the City has already stated its intentions at doing such. After the completion of the BRT, all those Rapid Ride buses will start plowing new routes across Burque at minimal new costs. Would I support buying 150 new Rapid Ride buses? I definitely would say yes to that. But we have a different proposal on the table which brings a true rapid transit system to the center city of Albuquerque, which will serve people of all income levels, and will reach far across our most important region of the city connecting many of our central hubs. It will induce new demand for transit, and it will allow us to combat further autocongestion in the future.
Wow, such bile. I thought Canadians were more reserved.
Quote:
Reconnecting the downtown grid is also a part of the Innovate Albuquerque plan the last time I read those plans, including rebuilding copper across the tracks.
It's just a plan, and Copper stopping at Broadway vs. the tracks would not make much of a difference for through traffic (though it would help).
Quote:
This chart by the MRCOG demonstrates daily traffic on our city's roads. Central between Downtown and EDo handles about 21000 vehicles daily. A road with two lanes in each direction can easily handle upwards of 18000 vehicles daily
Wikipedia says 19000 is the threshold for 2 lanes in each direction. Your MRCOG chart shows 31200 vehicles in front of the university, which is where the median lanes are proposed and where the problems would be worst.
Quote:
(and this excludes usage from transit I believe, of which Central benefits greatly!). Even if a few thousand of these trips are diverted to Coal (which isn't anywhere near capacity), Lead, Lomas, and MLK, the East-West traffic through the area will be fine and will be perfectly capable of absorbing these changes in inflow and outflow, not to mention the increased transit ridership stimulated by the rapid transit system. Lomas is undercapacity and well-equipped to manage new vehicle traffic flowing into the core.
The numbers don't back you up on either claim. Taking 10000 cars off Central in front of the University would be necessary. Lomas is already exceeding 30000 vehicles east of downtown.
Quote:
Central between Downtown and Old Town was reduced to three lanes, yet it almost always seems empty despite carrying over 11,000 vehicles per day. Yet at the same time, the "road diet" there has stimulated many people to hop on their bikes or walk.
This is a low-traffic stretch of Central and also a stretch where they don't propose dedicated median lanes. I support this kind of transit. (All they have to do is get rid of the dedicated lanes between 1st and San Mateo and I'm good with the whole thing).
Quote:
Your only proof of this system being dangerous is your video which has no weight whatsoever.
Actually, it weighs about 41 tons according to the article.
Quote:
...If you want safer streets, slow down cars. Fast cars = deadly collisions.
Or we could just stop cars.. in traffic. Pretty safe.
Quote:
After the completion of the BRT, all those Rapid Ride buses will start plowing new routes across Burque at minimal new costs... proposal on the table which brings a true rapid transit system to the center city of Albuquerque, which will serve people of all income levels...
Rapid ride uses larger turn-ins and fancier bus shelters. Those costs were quite substantial when they built the last set a few short years ago.
People of all income levels do not ride transit in Albuquerque. The median income of a transit rider in Albuquerque is less than $18000 per year. That's not going to change with a new bus line.
Is this definitely going to happen? I'm pretty unhappy with these plans, for the sort of reasons Zoidberg is giving.
The upshot for me will probably be that I will avoid Central much more, which may be what the master planners want since I'm a driver, but fewer of my dollars will be spent there as well.
I don't see public transportation in this city transforming itself into something more appealing just because of these changes, and longer waiting times will only make it less appealing. I relied on the buses here for almost three years, so I do have some experience with them. Riding buses isn't always awful, but it has too many down sides. Once I got used to driving, I never looked back.
I moved here from living in Center City Philadelphia. I know the appeal of being able to get around mostly on foot (which is what I mostly did in any area that stretched well beyond Center City), with public transportation and taxis as a backup. Albuquerque is a very different city, however.
And how similar are those cities to Albuquerque in cultural and socioeconomic terms? I am not very familiar with Canada, but my guess would be that these cities are quite different from Albuquerque.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
