Regarding riding and talking to riders, absolutely. In addition to public meetings, we also solicit feedback at major transfer points, such as NLTC, Highland Mall, etc. In December, we went out to Craigwood (Route 23) and Oak Hill P&R (171), surveying riders. In each case, we requested feedback on two service options. We would do the same for Route 5 should we propose a shift from Guadalupe to San Jacinto. I should note that ServicePlan2020 is a framework for future service changes. Each specific service change requires a staff proposal, public input, and board approval.

M1EK – We regularly receive “input” (requests, suggestions, opposition, support) that helps us tweak/confirm/reconsider plans. While indirect, your input is also considered.

Helpful – WordPress’ server was down so I asked Erica to post my reply when it came back up. As you can tell by my delayed response, I’m not a regular MetroBlogger.

All – Fall 2010 service change proposals will be on buses and online by early April, at the latest. We look forward to your feedback.

Talking, having charettes, staying connected, keeping in contact, maintaining relationships, giving input – none of this matters if the guy on the other side is willing to exercise his power to get what he wants and you aren’t. (This, by the way, is why I don’t bother showing up and giving ‘input’ at things like the 2020 service plan meetings – despite nice invitations and hurt feelings when not taken up on; I’m better off with speaking to hundreds of readers and having a 1% chance of slightly modifying the opinion of somebody with real power than I am giving my one input and having it roundly ignored).

I bet the planners would then make massive changes to their proposed changes.

Isn’t it enough that central Austinites are getting nothing but headaches while massively subsidizing the tiny number of Leanderites who want to go to the Convention Center on the Commuter Rail Red Line?

Why in the world eliminate the 21/22 routes that may sometimes have lower ridership, but which serve an amazing diversity of riders – AISD students, college students, tourists, maids, Goodwill employees, retirees, etc.

And why move the UT and downtown routes away from where the people are and where the people want to be?

This is beyond crazy! Cap Metro seems to want to offer an ever-smaller set of routes that help out a few wealthy remote suburb dwellers and ignore the huddled masses who really need transportation to work and grocery stores and homes in central Austin.

This is kind of a silly response.

First, we know that lots and lots of people are taking the #1 to UT today, too, so if this is an attempt to assert that more people like San Jacinto, it’s not a very accurate one.

Second, we know that a large portion of those 250 people are going to have to walk a lot further to get to their offices now – since a lot of UT people, like myself, live in the transit shed of both the #5 and the #7. If they’re choosing the #5 over the #7 today, one could quite rationally conclude that their office must be closer to the #5′s current route.

Third, pointing to more buses on Guadalupe as a remedy for the #5′s move (not sure that was the intent there; but if so) ignores the fact that a transit commute involving two bus rides rather than one bus ride will immediately cut ridership by all but a tiny fraction of existing patrons. Presumably people living between the #1 and #5, for instance, would already be pretty likely to take the #1 as its frequency is better – so the existing #5 riders are disproportionately going to be those too far away from the #1 to comfortably walk to it every day – meaning you’re expecting them to ride some other route to the #1 (or RB) and then transfer. Not. Gonna. Happen.

************
Great comments and suggestions everyone. Just as the feedback received throughout this project has been used to develop and revise service plan recommendations, it’s important that we continue that process as we implement actual service changes over the next several years.

Sean, while there is more demand for Express service from South I-35 (Kyle, Buda, San Marcos), it’s quite possible that a South Mopac Express route is up and running first.

Along South I-35, we envision a large-scale, Capital Metro-owned Park & Ride facility, similar to Tech Ridge or Lakeline. For South Mopac, it’s more likely that we will pursue a shared parking arrangement, similar to our Great Hills (Baptist Church) Park & Ride or our former Wells Branch (HEB) Park & Ride, which preceding Tech Ridge. That’s not to say that a shared P&R could be the first stop along South I-35.

While we anticipate the majority of the MetroRail riders to be transit newbies, there’s also a strong possibility that Express bus services in the northwest US 183 will be reduced as existing passengers migrate over to MetroRail. This dynamic may result in a reallocation of resources from the northwest to other corridors such as South Mopac, East US 290, and South I-35.

I should also note that we periodically conduct license plate surveys at our Park & Ride facilities to find out where our customers are originating from. What we recently found out in Southwest Austin is that a South Mopac/Slaughter P&R might be more convenient for many existing #171 riders.

Now onto Route 5. As an occasional #5 rider, I see benefits to both Guadalupe and San Jacinto. The distance from 900 Lavaca to 30th Street is essentially the same. Travel time also does not vary much today.

If we can acquire even one bus lane on the Drag, Guadalupe would a no-brainer. However, we have a better chance of acquire bus lanes on Guadalupe and Lavaca south of MLK.

A couple things to keep in mind:

We will soon be adding more buses to Guadalupe in 2012 and 2013 when our first two MetroRapid lines (N Lamar/S Congress and N Burnet/S Lamar) are finally introduced. Route 3 will also be shifted to Guadalupe, which will prove speedier than West Campus and get riders closer to the primary destination (UT).

The “recommended” Route 5 alignment along San Jacinto through campus would not be much different than the current Route 7. Currently, about 250 persons take Route 5 southbound to UT, whereas 550 persons take Route 7 to UT.

As with all ServicePlan2020 recommendations, any change to Route 5 would have to go through our regular service change process that involves customer outreach/feedback, public hearing and board meeting.

Parker, I agree that a Night Owl extension to Metric (south of Braker) would benefit many. There is definitely room for growth and improvement with this subset of routes, particularly #485 Night Owl Cameron. We’ll take a closer look at what changes we could potentially make to improve Night Owl service.

Thanks to everyone for your interest in ServicePlan2020. We appreciate your feedback and encourage you to stay involved.