Lesson of the day, don’t jaywalk when there’s a vehicle still (legally) moving through the intersection.

>>The only trip on those 6 that has a “ton of riders” is NLTC to downtown.

5000 people isn’t a “ton”?

And how many riders do you think are on that NLTC to downtown segment anyway(since that’s the only one that seems to matter to you)? From
http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route101_SB.pdf
and
http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route1_SB.pdf
and
http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route101_NB.pdf
and
http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route1_NB.pdf

it appears that, at most, there are a couple thousand daily riders boarding/alighting at NLTC. A further subset of those then are the ones that board/alight at 11th street. That minority are the only ones we “know” won’t see improved speed. Will those that get on/off on intermediate stops between those two points see an improvement? I don’t know. And neither do you, we just don’t have the data yet.

>>it’s where the most future demand is, by far;
And where’s your evidence for this assertion? The area of the #3 line is where the most green-field/brown-field development is occurring/is planned. North Burnet/Gateway is _the_ major regional center outside of Downtown in the Imagine Austin plan (source: http://www.imagineaustin.net/growth-concept-map)

>>As for the 3 corridor, you could achieve the same gains (give or take) by running a limited version of the 3 – existing buses, no new technology required
Again, where’s the backup for this claim? Not really something I can disprove, as we don’t have any numbers for this hypothetical “103″. Though I’ll point to the fact that the Metrorapid does show increased speed over the 101 (in 2 of the 3 samples) as suggestive that Metrorapid would similarly outperform a #3 corridor limited. Add in increased frequency, expedited boarding, dedicated lanes downtown, etc. , and the preponderance of evidence is certainly that Metrorapid is better than just adding on a #3 limited.

>>As shown on Guadalupe, the “hold the light green” technology is really not all that relevant.
I’m not aware of any published numbers for the transit time exclusively on Guadalupe. I’d appreciate any you can point me towards.

That should be :

http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route101_NB.pdf
and http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route1_NB.pdf

I expect you to actually go out on a limb and tell us who you really are, and post somewhere where people can rip you to pieces the way you do me. That’s what I expect.

I stand by my characterization. The only trip on those 6 that has a “ton of riders” is NLTC to downtown. (And, by the way, the reason they, and I, use 11th street is because that’s where it diverges from the current 101 route – where the apples-to-apples comparison would have to end).

That NLTC to downtown corridor is where the most current demand is, by far; it’s where the most future demand is, by far; and it’s where the most current and future congestion is, by far. It shows how little Rapid [sic] Bus is really doing for us – fundamentally, it shows that Capital Metro was clever enough to convince the Feds to buy us shiny new buses under the guise of BRT that isn’t actually rapid – not on the corridors where it makes any difference.

As for the 3 corridor, you could achieve the same gains (give or take) by running a limited version of the 3 – existing buses, no new technology required. As shown on Guadalupe, the “hold the light green” technology is really not all that relevant.

Everyone knows the 1/101 corridor has the most riders. No one is disputing that. However, the #3 corrider isn’t nearly as insignificant as you claim.
Source: http://www.capmetro.org/docs/MetroRapid_Board_Cmte_Update_May_2011.pdf Page 3
4,700 daily riders, and you’re going to tell them that _significant_ improvements to their daily commutes (up to %35) are “nothing”.
And that’s not even considering the further redevelopment and increased density that is occuring in that corridor, with the North Burnet/Gateway (ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/website/planning/neighborhood/north_burnet.htm) and the Domain. As well as many new apartment complexes being built on South Lamar (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/with-apartments-on-the-way-will-traffic-really-2171856.html) and other locations along that line.

>>as does areas south to downtown on the 1/101
There are _thousands_ of daily boardings south of the river on the 1/101. Source: http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route1_NB.pdf and http://capmetro.org/serviceplan2020/downloads/Perteet_CapitalMetro_BoardingAlighting_Route1_NB.pdf

Again, not the majority, but thousands of riders that will see tangible improvements (even those that are already riding the 101).

>>yet you think I’m going to go do homework to prove the obvious.
I expect you to back up your claims with facts and references, as I do.