Main Street MAX

[dangerboy]

MAX - 17 minutes
56X - 20 minutes
56 - 23 minutes

*MAX time is what the ATA is promoting as "Downtown to Plaza".
*56 times are for 10th & Main to 47th & Main.

I think it is fair to compare MAX with the 56X, since it is promoted as being faster and having fewer stops than regular busses.  Is 3 minutes the best they can do with all of the dedicated lanes, signal priority, and GPS tracking?

[trailerkid]

MAX - 17 minutes
56X - 20 minutes
56 - 23 minutes

*MAX time is what the ATA is promoting as "Downtown to Plaza".
*56 times are for 10th & Main to 47th & Main.

I think it is fair to compare MAX with the 56X, since it is promoted as being faster and having fewer stops than regular busses.  Is 3 minutes the best they can do with all of the dedicated lanes, signal priority, and GPS tracking?

Regardless of this criticism, and a valid one it is, I still believe that MAX will be a big hit considering it is still a standard bus.

[enough]

Route 56x demonstrates that faster transit service can be provided by limiting stops -- and by using I-35 and Southwest Trafficway instead of Main Street.  Considering that it's a commuter route -- only one trip in the morning and one in the evening -- I wouldn't consider 56x to be a good comparison.

A better test of MAX performance might be comparing ride+walk travel times between Waldo and 10th & Main.  (I'd disregard waiting time because people can time their arrival at the bus stop to minimize the wait.)  Route 56 gives you point-to-point service for such a trip.  MAX requires you to walk to or from another location, so the time saving might be less than the 6 minutes cited by dangerboy.

Regardless of whether the actual travel time savings are significant, if MAX can get more people to actually use transit -- and if it spurs the ATA and other transit providers to make long-needed improvements on little things like adequate transit service information at major stops on all routes -- then maybe it'll be worth the investment.

[ignatius]

I'm much more interested in frequency than speed.  I'd rather have 7-10 minute frequency with 5 minute trip time improvement than 30 minute frequencey that gains 10 minutes trip time.  We are getting improved frequency, a tad bit faster trip time, it will run until 1AM and the shelters will have next arrival bus information, including feeder buses.  Much improvement overall me thinks.

[trailerkid]

I'm much more interested in frequency than speed.  I'd rather have 7-10 minute frequency with 5 minute trip time improvement

Very, very important point. 

Nothing is bigger killer of mass transit than the god-awful 30-40 minute intervals in which the buses arrive. It's not practical and that's part of the reason people don't use buses. You miss one bus and have to wait another 40 mintes for another one? Or you need to transfer buses so your trip time could end up being over 2 hours because of mismatched connecting buses due to infrequent service.

[KC0KEK]

I free-lance for a major company in the urban core, and I just plugged MAX in an employee newsletter article on air quality. Hopefully it's up and running the next time I have meetings there.

[GRID]

I'm much more interested in frequency than speed.  I'd rather have 7-10 minute frequency with 5 minute trip time improvement than 30 minute frequencey that gains 10 minutes trip time.  We are getting improved frequency, a tad bit faster trip time, it will run until 1AM and the shelters will have next arrival bus information, including feeder buses.  Much improvement overall me thinks.

I totally agree, but they can run every ten seconds and you won’t attract new riders at the rate KC needs new transit riders.  They should have found the extra money to buy the larger, sleeker true low floor buses that will be attractive and eye catching.  I’m telling you, most people will have no idea those new buses are supposed to be something different than what they already see all over town.

I just hope they can upgrade the system with more BRT characteristics and vehicles soon.

But, hell, yea, I’ll take the frequency, that’s huge.

[KCPowercat]

Shelters are going up along main...saw the Linwood shelter last night.

[tat2kc]

The problem continues to be the perception that using public transit is for poor or disabled folks.  And the screwy layout of the stops, sometimes two stops on one block.  The closing of the Paseo bridge, and the subsequent increase in ridership for those northland routes is a great time to publicize the bus as a viable, stress free, convienent althernative to driving your car. Wtih all the new people moving into the metro, many of them come from cities that had good transit, so they are used to the bus. They are the ones we need to target to get them back on the bus.  I wonder if the northland routes that have an increase in ridership can increase the frequency of the busses, so that its even more convienent.

Of course, considering the fact that KC has little congestion campared to some of those cities, these folks most likely consider the commute here a breeze. 

[ignatius]

I totally agree, but they can run every ten seconds and you won’t attract new riders at the rate KC needs new transit riders. 

I don't know if MAX will attract many new riders but for existing riders like me, this is a big improvement.  And transit between downtown/Plaza will be functional for those who do actually use it.  That is, if it is delivered as stated.

As stated, it will actually be better in terms of service than what was proposed for LRT between Plaza/downtown, which would have only had 12-minute frequency at peak times and not run as late.

[paisstat]

I agree about the long intervals between buses.  For instance today I missed the 51 at Westport and Roanoke Rd, or rather it missed me.  It was 6 minutes early, I saw it go by as I was walking to the stop.  The next bus didn't come for 35 minutes, and I was forced to wait from almost 4 to 4:31.  Its service like this that makes me reconsider the bus.

[Tosspot]

I agree about the long intervals between buses.  For instance today I missed the 51 at Westport and Roanoke Rd, or rather it missed me.  It was 6 minutes early, I saw it go by as I was walking to the stop.  The next bus didn't come for 35 minutes, and I was forced to wait from almost 4 to 4:31.  Its service like this that makes me reconsider the bus.

Similar thing happened to me yesterday, but in the morning. I wait for the northbound 51 in front of Berbiglia on Westport road in the morning, but I didn't get up in time to catch it, and if I stood around and waited for the next bus, I'd be late to work. So I caved in and drove my car that day-- the humanity of it all.

EDIT: I've noticed too that those 51s often run a few minutes early.

[ComandanteCero]

looks like Mexico City is going to implement BRT, but it's going to be all the way real BRT, with dedicated lanes, prepay tickets, special boarding stations etc.  Now, i have to say, if Mexico City, a place with some of the worst traffic congestion on the continent can make it work on some of their busiest thoroughfares i don't see why we can't give up two lanes on Main for BRT (or on the highways).  Then again, their problems are on a whole other scale of messed up (it takes 2 hours to make it down the test thoroughfare they are going to use, BRT will apparently shave 50 minutes off of this).  Real BRT (as quoted by one transportation analyst in the article i was reading) can deliver the service of a subway system at 5-10 percent of the cost.  Not to rehash old issues, but i think we should continue pushing for additional BRT features once this version of BRT is up and running.

[enough]

Not to rehash old issues, but i think we should continue pushing for additional BRT features once this version of BRT is up and running.

I'm with you.  Service on existing major lines can be improved at no cost by making every other bus a "limited" that stops only every 1/4 or 1/2 mile.  Adding the signal priority feature costs a few thousand per intersection plus a few hundred per bus, but still not all that much.  And posting route and schedule information at major stops and all shelters is essential.

It doesn't take slick new buses and shelters to dramatically improve transit service for a significant number of present and potential riders.  Service trumps glitz in my book any day.

[tat2kc]

Amen, enough.  Hell, they could run the old 50's style buses and be well used if they were clean, on time, and frequent enough.  We have such potential for a great public transit system. If we can get the three systems in the metro to merge into one, and have it operated by people who really know and care about public transit, KC could solve its percieved congestion problems in short order.

And this BRT is a good step in the right direction. ( a baby step, but still a step)

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't know if it was a trial run or what but I saw a MAX bus sitting up on the Main St. overpass when i went through 670 on the way to the Wizards game tonight. 

[KCPowercat]

vertical signs are going up.  Also no parking for the curb lane signs are going up on Main.

[ignatius]

Yeah, the information signs at the MAX shelters are up in Crown Center but they don't have the digital display guts in them yet.

[dangerboy]

I finally noticed the MAX shelter at Linwood and Main.  I kept forgetting to look for it. I drive by there almost daily and it never caught my eye until today.  To me, the grey and glass is less visible than the regular bus shelters that have been painted the new blue color.  Hopefully the vertical signs will be a little more visible than the shelters.

[enough]

At 18 feet tall and illuminated, the MAX monuments should be hard to miss.  I think I saw one of them being installed the other day on the east side of Main at Union Station.

MAX, oh MAX, please don't let us down.  Set a good example for the rest of the transit system to emulate.