Articulated Buses: are they worth it?

The introduction of articulated buses was a great technological advancement in the world of passenger transportation. Replacing a typical 40-foot transit bus with a 60-foot bus allows you to carry a lot more people without any additional operating costs. There are many benefits to having them in your fleet. Longer buses can be a great solution for cities looking to add capacity to busy routes. Only 3 articulated buses are needed to replace 4 standard buses, so the reduced operating cost outweighs the extra capital cost. Bunching can be reduced since you don't have as many vehicles on a route. The turning radius of an articulated bus is actually shorter than that of a standard bus -- because of how its length is divided: 35 feet plus 25 feet --  so the route does not need to be changed. And since articulated buses are well suited to high volume routes, they can come in handy during planned rail outages, if you can plan the shuttle for a time of reduced demand on the normal bus route (try Sunday).

However, there are drawbacks to consider, as well as things that need to be addressed before and during implementation.

Target deployment of higher capacity vehicles. Articulated buses should first be deployed on your most frequent routes, the places where service is already so frequent that adding 40-foot buses only worsens bunching (generally every 5 minutes or better). Fewer vehicles means more balanced capacity and hopefully a reduction in bunching and long gaps in service.

Don't mix different bus sizes. Only add articulated buses if you can convert a whole route. If two or more routes run together for a long segment, convert all of them. Otherwise you get major bunching as a 40-foot bus takes longer to load and a 60-foot bus catches up to it. You might try to be creative by scheduling a longer headway in front of the longer buses, but we all know how well buses stick to their schedule all the time. Just don't mix 'em.

Lengthen bus stops. Bus stops will need to be lengthened by 20 to 40 feet. Often the new stop becomes inaccessible for disabled passengers or blocks a cross street or pedestrian crossing. Rebuilding sidewalks is very expensive and, if the transit agency does not manage the streets, very difficult. Even if these issues don't come up, abutters are likely to raise hell about the removal of a few parking spots.

Consolidate stops. These are busy, frequent routes. People will walk farther to a fast, frequent service, so while you're lengthening stops, take advantage of this rare opportunity to reduce travel time. If you don't have limited-stop service, converting a few routes to 60-foot buses may free up the resources to try limited-stop service on one route.

Make a snow plan. Many transit agencies experience problems with articulated buses fishtailing in the snow, so much that they usually need to be removed for safety reasons. If you suddenly need to pull many buses off the road, how quickly can you do it, and where are you getting the extra 40-foot buses during a storm when you need every vehicle on the road? The best solution may be to create and heavily publicize a plan for reducing service on specific routes during a storm, so you can make extra buses available. (There are many other good reasons for a snow service reduction plan, but mostly it's about safety and the ability to shift buses around.)

Add more doors. These are busy routes, so you can greatly reduce dwell times by having 3 or 4 doors per bus. This is why articulated buses beat double decker buses, so don't make New York City Transit's initial mistake of buying articulated buses with only two doors. And as with all buses, increase passenger movement within the bus by choosing fewer seats in favor of more standing room.

Implement off-board fare payment. Add to the savings by taking advantage of this golden opportunity to speed up your service. The extra doors allow an even greater reduction in time spent at the stop -- and make it even more ridiculous to wait in line at the front door.

Biking in Toronto with Yvonne Bambrick

Toronto cycling advocate Yvonne Bambrick joins me to discuss bike safety, politics and infrastructure. Yvonne was the first Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union and is now an independent bike consultant.  Activists there are engaging in civil disobedience to delay the politically motivated removal of the popular Jarvis Street bike lane, despite proven safety benefits and a tripling of bike counts since the lane was recently installed on the only north-south bike route in the city center. In other news ... If you want cyclists off the sidewalks you have to make the streets safe for cycling.  A geography lesson shows the segregation and sprawl in many coastal areas of the NY region, and apparently some people want MTA chief Joe Llota to run for mayor next year.  City residents tend to own cars but use them infrequently, a terrible waste of public space.

Send your comments, questions and suggestions to feedback@criticaltransit.com and I will read them on the air.  Critical Transit is listener supported, so if you enjoy the show, tell your friends and colleagues, leave a review on iTunes, and please consider making a donation or sponsoring an episode.

 

Hurricane Recovery Special with Epic Transit Journey

SubwayShuttle_Manhattan.jpg

Enjoy this special, extra-long episode on the damage from Hurricane Sandy and the struggle to rebuild devastated communities and submerged transit networks. We have shuttered rail lines, debris and trash all over the streets, massive flooding in stations, hundreds of shuttle buses, missing rail cars, huge neighborhoods in a now-snowy region with no heat or electricity. ... More people are using bicycles and hopefully some will make it their preferred transport mode. This episode features bits of live audio from Boston during the hurricane and from my epic transit journey from Boston to New York via a combination of local bus services when intercity carriers were not running.

Next week is a discussion about bicycling in Toronto with Yvonne Bambrick. Later this month, the rest of my audio from riding the MBTA, walking and biking in Boston.

Great photos of the damage and amazing recovery efforts courtesy of MTA Photos on flickr:

 

Episode 8 - Listener feedback on fares, empty buses & Human Transit

The first three listener emails came in, prompting a discussion of fares and pre-payment in more detail. Also, variable loads can make buses appear empty and cause a political problem; so what to do about it? We end with a very informative clip from a talk by Human Transit author Jarrett Walker earlier this year, focusing on the four important questions to consider before attempting to design transit service. In other words, what are we trying to achieve?

I am in Boston this week so stay tuned for some great content including on-street interviews and transit trips when I return.

Sports stadiums are a complete waste of money

Many of us said a few years ago that building thousands of car parking spaces at the new Yankee Stadium was a terrible idea, a waste of precious funds, and an insult to the community. So it is no big surprise that the Yankee Stadium parking operator recently defaulted on its bond payments. Aside from causing more car travel, which is consistently raised as the top concern of South Bronx residents, this debacle quite perfected illustrates why we should never use public funds to construct private property. Because sports stadiums are among the worst uses of public money.

Proponents of stadiums make grand claims about new jobs, expected tax revenues and neighborhood revitalization, but in reality sports teams don’t help the city anywhere near as much as people think they do. Many cities feel desperate to attract or retain whatever little bits of tax revenue they can, and a stadium seems like a good deal until you realize just how much land it takes up and how little it gets used, and remember that it's not open to the public.

The lies about jobs, taxes and community development -- and the phony threats sports teams make to move outside the city if they can’t rob the public to pay for their own private buildings and further enrich the 1 percent -- are all part of a ploy to convince the city to open its cash drawer.

Since a typical arena operates only a few hours a day, its contribution to street life is negligible at best and can actually be negative since it makes vast areas undesirable and unsafe except during events. These massive buildings also have the effect of dividing communities, especially if parking facilities are included.

New York City made major investments to the subway and regional rail networks serving Yankee Stadium, including a new station.  And now -- surprise! -- fewer people than anticipated are driving there. The need to pay market rates for parking is a strong disincentive to drive a private vehicle, and the rapid transit and regional rail networks in the Bronx and Brooklyn (where another new stadium recently opened) make transit very convenient. This is great news for the community, but it's apparently a “problem” if you’ve invested lots of money on parking that isn't being used.

Regardless of the parking debacle, New York City paid millions of dollars to build each stadium -- millions of dollars that we would never see again even in the best case scenario. At a time when living costs are rising, wages are falling, public services are being gutted due to austerity, and thousands of people in New York City alone don't know where their next meal is coming from, can anyone honestly say that subsidizing private stadiums is money well spent?

Somerville, Mass. bike advocate Alex Epstein

A great show today where Alex and I discuss everything from politically-driven street design changes to the effects of car culture on our society. We reclaim some parking spaces along the way, ponder the best way to move sustainable transportation forward, and observe that car-free is the way to be. Check out the fine work of the Somerville Bicycle Committee and their facebook page.If you're in the Boston area, lend your support for the city's first protected bike lane on its busiest cycling route.

We mentioned research by John Pucher and the Victoria Transport Policy Institute on cycling, parking policies, and highlighted efforts to improve the plight of Indian rickshaw operators and a new UBC study showing that bike infrastructure in Vancouver reduced injuries by as much as 90 percent. We also love that Park(ing) Day shows how cars waste urban space. And why cycling is both progressive and conservative.

Next week I have another great show for you while I am visiting Boston to ride buses, trains and my bicycle.

 

Drivers, don't be a jerk. Bus stops are for buses.

A while ago, after a tough battle, New York’s MTA was finally allowed to record license plates of cars blocking bus stops so they could be mailed a ticket.  I’ve never seen this happen but I see bus stops blocked all over the place, especially by the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law. Today I received this forwarded mass email. (Sidenote: I don’t get much of this type of spam anymore, but it reminded me of those awful chain email from the 90s where you had to forward it to 50 people or you would receive bad luck.)

“This morning I saw the license plate of a car in the bus stop light up on the front of the bus. I then learned the newest method being used to issue parking tickets.

If a bus pulls into a bus stop and there is a car there - even if the car is running - the bus camera takes a picture of the license plate and [the owner] will be sent a parking ticket in the mail... “

Okay, fine... Good... No, excellent, if this makes drivers stay out that’s great.... oh, wait:

“The city has found a way to raise more money and with the picture of your plate at the bus stop it will be very difficult to fight this ticket.”

I could rant for days about the sense of entitlement that drivers display by ignoring speed limits, parking and turn restrictions and other rules which are inconvenient to them. Then they repeat the popular myth that it’s all about money, which is a convenient way of justifying selfish behavior, rather than thinking about why blocking a bus stop is illegal in the first place.

And it’s not about money. Because if it were about money, the city would be aggressively ticketing and towing cars parked in bus lanes, bike lanes and other no standing zones, running red lights, blocking crosswalks, driving too fast/recklessly, failing to yield the right of way, and on down the list.

Keeping bus stops clear is a battle that every city bus operator has been waging since cars entered public space. Buses transport people of all abilities and need to be able to board and alight people against the curb. How are you supposed to use a wheelchair lift if a car is preventing the bus from pulling flush to the curb?

Bus stops are only blocked when a driver thinks s/he is more important than anyone else. These people deserve much worse than a parking ticket. Perhaps this solution from Lithuania.

 

You Can't Just Ban Walking

One of the strangest things about rural areas is the near-total absence of people walking and biking.  Today I am visiting family in the Pocono Mountains area of Eastern Pennsylvania. It is very rural but in each town there is a two-lane state highway with suburban-style retail and shopping establishments that generate lots of car traffic. The most bizarre thing though, is that signs are posted at numerous intersections  prohibiting pedestrians.

Am I supposed to see the sign and say, “oh, oops ... I guess I’ll call my friend to drive me across the street”?  What is the penalty for attempting to cross the street, and if it is ever enforced? Will I be labeled "at fault" in a crash if I cross safely?  Some places have both a crosswalk and a “no pedestrians” sign.  Make up your mind, PennDOT, but you can't just arbitrarily ban walking. Unlike an walking on an expressway, it is not inherently dangerous to cross a two-lane state highway at a signalized intersection.

All of the streets here are designed for cars only (and sometimes trucks). When I say that is the case in cities it's because other modes are an afterthought; here they just ignore the other modes altogether. Walking is not safe, so nobody walks, so there are not even basic pedestrian facilities like sidewalks and marked crosswalks for people to walk in, so it's unsafe to walk....

Since you generally can’t walk anywhere from your house, you always have your car with you, and therefore many people drive their cars as little as one block (i.e. across the street or to the other end of a strip mall parking lot). I think it’s a combination of habit, laziness and the complete lack of safe places to walk.  Of course, some people do walk, either for very short trips, to meet someone for a ride, to exercise, or to take the bus or shared-ride van.

It’s already challenging to walk in these places. Replacing arbitrary and discriminatory signs with simple pedestrian signals would make street and highway crossings much safer and promote walking as a legitimate use of the road.

Bike helmets have nothing to do with safety

Great post today on Boston Biker about scaring cyclists into wearing helmets, a strategy which is at best useless and most likely counterproductive if your goal is increasing safety for non-motorized road users. It is, however, quite useful as a scare tactic -- probably an unintentional scare tactic -- which discourages bicycling by making it seen incredibly dangerous. Never mind that the injuries shown in the photo would not be prevented by a typical bike helmet. Boston's Public Health Commission has been pushing helmets for quite some time. It's great that they are provide free helmets to anyone who asks for one -- just as it is great to give out food, condoms, legal advice or bus passes -- but by actively campaigning for helmet use they are neglecting the things that would actually make bicycling safer. Thus any time spent actively pushing people to wear helmets is time wasted.

I have no doubt that the people who push helmets are well intentioned. It's just that, as a commenter noted on the Boston Biker article, the increasingly graphic ads are just "another well meaning but misguided cycling project created by folks who haven’t ridden a bike since middle school. But it’s cheap, requires little effort, and it probably allows them to qualify for some federal dollars..." Since the sponsors most likely don't know anything about driving a bicycle, they don't have any desire to pursue more effective initiatives like street redesigns, public education or enforcement against dangerous motorist behavior. And thus they take the easy route by default.

And we know from experience that blaming the victim:

All of these are significant obstacles to growing the number of cyclists, which we know is the most effective way to increase safety.  Safety in numbers = more bicyclists on the street = more respect = safer streets for all users.

 

Podcast 6 - News, Street Design, Transit Fares, and please forget about bike helmets

Back with a new podcast, catching up on some things in the news this month. I talk about the importance of redesigning streets to improve safety and comfort for people of all abilities, and it doesn't have to be an expensive, long-term project.  Brooklyn's Fourth Avenue speedway was just redesigned using only paint and plastic bollards (more on road diets).  Advocates are targeting the dangerously narrow and inadequate bike and pedestrian path on the Pulaski Bridge for improvements. This bridge shows why conflicts arise between pedestrians and cyclists, because both groups are given inadequate facilities even while motorists dominate the streets.

Bike helmets aren't all they're cracked up to be. A few Swedish engineers are working on an invisible, inflatable bike helmet. I argue that helmets do not prevent crashes, and by pushing helmet use we neglect the things that actually matter for bike safety like safe bicycling advice, driver education and enforcement. Bike Walk Lee showed the power of bikes in social justice by holding a clinic to help homeless people get access to bike repair services. Toronto removes a key north-south bike lane despite it having tripled bike travel on the corridor in just a few short years.

The last piece of bad news is from California, where politicians are releasing emergency oil reserves to try to appease frustrated motorists. But as we know, that is not a solution.

On the transit side, the Worcester Regional Transit Authority, the disproportionately small bus system in New England's second largest city, is buying three all-electric buses. This a big positive development yet it also highlights the problems with the federal transit funding formulas.

Free service on the Silver Line bus between downtown Boston and Logan Airport will continue until January. The absence of on-board (or any) fare collection has surely caused a dramatic reduction in travel times and made things easier for everyone.  In a related development, my favorite transit blog, Human Transit, discredits route-level fare recovery analyses since each route is part of an interconnected urban transportation system.