I tend to agree with Donald Robertson's suggestions.
Based on admittedly a small sample of cases, my impression is
that all too many consultants in the industry try to sell agencies
on overly complex, overly high tech, overly grandiose solutions --
violates the KISS principle.
Going with an unproven system like this ATCS installation was really unwise.
I agree with Robert Parks' comment that they should have waited
to see if it proved itself elsewhere first.
Right now I'd be inclined to convert the J-Church to surface operation
via Market St...if there are enough cars.
(Back in the '60s, when Muni Metro was planned,
if my memory is right, the J-Church
was not originally slated for retention as a rail line, but was
retained mainly due to local community opposition to busing it.)
Seems like a loop under the Embarcadero would have been operationally
simpler than the MMT. In principle, tho, the MMT and MMX together should
give them enough terminal capacity to avoid bottlenecks...or so one
would think. Until they get reliability of the MMT operation,
I'd suggest running more trains out to Caltrain (maybe the L).
>Bredas: Instead of piling bells and whistles on what is apparently a
>decent car, should have kept it simple.
Yep.
>Boeings: Adding the ACTS equipment to the already trouble plagued cars
>made a barely adequate car into a completely inadequate car.
>General: Better oversight, management, design, planning and
>communication would have made improved functioning of Metro a
>possibility.
>
>>Blame the Boeings
>The Boeings are the weakest link in a none-too-sturdy chain.
Agree.
>>> 4) If Muni received more funding, what would you spend it on and would
it improve service?
>> emergency replacement of all Boeings with new Bredas.
>this would be more helpful if they were more reliable.
>>Buy up every F-line type car we can find anywhere in the world.
>Sounds good to me.
>>Plan for replacement of ACTS
Yes.
>>Start replacing aging Diesel buses with modern Natural
>Gas buses
>Due to performance deficits of NG buses, Muni's Diesel replacement
>program will consist of a majority of diesel buses, albeit clean(er)
>fuel/burning. In terms of enviromental concerns, converting to
>electricity is vastly preferable to burning hydrocarbons.
What are the performance deficits of CNG buses? L.A. has a much more
crowded bus sytem than S.F. but relies heavily on CNG buses. Wire
isn't going to be the solution everywhere...especially not for the
lighter lines. For one thing, it limits flexibility in adjusting
routes...you lose a main advantage touted for buses.
>
>>Improving Muni:
>to paraphrase NASA: `Simpler, Faster, Cheaper' Avoid complex equipment,
>avoid new technology, focus on safe, reliable transportation, with
>responsible management supervising employees (maint and operations) who
>do their job as they are supposed to. Service can be improved also
>through applications of SF's `Transit FIRST' policy, as well as
>passenger education to reduce delays and interruptions caused by
>passenger behavior. Example, running time on the 22 probably could be
>reduced from 53 minutes to 45 minutes. POP, with proper enforcement
>would also make signifigant improvements, with the side benefit of
>adding security to Muni.
>
POP for the heavier bus lines might help to speed them up, as well
as increasing security due to heightened police presence. I've heard
Muni is planning a POP experiment for the 30/45 line.
Tom Wetzel
+===============================================+
! Tom Wetzel !
! Senior Technical Writer !
! BEA Systems, Inc. !
! Sunnyvale, CA !
+===============================================+