Yes, BRT, as it was originally proposed, only made sense to the clinically insane. I'm glad the clear thinkers are now on the case.

I want to thank Councilman Siegel, Supervisor Simitian, and Councilman Oliverio for the principled and intelligent stands they've taken on this issue.

Dedicating two lanes on ECR to a bus service that will come at most once every ten minutes is a poor use of the limited roadway we have on El Camino Real. The right-hand-lanes and curbside-lanes options are vastly superior to the left-hand-lanes proposal, not only in terms of roadway utilization, throughput, rider safety, and ease of transferring between the local and express services, but also in terms of capital costs. As was reported, the some of the right hand lane options "would require little more than a painted curb in the right or curbside lane". How about we try that solution before we commit to the quarter-billion-dollar one?

I also hope that the rush-hours-only scenario is explicitly enumerated as one of the configurations to be studied in the next round of studies.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

That's an absurd generalization. The plan is stupid because of how they want to go about it with designated lanes. It has nothing to do with who rides the bus, and if you actually did ride the bus, you would realize how ignorant the above post actually is.

The VTA's BRT plan assumes that El Camino traffic will divert onto neighboring side streets running parallel. The problem in Mountain View is that such streets don't exist many places. Around Hwy 85 is a particular bottle neck and barrier.
And, although our Council voted last time to support BRT, they now are proposing taking away half the capacity of California Ave, one of those few parallel streets that is supposed to take on the displaced cars from El Camino.
Very glad to have Lenny Siegel on this Advisory Board. He seems to be one of the few who can hold multiple thoughts in his mind at one to realize when they don't all work together.

BRT cannot affect CA avenue if it is not put forward. At this time there is very little support for it to go fwd, with a growing group of voters opposed to BRT now keenly watching it.

Wow, Obvious Guy. That's some grade-A ignorance. I think your friends would suggest that you not proudly display your fear of the poors?

I rode the SamTrans ECR from Daly City to San Mateo yesterday, and it was super convenient for getting from the auto mechanic that was offering a deal, to another workplace. It was also super slow. It was used by hispanic people going to jobs at malls, and by white & asian teenagers.

The idea of putting the BRT lane next to the curb is great... I hate having to cross busy traffic lanes to get to a lonely smoggy transit stop out in the middle of windblown streets (I'm looking at you, T-3rd Muni train).

If you MUST dedicate El Camino lanes, make sure they are usable by all buses, carpools and other HOV vehicles. Not everyone can take buses to their destinations, so allow for smart use of vehicles with multiple riders! And dedicate the RIGHT lane to this use only during rush hours. Use Lawrence Expressway as a model - I don't know if that is an ideal model, but I've been down it often enough to know that it helps the traffic.

Whatever you do, don't put in a BRT only left lane that is unused the majority of the day and drops riders off in the middle of El Camino. Pedestrian safety must be considered as the number one concern.

Apparently the whole idea of having 2 separate routes on El Camino Real covering the same distance but only one having a priority lane is unusual in the context of BRT.

Take a look at this report in a mass transit trade journal: Web Link

The very part-time VTA Board of Directors meets next Thursday evening at the Board of Supervisors chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose. One agenda item (8.3) proposes to set aside money to pay something to businesses in San Jose that have lost money because of delays in building the bus-only lanes and median stations on streets leading to The Alameda and El Camino (essentially phase one of the plan for VTA bus-only lanes in several places). If the business owners in San Jose think the project has cost them money, they ain't seen nothing yet. Nothing is what they will make when the bus-only lanes are finally operational, many left and u-turns vanish or are greatly delayed, traffic in remaining lanes stalls and drivers search for other routes. It is a prelude to disaster on El Camino and everywhere the VTA seizes lanes for this or that occasional bus.

Correction: item 9.3. The November 5 meeting starts at 5:30. It could take an hour or two to get to item 9.3. Any Mountain Viewers wishing to attend could take a couple of light rail vehicles or a couple of buses. I am pretty sure most members of the VTA Board will just drive there.

VTA bus rider revealed

Mtn View City staff noted that just over 300 people on average rode the Mtn View shuttle each day in August, or about 10 riders per hour. In comparison, the
Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus routes 34 and 35, which travel from downtown Mountain View to San Antonio and Stanford shopping centers, respectively, average about 27 riders per hour, according to VTA officials.

The article saying the VTA 34 and 35 routes have ridership of 27 per hour was wrong. VTA has published data in their annual reports on system performance. The 2014 report has the Q4 2014 data in it. This shows the weekday only 34 route, at 11 riders per hour, not 27. Their goal for such service (community bus) is 15 riders per hour. For the 35 route they report weekday usage of 17 riders per hour. They get the best ridership on 35 on Saturdays, where it moves to 22 riders per hour.

There is every reason to think that these local shuttle services are worthwhile, since they then connect people with other routes. The message would be to do more of this, and to have more stops on El Camino Real to provide "last mile" service to 522/22 which should be combined into one route with more stops than 522 and fewer than 22 has now.

The City Council of Mountain View voted for high density housing on El Camino.
Within the next 3 years it will all be completed. As you can see this means two incomes in order to afford an apartment or condo. What does that mean two cars for each household. Our cars are a form of independence and we cannot depend upon taking the bus whenever we want. So we drive our cars. That means more cars on El Camino. Two City Council members abstained from the vote. The one City Council member said that hardly anyone rides the bus. Then putting the bus stations in the center of El Camino would be a disaster. That's an accident in the works with cars running yellow lights into the red light.

On Nov. 5. the VTA Board of Directors dod vote to authorize some financial assistance for small businesses harmed by construction delays on the "bus rapid transit" (BRT) project in San Jose. $1.5 million was grudgingly set aside. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the loses that would befall businesses in San Jose and on and near El Camino when lanes are taken for occasional buses and cars are left to contend for lane space with other vehicles -including VTA buses - in the remaining lanes. Anyone not employed by the VTA or with some other special financial stake in BRT will likely see the folly of the VTA's plan by watching the tape of the meeting online - including the short prior and subsequent agenda items. The VTA Board will not approve BRT using the left lanes on El Camino until after it gets a multi-billion dollar sales tax increase approved by voters. That measure will need to be defeated.

Hitting a speed bump is not enough for the BRT plan. It needs to run, head-long, into a bridge abutment and die a spectacular fiery death.

To put this BRT thing into perspective, they're fighting this in Queens as well. There, it's known as "Select Bus Service" and its installation on Woodhaven Blvd is controversial:
Web Link

Those deluxe energy efficient dual-car articulated buses for BRT are now running!

See: Web Link

Why'd they wait so long?