The structure pictured is not a "path", or "pathway". It is a highway structure for both walk and bike, with separte striped lanes for each. A highway is defined as public way freely accessible and open to everyone. A structure for just motor vehicles is not accessable or freely open to everyone, and therefore not truly public. Lets build our public ways to be truly accessible for everyone. 

True Religion shirts for women

true religion brand
cheap true religion jeans
true religion brand jeans
true religion uk
moncler vest
moncler uk
moncler women jackets
moncler men jackets
moncler down jackets
moncler down coat
moncler jacket
cheap moncler

-Best Regards,

Davidoff 4000

You might be interested to this related
site also, pls do
Check here at :
http://www.efreightdirectory.com/

Thanks!

Hopefully they will see sense and extend the red line along the whole route as I bet that would reduce the travel times by more than 50%, and save everyone the bother of changing from the bus to a train.

The line is a start and the buses are obviously going to be quicker than normal buses as they only have 14 stops and no traffic to contend with. Surely much better than normal buses but where it connects into.

Yes, the BRT runs in a much less dense area, with suburban style density in most of the places, outside of a few "activity centers" like NoHo, downtown Van Nuys and Warner Center.

But, having an LRT along this corridor is about making the whole system work more efficiently. Relatively few commuters travel only within the San Fernando Valley, though there are some. Many commuters are going from the SFV "over the hill" into the Los Angeles basin, into downtown, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Century City, or West L.A. Eventually, all these areas will or could be served by rail. The Orange Line could connect to the Red Line as it does now, making it LRT to heavy rail instead of BRT to heavy rail. Then, a commute from, say Canoga Park to Hollywood would take 35 minutes instead of the 65 minutes it currently takes. And before we even built a rail system? Forget it, that would have been a 90 minute bus ride, even on a "freeway express" bus.

Having said all that, at the very least Muni and the City of SF ought to get off their asses and, just off the top of my head, put BRT on Geary and Van Ness, and extend the F-line from Fisherman's Wharf to the Presidio, and... Aw, don't get me started.

It does not show that the Orange bus line was at capacity within months of opening and additional service can not be added do to delaying cross traffic. It does not show all of the Orange bus line riders who returned to driving after their poor experience of overcrowding, a rough ride and long running time.

This film does not show what a real failure this line is compared to how good a line it could have been as a LRT or an extension of the Red Line.

Although we would have loved to make it even more comprehensive a study, our objective is to produce under 5 minute films (and usually closer to 3 or 4) where we can show the general public bike, ped, open space and transit conditions and how they work. You could make an hour film on Orange Line BRT, but the question is how many people would want to watch it.

In the write up we did point out it is a former rail right of way and did mention there is a big push to convert the corridor back to rail. But that is not for us to decide. Would it work better as LRT? At this point it probably could. But again, that would require investment and more planning.

One thing - again - that I will point out, anytime you post a video on how great BRT - you will always get people who believe hands down that LRT is the only way to go. And the opposite is true of some BRT advocates fighting for BRT when LRT is good. The truth is, both are systems that move people - usually effectively - and some may be apropos for some cities/corridors and not for others. I have seen this back and forth squabbling on so many sites and it is very tiring to watch. Sure, learn from each instance and move on, but for commenter #2 to write that it is an embarrassment, that the buses go slow, and it is a lousy ride is just not true. Here in NYC, if we had buses running up the Avenues that even averaged running a steady 15 or 20 mph we would think it was a miracle...

As for the criticism in comment #2... to clarify, its accidents are mostly vehicle drivers hitting the bus itself, not the other way around. Cyclists are safely segregated from both bus and vehicle traffic. The orange line's corridor is best suited for light rail, that is correct, and MTA would have the option of converting at this point once the maximum number of buses have been added.

What's cooler about MTA's fee structure is that the pre-boarding payment is not only good for the Orange Line, but for all-day riding throughout the system. SF can benefit from this model for the Geary and Van Ness corridors by merely reconfiguring the roads; the bus infrastructure is already there.

Note that in the 14 miles of bus route they have 14 stops, implying a stop spacing of 1 per mile. Here in SF, we have 8-9 stops per mile. They have transit priority signaling while our buses stop and stop and stop some more. They have 35-55 mph hour buses, we have some buses that travel at 3mph, slower than walking. They have a 14 mile dedicated bikeway to go with their bus system. We have...

Congratulations to LA for creating this line. It really is fantastic. How can a place that has a car culture as strong as LA's do something like this while we in SF with a seemingly progressive culture are still fighting about the Geary BRT and other improvements?