|
Post by jeisenbe on May 10, 2010 22:56:03 GMT -8
"The $120/hour is the fixed service cost per bus deployed." Yeah, we need to get operating costs down. Spending $120 to run a bus, with the pay and benefits for the driver being somewhere around $80 an hour, is a bit much. As a physician, I can't make more than $75 an hour working night or weekend shifts at an Urgent Care center (with no benefits). At 150,000 a year and 50 hours a week, an average Family Physician or Pediatrician makes $60 an hour (or about $80 with benefits?). I should have just driven a bus...
I recall that LADOT and some other municipal operators have costs as low as $60 an hour, including bus maintenance and fuel. But those are contracted out and likely are not union workers.
Oh, and I'd love to see your spreadsheet. I've thought of doing that myself; no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Multiple levels of service become more useful when you can increase to speed and reliability, by getting an exclusive right-of-way, signal priority, or level boarding. Certainly, you would agree that having high speed rail, commuter trains, subways, rapid buses and local buses is not too many levels of service. If Metro can get more improvements for the Rapid buses, like exclusive bus lanes, or Proof-of-payment, the Rapid may become better even for short trips. I know that I will wait over 10 minutes for the Blue Line to take a 15 minute trip from Pacific to Willow, even though the 51 or 61 might be faster at a given time; the train is more reliable and comfortable. And all those stops every 2 blocks just drive me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 11, 2010 4:21:28 GMT -8
I recall that LADOT and some other municipal operators have costs as low as $60 an hour, including bus maintenance and fuel. But those are contracted out and likely are not union workers. LADOT and Foothill are contracted out, but each have unions. The old muni agencies, though, are all operated in-house. A lot of them have pay and benefits packages that are far better than Metro's, yet still have a lower hourly cost of service! Santa Monica, for instance, pays one of the highest wages for its motorcoach operators in the country. Its drivers are represented by UTU, just like Metro's. Varieties of service isn't a problem as long as each can justify its costs. The problem with time savings is that they can't be banked. On local buses, short trips are already short as it is. On a bus with an average speed of 10 mph, a mile would take about 6 minutes. A Rapid, with 25% savings, would take 4.5 minutes that would be rounded up to 5 since transit agencies don't keep time to the second. Also, the secret recipe of why Rapid is so fast isn't so dramatic: It's faster because of the fewer stops. The only other improvement likely to produce a major time savings is proof-of-payment and all-doors boarding. Yet most Rapid buses fall into Vuchic's Paradox: Low-ridership lines don't warrant the capital investment even though they'll see the most growth; high-ridership lines warrant the capital investment but don't need it because ridership is high (and probably overwhelming capacity anyway).
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 9:33:24 GMT -8
"high-ridership lines warrant the capital investment but don't need it because ridership is high"
Yeah, when farebox recovery is only 20% who wants more riders? Much easier to run empty buses. ;-) Capital investment never pays off when you lose 50 cents on the dollar for every new rider (even assuming that new riders have a better recovery ration than existing ridership).
I have been trying to think of a funding scenario that would tie the total transit operations budget directly to ridership, without going to 100% farebox recovery (which works well but results in high prices in London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc). The state or city could match fares 2 to 1 or 3 to 1, so that higher ridership would always lead to increased funding for operations, but where would the state get a stable supply of funding? The general fund? Perhaps we would only need to guarantee matching funds for increases in ridership, so that capital improvements that get people on the bus would actually be cost-effective.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 9:34:52 GMT -8
Oh, and you can email that spreadsheet to my username plus "rg" at memorialcare dot org, if you have the time.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 9:51:16 GMT -8
Let's move on to the big improvements to bus service, which will require more planning, some investment, even institutional reform (Gasp!) 5) A. Fix TAP and rationalize fares: TAP, like ORCA in Seattle, the Oyster Card in London, or the Octopus Card in Hong Kong, is perfectly capable of storing value and paying for varying fares. Metro should start using this ability as soon as software upgrades can be installed, at the next fare increase. Instead of uniformly increasing fares, Metro should increase the cost of purchasing with cash, while allowing TAP to be used to buy a single bus trip at a discount. After 4 taps in a day, the cost should be the same as a day pass. After 10 taps in a week you would have bough a weekly pass, and 30 in a month would cap you out at a month pass. With the price for a single fare at $2.00 cash, but only $1.50 via TAP, there would be a huge incentive for occasional users to get a tap card. Instead of raising fares equally next time, Monthly passes and Day passes should rise only 10%, while single trips increase more. This will encourage people to use the system more, while hurting transit-dependent people the least. According to the charts here: thesource.metro.net/2010/05/07/metros-fares-remain-low-relative-to-the-nations-major-transit-agencies/ , Metro has an average price for a monthly pass (still a good deal considering how big LA County is compared to these other systems), a good deal in the EZ Pass, average-priced day passes, but low single-ticket prices.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 10:06:41 GMT -8
5) B. Integrate TAP County-wide and vary prices
After TAP is fixed and everyone is encouraged to get a card by changing fares and allowing TAP to be used for single trips, as explained above, hopefully the municipal operators and Metrolink will see the benefit of using one card. This works well in London and Hong Kong, despite the existence of for-profit, competitive transit companies, and can work here. However, to integrate Metrolink, LADOT Express buses, Metro buses and an expanding rail system, fares need to change from one-price-fits-all.
Los Angeles will soon have 20 to 40 mile long "light rail" lines, and already has bus routes over 20 miles long. The averagel (or median?) trip length on a bus is only 2 to 3 miles, but someone taking the bus 20 miles pays the same fare as someone riding only 1 mile.
With electronic fare cards, it is technically easy to charge different prices for different trip lengths. The minimum price could go back to a dollar for 1 mile trips (about the same price as driving, parking not included), while Metrolink or a bus from Lancaster to Long Beach could cost $30 and still be cheaper than gas alone. Metrolink might have a small premium over buses, but light rail, subway and rapid buses should be the same price for the same distance, due to low operating costs.
Prices at rush hour could also be higher, especially in the peak direction. The Washington Metro system does this, which helps keep fares lower in off-peak times and directions, when buses and trains often have plenty of open seats.
Right now, many people take long bus rides instead of Metrolink to save a few bucks, even though longer trains for Metrolink could be much cheaper than more frequent buses. Long rides, say North Hollywood to Downtown on the Red Line, could get close to 100% farebox recovery at rush hour, making it easier to add additional trains to relieve crowding, while prices at other times of the day and for short neighborhood trips would remain low.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 10:19:18 GMT -8
6) Proof of Paymentl
The plans for fares based on length of trip above are workable even with the current pay-as-you-board system on buses, if TAP readers are added at the back door or at bus stations, so you can tap when you get off. Having the fare default to the maximum price if you forget to tap-out would be a strong incentive to do it!
However, it would work even better with proof-of-payment, as used on our Metro rail lines and Metrolink today. With additional fare inspectors and cameras on buses, drivers would be free to watch the road, and riders would be free to walk on at any door. Modern 45-foot European buses often have 4 doors, and articulated 60-foot buses can have up to 6 doors, making boarding the bus almost as fast as boarding a train. Wheelchairs would still be slower, but could use two lifts, greatly helping when two different wheelchair users are getting on and off at the same time. Meanwhile, able-bodied riders could get on and off without waiting. At normal stops, the maximum time would be down to 20 seconds, even with dozens of passengers getting on or off. Running articulated buses would become much more useful, especially on crowded routes like Wilshire or Vermont.
Fare evasion might increase slightly. But under the current system many drivers allow riders to board without paying after giving minimal excuses, and teenagers often sneak on thru the back door. With proof-of-payment, fare inspectors would get on the bus between stops and check fares via card readers while the bus was moving (as done in many European cities, where the police apparently do not feel superior to riding the bus themselves!), causing no delay, and tickets would be priced high enough that buying a pass would be cheaper in the long run. Metro already manages to get 95% fare adherence on the current rail lines, despite rather minimal enforcement, and with higher fines or more frequent checks that percentage could be cut in half, were it worth the investment.
Proof-of-payment can increase average bus speeds by 20% on busy routes, perhaps even more at rush hour on limited-stop buses. Reliability will have an even bigger improvement, as variable loading times are a big reason that buses get delayed. The operational savings will quickly pay for the additional TAP card readers and TVMs needed.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 10:31:23 GMT -8
Another comment on electronic cards and Proof-of-Payment: When making connections between buses or trains, you would only need to tap the card at the beginning of the trip and at the last stop. Transfers should be free, because they are of no benefit to the transit rider; a non-stop bus to your destination would be best! The total trip length, based on zones or miles, and the time of the trip, would determine the cost. If your card were inspected on the train after you tapped on the bus 45 minutes ago, it would still show you as "tapped-in", for as long as 2 hours or so. To prevent "fare evasion" on short trips, if you tap out at the same place you start you would pay a medium-length "excursion fare" based on the amount of time between taps, rather than distance. BART does this, in case you ride around on the system for fun for a few hours, charging $4 or $5 for a ticket to the same station you started, but the price could vary based on time, assuming that a 30 minute trip couldn't have been very far. You can also make everyone tap "in" and "out" on every vehicle, but 95% of the time tapping twice for the whole trip would work fine, and with distance-based fares both those options would have about the same price. Riders could also be alerted to problems; if you haven't tapped out in 2 or 3 hours, you could get a text message on your phone alerting you that you forgot to tap out. Just run down to the nearest bus stop and tap again, and you are fine. It might even be possible to use the location of your cell phone, based on GPS, to automatically tap in and out of the system. I believe Tokyo or Hong Kong let you pay by phone now. Tap "cards" are really only a 1 cm smart chip, and could be offered as key-chain fobs, integrated with flash drives, turned into bracelets, or whatever; no need to keep it in your wallet: www.plusmetro.com/archive/all/2010/05/06/rethinking-the-way-we-tap
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 11, 2010 10:41:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 22, 2010 7:53:17 GMT -8
Good comment on Human Transit about improving bus rapid transit, like Metro Rapid: www.humantransit.org/2010/05/confronting-words-from-us-transit-administrator.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HumanTransit+%28Human+Transit%29&utm_content=Google+Reader"One thing I really agree with you on is setting minimum performance and quality standards. Here are some things I just made up. I'm not sure what the speciic value should be but so I tried to make an educated guess. - Headways of 10 minutes or less for 16 hours a day [Metro: no, except for Wilshire and Vermont] - TSP [Transit signal priority] at all intersections with LOS lower than B [Metro: only in city of LA] - Exclusive ROW along roadway segments with congestion more than 1 hour a day [Metro: Nope] - Off board fare payment for all stops with more than 200 boardings a day [Metro: Nope] - Mean stop spacing of 1500-2400 feet [Metro: done] - Full real time info and disruption alert system (accessible online, mobile, SMS, in vehicle, at stop) [Metro: Wilshire and Vermont only] - Significant stations that provide rain/sun/wind protection and are visible from afar [Metro: it rains in L.A.? Oops] "Something like this should be required of all federally funded BRT projects, or make it so that the more they have the higher their scores are when it comes to applying for federal funds. The federal system should reward quality as well as efficency, otherwise we will continue to get fake BRT. "Posted by: Adam Parast | 05/22/2010 at 01:21 "
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 25, 2010 17:17:34 GMT -8
Isn't Metro slowly working into getting the NexTrip thingy-magig onto the whole system?
For the Metro Rapid to become a true BRT system, it needs its own stations like the Orange Line has right? It doesn't necessarily need to have an exclusive ROW for it to be considered a BRT. Just put some amneties to make it a BRT and actual improvements that'll make trip times shorter, which might atract riders on the Rapid lines. Maybe on wide roads (example Venice Blvd or Lincoln Blvd), a Rapid line can have a ROW with stations like the Transmilenio BRT at Bogota, Colombia.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 26, 2010 3:59:39 GMT -8
For the Metro Rapid to become a true BRT system, it needs its own stations like the Orange Line has right? No. BRT's advantage is that it is flexible to the point of allowing transit agencies to call BRT whatever they wish it to be. So Metro Rapid is true BRT. Then again, limited stop buses are the same things without red buses, so 300-series lines are true BRT as well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 26, 2010 8:41:25 GMT -8
Isn't Metro slowly working into getting the NexTrip thingy-magig onto the whole system? For the Metro Rapid to become a true BRT system, it needs its own stations like the Orange Line has right? It doesn't necessarily need to have an exclusive ROW for it to be considered a BRT. Just put some amneties to make it a BRT and actual improvements that'll make trip times shorter, which might atract riders on the Rapid lines. Maybe on wide roads (example Venice Blvd or Lincoln Blvd), a Rapid line can have a ROW with stations like the Transmilenio BRT at Bogota, Colombia. The whole next bus thing has worked maybe once or twice in 11 years on the 720 Wilshire Rapid in my experience. Granted I rarely take it, but you'd think over that time it would have been working consistently at some point. I rode the other day and not only was the next bus not working as I watched 3 busses cruise by on the other side of Wilshire, but the bill reader was not working once I got on my bus. The driver just told me to forget about paying. Given that the bus was full as it was bunched with another one right behind it, I had no problem with that, but it doesn't make for very strong farebox recovery. Our whole fare, gate, TAP, service operation always seems to be in a state of not quite working. That has to change if we are to have a real transit system.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 26, 2010 13:18:11 GMT -8
The "next bus" signs in Long Beach work fairly reliably (on 7th street and Atlantic, for the 96 and 66 "Zap" buses). Also, Long Beach has a website where you can see the next three buses at any stop, which is usually fairly reliable: webwatch.lbtransit.com/webwatch/I believe Trimet (Portland) has done this well on their website.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 26, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -8
For the Metro Rapid to become a true BRT system, it needs its own stations like the Orange Line has right? No. BRT's advantage is that it is flexible to the point of allowing transit agencies to call BRT whatever they wish it to be. Wad is right, from a political standpoint. But from the perspective of a transit rider, "real" BRT is "suppose" to be just like LRT (Light rail transit): exclusive right-of-way, significant stations, signal priority, off-vehicle payment or proof-of-payment, etc. Metro Rapid is just a nice limited-stop bus with signal priority, so far. Many countries would consider this the basic standard for any limited-stop bus. But because politically BRT was allowed to be degraded by imitators like the Metro Rapid (which is a good improvement to bus service, but not BRT), all of us transit advocates are very skeptical of anything called BRT. If every Metro Rapid route was given exclusive bus lanes, switched to proof-of-payment, and given strong signal priority or pre-emption at every intersection, you would have transit service as reliable as the Blue Line or Gold Line, and as fast as the street-running sections of the Blue line, for little more than the cost of paint, bollards and signaling improvements. Wheelchairs and operations costs would still be a problem, especially on Wilshire and Vermont, but this is something that could be done in 1 year. Too bad LADOT has little interest in moving people faster, if it would slow down single occupant cars.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 26, 2010 13:26:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 28, 2010 3:52:09 GMT -8
Speaking of Metro Rapid versus Limited routes, does anyone know what improvements are planned when the 333 become 733? Red articulated buses. Also, it will now operate all limited-stops. Line 333 has parts where it runs as a local.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 30, 2010 12:19:57 GMT -8
I also read on a Streetsblog comment that the red articulated buses have equipment to allow signal priority, which is not available for orange 300 series "limited" buses. Is this true, Wad? Is Venice Bvld set up to allow signal priority for transit?
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 31, 2010 3:42:10 GMT -8
I also read on a Streetsblog comment that the red articulated buses have equipment to allow signal priority, which is not available for orange 300 series "limited" buses. Is this true, Wad? Is Venice Bvld set up to allow signal priority for transit? Yes, Metro only installs the transponders on red buses. The transponders send a visual beam to a loop embedded in intersections. This is what is supposed to give the buses signal priority. Keep in mind, LADOT is the gatekeeper of the traffic signals. "Signal priority" is shorthand for "give the buses priority only when there is no traffic on the cross street." So, really, the red buses are no better at making it through a green light than an orange bus that leaves green lights to chance.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on May 31, 2010 15:21:20 GMT -8
Just wondering but what's the routing for the 733? The same as the 333?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 2, 2010 0:04:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jun 2, 2010 6:38:40 GMT -8
Wow! That's a radical change in the TT color scheme! Is that only for the Hybrids, or will the older buses (probably only the Advantages, as the Phantoms will probably be going bye-bye) be repainted to this? First (New) Flyer products at TT since the D901s from 1983 (413-416).
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 2, 2010 7:20:52 GMT -8
Basically they're going to transition everything they can so that costumers don't get confused.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Jun 2, 2010 17:05:33 GMT -8
I know this may sound stupid but this looks like as if it were a "BRT" type of bus with that livery. There's still going to be some Phantoms left in the fleet even if they get the 2nd option addition buses. Maybe some of those leftover Phantoms can get that livery too.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 2, 2010 17:33:56 GMT -8
Great catch! Thanks for posting ieko. I'm gonna post one pic and a link at subchat/buschat if you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 2, 2010 18:31:46 GMT -8
Yeah, that's fine. You should just use my gallery link
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 2, 2010 18:49:04 GMT -8
I will. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 9, 2010 15:52:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Aug 16, 2010 20:36:47 GMT -8
After the unmitigated HELL that was my experience on the bus system today, I am convinced service will never improve until Art fires the incompetents who comprise Metro's bus operations management. It is apparent Metro did absolutely no planning to deal with the traffic caused by Obama's presence today: no contingency plan, no recovery plan, no plan at all.
It took 2 hours for me to get from the doctor's office in Century City to my office in Brentwood this afternoon and it took almost THREE hours to get from Brentwood home to Wilshire & La Brea this evening.
Really inexcusable and unforgivable.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 16, 2010 21:24:07 GMT -8
After the unmitigated HELL that was my experience on the bus system today, I am convinced service will never improve until Art fires the incompetents who comprise Metro's bus operations management. It is apparent Metro did absolutely no planning to deal with the traffic caused by Obama's presence today: no contingency plan, no recovery plan, no plan at all. It took 2 hours for me to get from the doctor's office in Century City to my office in Brentwood this afternoon and it took almost THREE hours to get from Brentwood home to Wilshire & La Brea this evening. Really inexcusable and unforgivable. Just curious as to what you are suggesting they do? I work in Brentwood as well and from what I could see, they closed the streets for some time in the afternoon. Busses can't do a whole lot when the streets are closed or clogged. They could have avoided the Brentwood area altogether, but that would not have helped you muched.
|
|