|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 19, 2010 20:29:05 GMT -8
Hi guys. I was looking for a thread on what we want to see in improved bus service through out the county of LA and couldn't find one so I decide to start this one. What would you like to see in LA that'll improve service and connections among MTA's buses? I personally would like to see MTA utilize the freeways more than they are (which isn't much).
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 20, 2010 15:07:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 21, 2010 14:57:29 GMT -8
But thats the opinion of one person. What about everyone else in this board? What would they do if they had the power to restructure and/or improve bus service?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 21, 2010 22:08:41 GMT -8
I think there is a lot of work that can be done in the South Bay region. I'm pushing for some serious changes that I hope to see take place in the near future with Torrance Transit, but that's about all I can say for now.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 28, 2010 19:50:09 GMT -8
This is a big topic, which I have been hesitating to tackle. Metro is mainly a bus-based system serving almost 10 million people (well, at least 5 million are in the main service area) with over a million bus rides and hundreds of thousands of rail trips per day. The rail system is much simpler to understand and imagine adding to, in isolation. But once you start to think about all those bus routes, the whole system appears much more complicated. Your question only addresses Metro, but really we should be asking how to improve Municipal bus services as well and integrate them with new rail and BRT expansion plans.
I will start with the (theoretically) easiest to implement and most important basic changes that should be made, while keeping with the government structure and amount of money for bus operations that we have right now, but perhaps I will have time to consider the whole system later.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 28, 2010 20:15:26 GMT -8
I apologize for not being specific. At the same time I was kinda confused where to put this thread but I guess the municipal bus services can also be included in this thread as it greatly influences Metro bus and rail services. But this thread was just made on what you guys think would improve bus service in LA. Anything from your imagination is welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 28, 2010 20:33:28 GMT -8
1) Bus Stop Consolidation See this great video about SF Muni on Streetfilms: www.streetfilms.org/making-muni-faster-and-more-reliable-through-bus-stop-consolidation/#more-30941Recommendation: Reduce local bus stops to every 300 to 400 meters in most areas of the city. This correlates to 2 to 4 blocks (depending on block length) between stops in most parts of the urban area, or about 1/4 mile. The average destination along the line would be 100 meters from a stop, with the farthest walk being 200 meters, about 1 long or 2 short blocks, which takes 2 to 4 minutes to walk This would eliminate 30 to 40% of bus stops on most local routes in the Metro system, and make bus stop distance more similar to a modern streetcar or slower, street-running light rail systems. Average speed along the route during rush hour would increase about 20%, and reliability would increase. Rapid and other limited-stop routes should continue to stop approximately every 1/2 mile, which happens to correlate with the grid of major arterial streets in Los Angeles and most of the smaller cities in the county, an also equates with a maximum walk time of 4 to 6 minutes to the nearest stop along the route. BRT routes should stop every 1/2 to 1 mile; 1/2 mile in dense, urban areas, and every 1 mile in low-density residential areas, with longer gaps for undeveloped areas. This is similar to the stop spacing on our light and heavy metro rail lines. Express buses should have stops every 1/2 mile at either end, before and after running on the freeway. In areas with steep hills, stops should be closer together. In certain places stops may also need to be closer to make connections with other bus lines. Explanation: Most Metro buses stop every 1 to 2 blocks by request, with the exception of the limited/rapid routes, express freeway buses, and the two BRT routes. This is true even in suburban areas where the next parallel route is a mile away. In the 1800's, horse-drawn omnibuses would pick up passengers at every corner along the route, and the first streetcars followed this pattern. Since 99% of the urban population did not own a carriage or horse, which were expensive luxuries then (even more so than today), walking was the only competition with the bus or train. 5 mph average speeds were over twice as fast as walking, so private transit companies wanted stops everywhere, to capture riders making even short trips of a few blocks. A glance at the Yellow Car map from the 1920's shows streetcar routes on almost every street in central Los Angeles; a stop was within about 1 block walking distance from everyone. Even the Paris Metro and early Manhattan subways had stops every 4 blocks (400 meters) or so, to capture as many walking trips as possible, despite the high cost of subway station construction. Diesel buses continued the earlier pattern, even as many families bought cars in the 20's, 30's and 40's, and driving became the main alternative to transit. As service was cut in cities and diesel bus lines extended into the suburbs, bus routes often became spaced 1/2 or every 1 mile apart in many areas (SF Valley, Orange County), more similar to regional rail or interurban lines, but the buses stopped every 1 or 2 blocks. This leads to the odd situation where most riders have to walk 200 or even 400 meters to a bus stop, even though the stops are only 200 meters apart on the route. Eliminating 1/2 the stops would only increase the maximum walking time by about 12%, from about 12 minutes up to 14 minutes, and the average walk time would only increase 20%, from 5 to 6 minutes, while average speeds of the bus would increase by at least this much. A little extra walking would also be just what the doctor ordered, for most of us. But inertia has continued the old pattern. n theory, this change could be made as soon as the next service cuts / fare increases are passed. In practice, every bus stop has a constituency and many people would be very upset about walking an extra block to the bus, especially those with limited mobility. But increased average speed equal less time from one end of the line to the other, which means you often need one less bus per line to maintain the same service. If funding for bus operations can be restored to previous levels when the economy improves (or if the union agrees to concessions), bus frequency could be increased by 20% on average, instead. Half of the lines that now run every 20 minutes might run every 15 minutes instead. Some of the extra buses could be shifted to improved Rapid or limited service. Since there would be 40% fewer bus stops, Metro could invest more in the remaining stops. Even local-only stops could have shelters, next-bus displays, ample seating, good signs, and more frequent cleaning, with 40% more money to spend on each stop. Rapid stops might be upgraded with bulb-outs, better signs, system and local area maps... basically everything we have at a light rail station. But I will talk about that tomorrow...
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 28, 2010 20:56:32 GMT -8
Okay, I'll do another today:
2) Open Transit Data
Recommendation: All transit agencies in California should provide their schedules and real-time vehicle location info to the public, including the Munis, Metro, OCTA, Amtrak... and even Greyhound. If real-time data is available, it should be public as well.
Metro should partner with the other transit agencies to produce a nice, functional trip planner, available on the web in standard and mobile format, and as an app for iPhone, Android, and other smart phones. The public, free data would also let other developers make similar programs right away. All agencies should make sure that their schedules and real-time data are correct, every day. If a bus stop is closed or a route changed for a parade or construction, that should show up even before a sign is placed at the bus stop or train station.
An automated phone system should be available, with an easy touch-tone system to find out when the next bus or train is coming on any route; this should be based on real-time data, not schedules.
Long-term, important bus stops and all train stations should have accurate, full-time displays showing the arrival times for the next 3 vehicles on every route.
Explanation: Metro already releases their schedules on Google Transit and as open data, according to City-Go-Round. However, LB Transit, LADOT, and many other Muni operators do not share their data openly, and some are not even on Google Transit. The LAX shuttle from the Green Line does not even show up on Metro's trip planner.
Many agencies already have real-time data on their vehicles, from GPS devices or other sensors, so they can maintain schedules and headways. This data can be made public, as Seattle has done, for minimal cost.
Reliable information on the next bus would help out riders and make waits seem shorter. Next-bus and next-train data in real time would allow real-time optimal trip planning.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 29, 2010 22:11:11 GMT -8
San Francisco Muni has been considering (threatening?) to cut down the number of bus stops, and they've run into the "every stop has a constituency" problem. In 1924, Los Angeles Railway eliminated and rearranged streetcar stops because of a serious electric power shortage, and apparently never restored them when the electric supply returned to normal. (but that was back in the days when Ford Motor Co. was cranking out Model "T" cars by the trainload)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 30, 2010 0:00:39 GMT -8
Bobdavis, do you know what the stop distance was on those LARy routes before and after 1924? I had the impression that the Yellow Cars stopped in the middle of the street most any street corner. Is that right?
The SF Muni debate about stop consolidation is a good one, and set me to thinking about this idea. Their plans are rather modest, but a step in the right direction. It is especially crazy that their light rail lines stop every 1 to 2 blocks in the street-running sections.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 30, 2010 0:53:19 GMT -8
3) Expand Limited Stop ("Rapid") Service
Recommendation: On busy routes, "Limited stop" service should be the most frequent service, with the longest span of service, morning and night. All branded Metro Rapid bus routes should run frequently throughout the day and evening on weekdays and weekends, and at least as frequently as the equivalent Local bus route. (When more operating funds are available, this should be every 10-12 minutes throughout the day and early evening, and at least every 15 minutes on weekends) Any limited bus route should run throughout the day, not only at peak periods. On long routes where service overlaps with another muni operator, limited-stop "rapid" service should be coordinated to eliminate forced transfers.
Explanation: Generally, Metro runs a limited-stop bus when the local becomes too crowded (I believe Wad confirmed this in an older thread). With the expansion of the Rapid system, many limited-stop routes were improved by adding frequent service throughout the day, but many of the Rapid lines still only run every 30 minutes outside of the peak period, even when the local bus on the same street runs frequently. For example, 710 on Crenshaw (a potential rail line!) runs only every 30 minutes during mid-day, while 210 runs every 15 to 20 minutes. The Florence and Firestone routes, 711 and 111, and 715/115, have local buses every 12-15 minutes during the day (pretty good!), but rapid buses only come every 30 mintues.
If we reverse these patterns and make the limited-stop routes more frequent, the rapid route become much more dependable and useful, something worth walking a couple extra blocks to get faster and more frequent service. Metro will also save a few hours of operating time, which could be used to further increase the frequency of some of the rapid or limited stop routes.
I understand that sometimes you just need that local bus. I recently took the local bus home after a long Amtrak trip, and often take it from the airport; with luggage and a kid, you don't want to walk 1/4 mile to a faster bus. Some people also walk very slowly, due to disabilities or age. So we should still run local buses (with stops spaced about every 400 meters; see point #1 above), but the most frequent service should stop every /2 mile. Young and middle-aged adults are the great majority of transit passengers, especially of commuters, and are sensitive to trip time, while most of the disable and elderly or young passengers who really need the local buses are more able to wait for a less frequent bus, or schedule their trips around a timetable. Those of us who want to be able to travel spontaneously are usually able to walk 1/4 mile to a limited-stop bus for faster service, and will do it if service frequency is good enough.
The same arguments for eliminating some of the local stops also work here. Prioritizing Limited and Rapid service will save money and allow more investment in amenities at the "stations". Walking a little farther will be good for us, and faster for everyone. Improving Rapid service will strengthen the brand, and make it politically possible to make bigger changes, like signal priority and exclusive bus lanes, which I will mention in later topics.
Increasing frequency of Rapid and Limited service will cost nothing (when balanced with reduced frequency of Local buses), and can be implemented almost immediately. This is something that Metro and all the Muni operators should do now.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 30, 2010 9:52:13 GMT -8
I have noticed that when I was travelling on Western Blvd once and the 207 was way more frequent (and oddly faster) than 757 when the Rapid was introduced on Western Blvd few years ago. I was wishing for the 357 limited to come back back then lol.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 30, 2010 9:56:59 GMT -8
If we reverse these patterns and make the limited-stop routes more frequent, the rapid route become much more dependable and useful, something worth walking a couple extra blocks to get faster and more frequent service. Metro will also save a few hours of operating time, which could be used to further increase the frequency of some of the rapid or limited stop routes. That depends if the corridor in question during the time of day is a Local corridor or a Regional one. Some corridors such as Florence and Manchester are predominately Local in nature except at Rush Hours where you need a slightly faster component. Everybody would love to have super fast service everywhere but there's a balance that has to be met to reaching enough patrons on a corridor to make the service work. And let's be honest with ourselves not every bus corridor qualifies as a Rapid Bus Corridor and much like every corridor will not always justify investment in rail. With our bus system we're lucky that most corridors are already spaced about every 2-4 blocks apart except in Downtown core areas so the speed improvements can also be looked at through boardings. On busier lines Multiple Door boarding would do wonders in speeding up trips as patrons are coming with cash fares one at a time.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 30, 2010 21:39:21 GMT -8
Jerard, I appreciate your persective, and you probably know the South LA area better than I do. Your comments made me research the South LA bus routes, and I was surprised to find that the Rapids sometimes go a mile without stopping. No wonder the local needs to be more frequent; the average walk to the 711 or 715 would be about 10 minutes, versus 4 minutes for a local, when stops are 1 mile apart. I would suggest that the express services should stop every 1/2 miles, so the majority of places are less than a 5 minute walk, and so all connections with intersecting bus routes can be made. Clurrently, 715 Rapid service, with stops every 1/2 mile at the major arterial streets, manages to connect with 17 out 21 bus routes which cross it, and hitting all the main north-south bus and train routes (per the 12-minute map), so it is usefull and faster for trips that will require a transfer anyway, if you don't mind a longer walk.
You wrote "....depends if the corridor in question during the time of day is a Local corridor or a Regional one" I would argue that the Manchester/Firestone (115/715) and Florence (111/711) corridors are regional, not local. The Green Line is basically LAX / El Segundo to Norwalk and manages to get 40,000 riders a day despite being in the middle of a freeway and having very few stops. The Florence buses also originate at LAX and end in Norwalk (though they manage to reach the Metrolink/Amtrak station!), while serving neighborhoods 2 to 4 miles north of the Green Line. Likewise, the 115 runs 22 miles from Playa Del Rey to Norwalk, a route as long as the Blue Line (The 715 is a mile or two shorter at each end).
In areas without rail or BRT service now, it would make sense to have three levels of bus service, if we had the hours and more buses. The local (e.g. 115) would stop every 1/4 mile (2 to 4 blocks, as is the case already in many suburban areas), the Limited ( 315L) would stop every 1/2 mile and have improvements like the current rapids, and the Rapid (715R) would stop every 1 mile (or at major transfer points) and have full stations like the Orange Line. Wilshire has this right now, and the Subway will become the true Rapid Transit option, with stations about every 1 mile on the purple line extension.
However, I also like the idea of having Rapid routes stop every 1/2 mile throught the city, so they are at most 1/4 mile away, in easy walking distance. For example, the 7th street corridor in Long Beach is only 4 miles long but has 12 minute service all day, and buses everly 5 or 6 minutes in the peak direction, including a limited-stop bus that stops every 1/2 mile. We have found that the 96 ZAP (as it is called -- bad marketing!) is always worth waiting for, if the trip is over 1 mile, as the extra 2 or 3 minutes walking... and for trips shorter than this we usually walk.
Do you have any ideas about this, Jerard? I was planning to address major structural changes later in this series of improvements, but I may need to research current operations some more.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 1, 2010 8:07:56 GMT -8
So your saying that LBT's ZAP is better than the BRT Metro has? I agree. I have never ridden on LBT's line but from what I read from you jeisenbe it seems that the ZAP service is way more frequent than Metro Rapid during rush hour, am I right? I was just reminiscing during the time when the Limited line's were numerous. I was thinking why not just eliminate the local stops the Limited had at the end of the lines, keep their frequencies (or enhance it), support local serice, and not abide to the stupid Rapid criteria. Only a few of LA's corridors warrant a Rapid service anyways.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 1, 2010 13:46:30 GMT -8
Redwings, Actually, Metro Rapid service is more frequent on the busiest routes, and has the significant advantage of running in both directions all day long. The 96 and 66 ZAP buses in Long Beach only run in one direction (I have no idea how they manage to schedule this) during each peak period, and not at all after 6 pm or at mid-day.
Some of the Metro Rapid routes, such as 710, 711, 714 and 715, only run 30 minutes during mid-day, but they all run every 10 to 12 minutes during rush hour. Busier corridors, such as Wilshire and Vermont, have Rapid buses scheduled every 5 to 10 minutes at peak times (not counting local buses, just rapids), and every 12 minutes all day long, with evening service at least every 20 minutes. Without off-vehicle payment and exclusive bus lanes these services cannot run any more frequently during the peaks without bad bus bunching, despite the use of articulated buses.
The problem with the Rapids is that they only stop every 1 mile in many areas, which results in 10 or 15 minute walks to many residential areas. Where they stop every 1/2 mile (For example, the 754 between Hollywood and USC along Vermont), the Rapid plus walking is faster than the local 204 for every trip over about 1 mile in length, if the frequency is similar, I believe. Interestingly enough, Metro runs the the 754 more frequently than the 204 all day long, even though the Red Line follows the same route for the northern section and has trains every 12 minutes, with no transfer to reach Downtown. If the Red Line stopped at Sunset, Melrose and 3rd, like the 754, it would be more useful for that neighborhood, though 2.5 minutes slower for riders going the whole route.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 1, 2010 13:51:34 GMT -8
Human Transit has an interesting post about speed and stop distance. It discusses Streetcars vs Rapid Transit (LRT or Subway), but the debate applies almost as well to Local vs Limited Stop buses. www.humantransit.org/2010/04/streetcars-and-spontaneity.htmlI though this section particularly relevant to the debate: "[The] point about "streetcars" really refers to "local-stop transit," which is relatively slow especially in congested inner cities where it encounters many sources of delay. In Portland, for example, the Portland Streetcar and the Line 15 bus have about the same scheduled travel time, 13 minutes, from 23rd & Marshall to around 10th & Salmon midday, going by different but equally congestion-prone routes. ... "The Portland Streetcar's scheduled speed, within downtown and NW Portland, is around 6.5 miles per hour. That's just about twice an average walking speed. Cyclists will note that it's about half of a leisurely cycling speed, which is in the 10-15 mph range. In fact, 6.5 mph is around cycling's minimum speed, below which it's hard to maintain balance. [EDIT: bike riders average about 8-9 mph, since we do need to stop at lights; this is about 3 times faster than walking, and just slower than a local bus] "So in round numbers, the streetcar's in-vehicle travel time is about twice is fast as walking, and about half as fast as cycling [EDIT: 50% slower than cycling]." "But of course, that's just in-vehicle travel time. Transit also suffers from waiting time, which in Portland, with its 13-minute Streetcar frequency, is 6.5 minutes on average. I haven't run the exact numbers, but it looks like the streetcar, assuming this average waiting time, is faster than walking only for trips of over 0.8 miles. If you're a pessimist, of course, you'll use the maximum waiting time, and in that case it's faster to walk if you're going less than about 1.1 miles." [Biking would ALWAYS be faster than the streetcar or local bus at that average speed]
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 1, 2010 14:30:23 GMT -8
If locals stop every 1/4 mile and Rapids every 1/2 mile, I think that the services would be too similar. I actually like the current layout where Rapids stop every mile or a little less and locals stop every block or two. The reason is that elderly people can't walk that extra block. They would often rather wait considerably longer for a shorter walk. I am probably in the minority but I really like LA's bus system a lot compared to other comparable systems. The problems that we have here with buses are endemic to bus travel in general. Bunching, slow speeds, traffic, etc. I really have no ideas I guess other than more frequent service which goes without saying. However I do have a pet peeve whether you're interested or not! I am an infrequent bus rider, but I have several times experienced getting passed up by buses that are supposed to stop but don't. Twice I have tried to ride the Rapid bus on Atlantic from the end of the gold line station and twice it has not stopped for me. The last time it wasn't even in the right hand lane as I waved for it to stop while standing under the Rapid sign. Is there anything more frustrating for a rider than to have a bus not stop when you have already been waiting a while?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 1, 2010 15:36:39 GMT -8
"I have several times experienced getting passed up by buses that are supposed to stop"
This often happens to my wife when she is trying to get home from CSU Long Beach, if she has stopped somewhere long the way. If the bus is totally packed, the driver will not stop to let someone on, unless there are passengers on the bus that want to get off.
I am surprised it happens even with the Metro Rapid on Atlantic. The buses are articulated, aren't they? Since they stop only every 1/2 to 1 mile, they should have someone getting on and off at every stop during busy times of the day.
One of the big advantages of light rail or even a streetcar is much higher peak capacity. It is easier to design a rail car that is a little wider than a bus, with more level areas of the floor and wider doors, to allow more standing room. Also, running trains of 3 or 4 cars greatly increases capacity, reducing the chance of a totally full vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 1, 2010 15:54:03 GMT -8
"I actually like the current layout where Rapids stop every mile or a little less and locals stop every block or two. The reason is that elderly people can't walk that extra block. They would often rather wait considerably longer for a shorter walk."
I'm in complete agreement with you that local service is necessary. I just don't think it should be frequent in every corridor. As you mention, elderly people and others who cannot walk far are usually willing to wait. If not, there is the legally mandated dial-a-ride ("paratransit") service available for disabled people. Also, having stops at every single block is excessive, and going to a standardized 300-400 meters between stops would be reasonable for local buses.
But one of the advantages of buses on a wide street is the ability to have multiple routes and levels of service on one street. Crenshaw can easily accommodate 2 local and 2 rapid buses in one direction, because if two buses pull up at the same time they can both fit at the curb, and if a local is stopped the rapid can just change lanes to pass it easily. Rail can't do that without 3 or more tracks at each station (just as a bus can't pass without another lane to use).
Also, having multiple types of service helps reduce bus bunching. Running buses every 5 minutes or less frequently leads to headways getting out of hand; two buses will come together, then another wont' come for 15 minutes. But if you run a local bus every 10 minutes and a limited-stop bus every 10 minutes, they can serve slightly different people and hopefully stay more on schedule, despite mixing in traffic.
Wilshire currently has the 920 bus, which stops every 1 to 2 miles, the 720 stopping every 1/2 mile to 1 mile, and the 20 stopping every block. I would suggest that we could improve service by having a local stop every 2 long blocks (every 1/4 mile), a Rapid stop every 1/2 mile (basically at every major cross street) and a "Super-Rapid" or "Express" 920 stop every 1 to 1/2 miles (basically at the future Purple line stations). The 920 could stop at Western with a timed transfer to the Purple Line, until the subway is finished.
By having Rapid buses stop a little more frequently, they would become useful for trips as short as 1 mile (5 to 10 minutes total walking + average 5 minute wait + 5 minutes on the bus = 20 minutes, faster than walking), and would be better than the 920 for trips up to 5 miles or more in length, while the 920 would be better for very long trips, like LA to Westwood or Santa Monica. (Of course, the subway will be much faster than the 920 and more reliable, due to grade separations and high max speeds).
On Rapid corridors that have too few riders to merit a third, long-distance service like the 920, I think having the Rapid stop ever 1/2 mile and making it the most frequent service would be more useful, since it would put almost everyone within a reasonable 5 minute walk of a Rapid stop. If the Rapid is more frequent than the local, most riders will spend an extra couple minutes walking if they get to their destination faster overall.
This will make even more sense along with capital improvements. I will talk about that next, since those changes will take more time and money.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 5, 2010 23:31:22 GMT -8
4) Improve headway and schedule management
Recommendation: Metro (and all transit agencies) should always try to keep the buses running on schedule. But for frequent bus routes, it is more important to maintain the headway (the time from one bus to the next) than the schedule. Buses that come every 15 minutes or more often should mainly be managed by headways. On infrequent bus routes, delays should be immediately reported to riders, by texts, twitter, website alerts, a dial-in number, or electronic signs at the bus stop. Information about the next bus should always be available, especially if it is late. On frequent routes, drivers should be given the authority to slow down when they get too close to the next bus ahead, or to stop picking up passengers to speed up again if they are behind. Drivers, managers, maintenance and every other employee should feel responsible for running buses on time, and should know the situation every hour, and over the long term, and have incentives to make things work better.
Any routes that are contracted out should be closely monitored for quality, especially adherence to schedule and headways, reliability and safety. And Metro employees should also be evaluated this way.
Explanation: Frequency of service is the most imporant determinante of good transit service, especially on shorter routes. But frequency is only meaningful if it is reliable. A bus that comes every 30 minutes, to the second, is easy to plan around; just leave at the right time to arrive at the stop right before the bus pulls up. If you are too late for one bus, you can read the paper at home, or do some more work before leaving the office. But if the bus could come 5 minutes early or 10 minutes late, you will waste an average of 10 minutes waiting for the bus, twice a day. If your bus sometimes never comes at all, you need to arrive 40 minutes early, to catch the earlier bus, if your employer, or the event you are attending, requires promptness. This can be a much bigger problem than the speed of the bus route.
On bus lines with frequent service, riders have the little luxury of showing up at any time, knowing that a bus will arrive in a few minutes. Well, so they suppose; if instead two or three buses come within a minute, and then there are no more buses for a half hour, bus riders are stuck with either unreliable arrival times or the need to show up a quarter hour early to arrive on time.
A very reliable bus every 30 minutes can be just as good as a very unreliable bus scheduled ever 10 minutes, which often shows up only every 20 minutes.
Traffic, wheelchairs, changes in passenger volume and other problems out of the control of Metro can cause buses to run slow (or fast). But if bus drivers know what is going on with the bus ahead and the bus behind, they can adjust their driving and the length of stops to keep up or slow down compared to the buses around them. Sometimes work rules and bad company policies make it hard for drivers and managers to do this; if that is a problem at Metro or any transit agency here, it should be changed.
Even when the buses are late or bunched up, timely information available to riders can make a big difference. If alerts about route or schedule changes are available, riders can decide to take a different bus or train, call a taxi or a friend, or go sit in a cafe and enjoy the wait. Even before we put in electronic displays, we can get that information now thru cell phones, internet devices, texts, etc. Metro is starting to try to do this, but needs to make it a big priority.
Okay, well those are my ideas for easy changes. Next, I will write about some big changes that will require rebuilding streets and stations, and then finally we will get to improvements that will result in reforms at Metro.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 6, 2010 4:02:21 GMT -8
I would suggest that we could improve service by having a local stop every 2 long blocks (every 1/4 mile), a Rapid stop every 1/2 mile (basically at every major cross street) and a "Super-Rapid" or "Express" 920 stop every 1 to 1/2 miles (basically at the future Purple line stations). The 920 could stop at Western with a timed transfer to the Purple Line, until the subway is finished. You really don't need this great of a degree of stop separation. Locals and limiteds/Rapids do just fine. L.A.'s stop spacing is about 0.1 to 0.2 miles for a local and about 0.75 to 1 mile for a limited/Rapid. Considering that a limited has one fifth of the stops of a local and yet only offers a 20%-25% time advantage, this would mean that even wider stop spaces would not yield a greater time savings over Rapids. Also, when you have services that are busy enough to sustain more than two classes of service, you're not attracting new riders with different "speed points," you're really just dispersing the loads among three buses. Ridership is not going to increase as fast as the operating costs (each bus at all service segments becomes more expensive as loads are lighter).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 6, 2010 9:18:34 GMT -8
If a bus has to stop to pick up a wheelchair pax and the trailing bus does not, then the buses will bunch closer. But keeping them apart at that point wouldn't be wise. For example suppose that the trailing bus was then delayed? Then there would be two big gaps in service.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 6, 2010 16:14:03 GMT -8
"Considering that a limited has one fifth of the stops of a local and yet only offers a 20%-25% time advantage, this would mean that even wider stop spaces would not yield a greater time savings over Rapids."
Wad, the rapids are a little better than that, especially at rush hour when the locals are at their slowest.
For example, in Long Beach the 96 bus along 7th street between CSULB and Pacific is almost 50% faster than the local buses (91 to 94) at 4:30 pm. (14 minutes vs 21 minutes for a 4-mile trip). I recently found some segments of the 715 that were 40% faster than equivalent locals at rush hour.
Now, at 10 pm the local bus is usually faster than the limited at rush hour, because there is no traffic and the local usually is empty, so there is no real need to run limited-stop buses at that time. At mid-day there is a 20% to 25% speed advantage between locals and rapids in many areas.
However, even when the scheduled time for the local is good, the presence of a potential stop every block means the bus can get way off schedule if there are more passengers than usual. A limited bus will also be slowed by many people getting on, but the number of stops will remain more or less constant, which improves reliability. And if you have signal priority, off-vehicle payment, bus bulbs or lanes and other improvements, the limited-stop bus can be very reliable even with large numbers of passengers.
I agree that most bus routes don't need more than 2 types of service, and areas with low density may not support more than an infrequent local bus. But routes that are being considered for new rail lines, like Crenshaw, Wilshire, Vermont and Santa Monica, might have savings from 3 types of operations. If the limited-stop services can reduce move passengers faster, fewer buses and drivers will be needed for the same amount of capacity. That can actually save money.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 7, 2010 3:57:38 GMT -8
For example, in Long Beach the 96 bus along 7th street between CSULB and Pacific is almost 50% faster than the local buses (91 to 94) at 4:30 pm. (14 minutes vs 21 minutes for a 4-mile trip). I recently found some segments of the 715 that were 40% faster than equivalent locals at rush hour. Line 715 is really quick because the stop spacing on the east line is very broad. I remember the Zap well from my days as a CSULB student. It's a great service. I also remember it was never productive. Low ridership helps a lot. LBT considered cutting the Zaps altogether a few years ago. The one drawback of time savings is that, unlike money, time savings cannot be banked. What would a rider do with that 7 minutes? If the rider missed the Zap, wouldn't it be a better choice to catch the next 7th Street local bus rather than waiting for the next Zap? For short distances, the time savings isn't dramatic. I don't know at what point riders regard as fast. From my own experiences, I'll consider fast a 10 minute savings, even for short lines. Not likely. The streets you've mentioned all have frequent services. There's a diminishing return for high-frequency bus lines. The increase in ridership declines with increasing frequency on busy routes. A bus that has 10 minute service upped to 5 minutes will see fewer new riders proportionally than a 60 minute service raised to 30 minutes. You're really just redistributing loads at this point. You have a fixed cost per bus. For Metro, it's about $120 per hour per bus. Having three classes of service means a minimum of $360 an hour for those services. Ridership, though, won't necessarily distribute itself into equal thirds. Typically, local lines will get the highest ridership, then the limiteds, then the fastest buses. The costs, though, will be higher on buses with lower ridership. Even if ridership distributed itself evenly, costs would be different because of the different run times of each bus. Metro would save by having fewer stop-class services, not more.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 8, 2010 12:28:21 GMT -8
Sometimes a savings of few minutes is better than none. With the few minutes saved by riding a limited/ rapid bus, you can connect to another bus that you've might've missed if you were on a local bus. Of course that isn't always the case at certain corridors especially during non-rush hours. For example the Manchester-Firestone Rapid, that corridor really doesn't need a Rapid during the day especially when it doesn't get as many passengers as it might have during rush hour. Waste of money if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 8, 2010 19:40:02 GMT -8
"For example the Manchester-Firestone Rapid, that corridor really doesn't need a Rapid during the day especially when it doesn't get as many passengers as it might have during rush hour. Waste of money if you think about it."
Rapids save money, compared to running the same frequency of service as all local buses. That's the big benefit from "rapid" buses, not the time savings. I addressed this in an earlier post.
Imagine Metro can afford to operate 9 buses on the Manchester/Firestone route in each direction. If the local takes 2 hours to complete the route, then a Rapid (limited-stop) bus that is 33% faster will only take 1 hour 30 minutes. With all locals, you can have one bus every 15 minutes (120 minutes / 9 = 15), while will all rapids, you would have a bus every 10 minutes (90 / 9 = 10), for the same cost. If the Rapid runs only every 15 minutes, it would be 30% cheaper to operate, as well as 30% faster and just as frequent.
In the real world we want to run local and limited stop buses, so people who can't walk that far can still get to a bus stop. But the locals are the more expensive service, requiring more buses and drivers for the same frequency. That's why I think we should consider running Metro Rapid buses more frequently than the locals, during the day and early evening. (At night when the bus is empty and there is no traffic, a limited-stop bus is not much faster under current conditions)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 8, 2010 20:05:34 GMT -8
Wad, thanks for your insights. I think you are much more knowledgeable about bus operations than I am. However, I disagree with two points you made: 1. "I remember the Zap well from my days as a CSULB student. It's a great service. I also remember it was never productive. Low ridership helps a lot. LBT considered cutting the Zaps altogether a few years ago." The ZAP is no longer empty. According to my wife, who rides it from Orange / 7th to CSU LB daily, the seats on the 96 are full by Redondo when heading east between 9 and 10 am. On the way back, it has a dozen people standing after the VA Med Center stop, in the afternoon. Unlike the locals, it never is too full to pick up passengers. When the 96 stops running in the morning, around 11 am, the local buses will be packed and often skip stops east of Redondo due to over crowding. The buses are much more full since CSULB started offering providing free LB Transit passes to all registered students. I will also note that she walks an extra 1/4 mile to get the 96 instead of the local bus, even in her 6th month of pregnancy. In the afternoon the 96 takes 15 minutes (per schedule) from campus to Orange / 7th, while the local is scheduled to take 22 minutes and is often later. (See maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=W.+Campus+%26+Library&daddr=33.775152,-118.180275&hl=en&geocode=FXZoAwId0LT1-Cm_Nwpg1jHdgDHGN0p0XdHJ3A%3B&mra=dme&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=13&dirflg=r&ttype=dep&date=05%2F10%2F10&time=4:30pm&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=&sll=33.774153,-118.145943&sspn=0.067207,0.109692&ie=UTF8&ll=33.774011,-118.145943&spn=0.067208,0.109692&z=13&start=1) I don't believe crowding is the main reason the local is slower; the reverse-direction local takes 20 minutes at that time. (Reverse the above directions on Google Maps for proof) 2. "You have a fixed cost per bus. For Metro, it's about $120 per hour per bus. Having three classes of service means a minimum of $360 an hour for those services." Well sure, if you only had 1 bus on the local route, it would cost three times as much to add two more buses. But we are discussing routes (Crenshaw, Wilshire, Vermont and Santa Monica, etc.) that already have a bus every 12 minutes, or more frequently all day long. I'm suggesting that it might make sense to take a few buses from the local route and put them on a 1-stop-per-mile "super-rapid" route, which would imitate the future rail line. (if the Rapid stops every 1 mile, add a 1/2 stop per mile Limited). Local stops would get slightly less frequent service, while future rail stations or major intersections would get more frequent and faster service. I agree with your last statement "Metro would save by having fewer stop-class services, not more," if it means either: A. Reducing the number of buses per hour on a street would save money (by reducing service) Or B. Eliminating local buses in favor of "rapid" buses would save money. If you mean "C. Eliminating rapid buses while keeping the same frequency of service", I think it is clear that this would cost more.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 8, 2010 21:08:24 GMT -8
The reason why I mentioned the 715 because the line is really infrrequent compared to the other Rapids and to the 115 itself. Just to get on a bus to LAX you have to wait for nearly an hour.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 10, 2010 4:21:19 GMT -8
Sometimes a savings of few minutes is better than none. With the few minutes saved by riding a limited/ rapid bus, you can connect to another bus that you've might've missed if you were on a local bus. It comes down to the "which bus should I get on?" question. If a limited/Rapid is 25% faster, that means the time savings is negligible for short routes. If your local averages 10 mph, the Rapid averages 13-1/3 mph. That would mean a time savings of 90 seconds for each mile traveled. Think about this if you let a local pass to catch a Rapid. Factor in the time waiting into the potential savings. If your Rapid comes 6 minutes after the local left, you'd need to travel about 4 miles before catching up. If you travel 8 miles, you save all of 6 minutes. That's not all that substantial considering the distance traveled. Well sure, if you only had 1 bus on the local route, it would cost three times as much to add two more buses. But we are discussing routes (Crenshaw, Wilshire, Vermont and Santa Monica, etc.) that already have a bus every 12 minutes, or more frequently all day long. I'm suggesting that it might make sense to take a few buses from the local route and put them on a 1-stop-per-mile "super-rapid" route, which would imitate the future rail line. (if the Rapid stops every 1 mile, add a 1/2 stop per mile Limited). I've created a spreadsheet that shows the time advantages of local, limited/Rapid and express class services. It's good for a heuristic illustration. Let me know if you'd like to see it. Again, the problem with your recommendation is that the stop spacing is so narrow that the lines almost do the same thing as to make one of them redundant. If you need something faster than a Rapid, you'd need something with very long stop spacings, like 2 miles, 2.5 miles or even point-to-point services. The thing is, one you've achieved a high level of service, these lines will mostly begin to take ridership from one another. When this happens, the passenger costs begin to rise across all those services with so many segmented lines. The $120/hour is the fixed service cost per bus deployed. This signals all buses would cost the same and service space doesn't really matter. Metro, though, also looks at productivity and passenger costs. A Rapid route can complete its run quicker, but aside from freaks of nature like Line 720 or 780, Rapids have higher productivity but lower ridership. This means, with fewer passengers getting on, fewer fares are collected. The faster service comes at a higher price.
|
|