Budget
For buses, faster is cheaper
Operating buses might be expensive because of maintenance, fuel, and labor costs, but there's another enormous driver of cost: traffic. Our region's buses spend a lot of time in traffic, burning fuel and paying drivers not to actually go anywhere. This also sets up a vicious cycle. If buses take longer to reach the ends of the lines, then they're not ready to turn around and start a new run as fast. That forces Metro to add more buses and more drivers just to maintain existing service. The slower buses also discourage riders, adding cars on the road which slow the buses even further.
Q2 bus. Photo from the Q2 study.
How do we speed up buses by 3 miles per hour? Manage the road network to maximize person throughput, not vehicle throughput. Currently, most DOTs, including Montgomery County's, optimize their signal timing based on the numbers of vehicles. If one bus is waiting at an intersection in one direction and five cars are waiting the other way, they'll design the signal to move the five cars, not the one bus, even if the bus has 40 people on board. The State Highway Administration's policies work the same way, even though SHA head Neil Pedersen has endorsed a change.
That's the wrong way of thinking. The goal of the road network is to move people, not cars. The signals should maximize the total numbers of people. The same goes for turn lanes. Road planners will often put in a turn lane if traffic volume gets high, but they could actually move more people by making that a "queue jumper" for buses, where the bus can go around the waiting cars and proceed faster. Often, there are more people on that one bus than in all the waiting cars.
The Montgomery County Sierra Club, Action Committee for Transit, and Coalition for Smarter Growth sent a letter to Maryland and Montgomery DOT leaders asking them to implement bus priority practices, starting with the recommendations from the Q2 study. That heavily used route travels from Silver Spring to Shady Grove, including an importants segment on Veirs Mill Road from Wheaton to Rockville. The groups write:
We strongly urge you to commence bus priority as soon as possible for all buses on Veirs Mill, both Ride On and WMATA. We believe that you can make immediate adjustments to pavement markings, signal timing, and other elements to create queue jumper lanes and give signal priority. These minor changes would have a major impact in a very short time.It's time for Maryland and Mongomery County to move past 1950s traffic management philosophies and start solving equations around people, not vehicles. DC and Virginia should do the same for their heavily traveled routes. It's a vital component of any strategy to deal with Metro's looming budget gap for next year and stave off drastic service cuts, painful fare hikes, or both.One change that could be implemented immediately would be to move back the stop line on Church Street where it meets 355 at the Rockville Metro, so that exiting buses aren't blocked. This is just one example of where a street design that favors cars is delaying large numbers of bus passengers and costing the county money. Other suggestions in the Q2 bus Metrobus Veirs Mill Line Study, including signal retiming outside Rockville station and using service lanes on Veirs Mill as bus only lanes, could be implemented now. ...
Undoubtedly the next budget year will come with enormous financial pressure to cut bus routes that people depend on for jobs, groceries, and other vital services. Improving bus service with cost-effective changes is a far better alternative. A recent MWCOG study shows that, with full implementation of priority plans, four buses in an hour can do the work of six today.
25 comments —  Share | — tags: bus priority, Maryland, Montgomery, SHA, WMATA budget |
Comments
Post a Comment
Smart Growth
Add jobs, retail, and housing for all income levels in walkable places like
Wisconsin Avenue, Brookland, and Minnesota-
Transit
Provide more alternatives to driving by expanding Metro capacity, building streetcar lines, and speeding up buses. Grow ridership through better maps and schedules from signs to mobile devices. Read posts »
Public Space
Our roadways are our most valuable public places. Design them to accommodate safe walking and bicycling. Locate plazas and public parks to create numerous focal points for human activity. Read posts »
Traffic
Design neighborhoods around grids instead of cul-de-sacs. Avoid building new freeways or widening existing ones which only induces further sprawl. Read posts »
Parking
Drivers create substantial traffic by circling endlessly for scarce parking. Use pricing to manage curb space and dedicate the revenue to providing alternatives to driving. Read posts »
Architecture
Preserve our row house neighborhoods and beautiful architecture that engages pedestrians visually and functionally. Eschew bad modernism that turns its back on the street and the starchitects that peddle it to "make a statement." Read posts »
Education & Safety
Make our urban areas desirable places for people and families of all ages with the highest quality education and safe neighborhoods for all. Read posts »
by Jasper on Aug 12, 2009 3:04 pm
by beatbox on Aug 12, 2009 3:10 pm
by jnb on Aug 12, 2009 3:27 pm
by Michael Perkins on Aug 12, 2009 3:35 pm
by Moose on Aug 12, 2009 4:00 pm
by Michael Perkins on Aug 12, 2009 4:14 pm
Chicago began implementing a change a few years ago that helped a great deal. They moved the stops to the "far" side of the intersection. Previously the stops/shelters were at the "near" side of intersections, in the direction of travel, as are most DC stops. When the stop is at the near side of the intersection, while a bus is boarding passengers, the traffic signal often changes and traffic begins to back up at the light, trapping the bus in the curbside lane. When the light changes, the bus has to wait for all the backed up traffic to clear before resuming the route.
If the stop is moved to the "far" side of the intersection, the bus has travelled through the light before receiving passengers. Then, if the light immediately behind them is red, the bus doesn't have to wait to merge and can immediately resume their route. If the light is green, traffic is already moving, the bus isn't blocked by right-turning vehicles, and they can more readily merge back into traffic.
Another change that would be a massive help would be no left-hand turns. Fedex and UPS implemented this concept years ago to save fuel and time. Idling in left-hand turn lanes wastes both. Both revised their routes so drivers only make right-hand turns. In the case of city buses, what would be most efficient are buses that make no turns at all. Most cities have such bus maps, whereby major streets are identified and a bus travels from one end of the street to the other, all across town, only turning at the end of the route. This is also the premise for the DC Circulator route--travelling from one end of the national mall to the other (and only making right-hand turns), and from one end of K/M street to the other, making only one turn, at wisconsin. The Chinatown/convention center and Union Station routes are also the same way.
London and Chicago have also implemented 'split stops'. If such a scenario were applied to 14th/Park road, for example, the 52, 53, 54 would stop at one location, and the H8 would stop 1/2 block away. This eliminates traffic jams that force a second bus to stop in the middle of traffic preventing other traffic from passing. This wouldn't be used at places like 16th NW, where passengers are likely to take any bus route that comes along.
by ogden on Aug 12, 2009 4:45 pm
by Monumentality on Aug 12, 2009 5:02 pm
And its not always buses vs. cars. There are also delivery trucks and making them sit incurs costs in terms of higher prices for goods that we buy (doesn't UPS or FedEx actually plan out routes that avoid left turns to save money?)
by metronic on Aug 12, 2009 5:09 pm
by Local on Aug 12, 2009 5:43 pm
by SJE on Aug 12, 2009 5:47 pm
The lanes should also be in the middle of the street with islands beside the crosswalks where passengers will get on and off the bus similar to how many rail stations are; the trains are side by side then branch off for a station platform and then are side by side again after leaving the station.
Each and every bus stop in the system needs to be researched to see if it could be placed better somwhere else. Some are to close, some to far and others are in dangerous spots due to traffic/sidewalk condition/or the street.
@ ogden
I disagree with your split stop idea it can cause people to miss buses depending on where the stops are and if they are on other sides of traffic lights; what is needed is specific spots for transfer points that can accomidate many buses stopping at the same time which dont involve turning corners or crossing lights or cordinating all buses that stop within 3 blocks of each other so that you can not miss a bus while trying to get from one stop to another.
by kk on Aug 12, 2009 6:00 pm
The one place where I see this (3y, getting onto the Roosevelt bridge through the E street) buses seem to have an informal queue jumping policy. usually works, although signage telling drivers to let the buses in might be helpful.
The converse of that is certain places where buses block traffic need to be reevaluated. Wisc and M in georgetown, with 100+ buses stopping there, is a prime candidate.
by charlie on Aug 12, 2009 6:16 pm
There are some obvious situations in which a left turn is the best (most efficient, fastest, etc.) move, and you obviously don't want to eliminate those.
I had thought recently about making traffic lights give buses priority, and I think there are too many complications for it to work. For example, if a stop is right before a light, the light will probably think that if a bus is approaching, it should give the bus a green. But no, the bus is actually stopping to pick up passengers. Sometimes the bus might not want to pick up passengers though. Both of those times, you obviously want the bus to get a green when it needs it and not when it doesn't. Then when you consider turns, it gets murkier. Maybe the driver should be able to communicate to the light when the bus wants to go through?
Also, when buses are bunched, you obviously still want them all to have green. But that gets even harder.
In addition, consider that fact that even though private vehicles carry far fewer people, the environmental impact of a line of cars waiting for a light is definitely much greater than that of a bus waiting at a light.
by Tim on Aug 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Express buses need to actually be express and not make stops once they hit the city until they get to the final destination. "Express" in DC just means "slightly less slow"
by Anderkoo on Aug 12, 2009 7:23 pm
by Froggie on Aug 12, 2009 8:28 pm
1. Put bus stops on the far side of intersections.
2. Give buses signal priority.
3. Little things like moving stop lines and other traffic flow measures.
4. Separate bus stops for separate lines, when they travel different routes. This may require some study for frequent lines that travel together along a particular street before diverging.
5. Prepayment of bus fares when possible, like Curitiba. This reduces boarding delays.
6. Permit boarding from the rear doors. Even use three door buses with proof of payment as is done in many cities in Europe. Transit police can serve as auditors, which also improves security.
7. Increase bus stop spacing. Compared to Europe, American bus stops are very close.
8. Improve enforcement of bus-only lanes.
9. Reduce use of left turns, unless they can be made quickly.
10. More direct routes, without loops and other time-wasting diversions. In many cases, these can be handled by shuttles.
11. Nextbus and Google Transit feeds everywhere.
The important thing to keep in mind is general improvement in the system. That is not the same as improvement in every possible circumstance.
by Chuck Coleman on Aug 12, 2009 9:15 pm
Let's say that you reduce the number of stops by half in residential areas - entirely sensible on many routes. That means you have an ANC/city council member who has half of his/her constituents pissed off because they have to walk longer to the bus.
Plus, you will have all the inevitable sob stories of some old lady with a cane who now has to walk 3 blocks to the bus that used to stop in front of her house.
A reduction in Metrobus stops is sorely needed, but it would become a political debacle for all involved.
by Phil on Aug 12, 2009 9:24 pm
by TJ on Aug 12, 2009 10:08 pm
by Squalish on Aug 12, 2009 10:28 pm
In all my bus riding years, I never really put it together like that, re: rear doors. You are correct. You will of course have to compensate for people in wheel chairs and other people of different abilities, but it makes so much more sense (the ONLY way!) to have people exit out the back and enter in the front. Lots of other good suggestions here too. Mostly signal priority and bus lanes.
by Jazzy on Aug 12, 2009 10:45 pm
Tim, these systems have been in place in Europe for decades. The problems you raise have been worked out. Don't worry about it. The technology is there. It works. It's been working for decades. End of discussion.
@ TJ: This is also standard practice in Europe. Oddly, in Japan, they go the other way. Get in in the back, leave in the front. But then again, they drive on the left side of the road too.
by Jasper on Aug 13, 2009 9:08 am
Of course, another obstacle is dealing with the traffic engineers who time the signals, particularly if the transit vehicle is traveling on a more minor street where it crosses a more major street. Giving the bus priority then messes up the free-flow timing on the more major street. Most traffic engineers are still more concerned with moving vehicles than people.
As for bus stop spacing, it is extremely difficult to eliminate stops. Although everyone would like the bus to stop less often, they don't want it to happen at the expense of their stop. This is one of the reasons WMATA (and LA for that matter) overlay their limited-stop services on top of existing bus routes - it's politically much easier to add a limited-stop service than it is to remove stops on an existing service.
by Esmeralda on Aug 13, 2009 9:42 am
Of course, giving more green time to a movement w/ a bus approaching will inherently rob green time from other approaches. That is a policy-level decision in deciding what mode to embrace: bus or car.
However, there is another element that must be considered: the reduced capacity of less auto-friendly signal timings may create more congestion -- the very same congestion that the bus is attempting to avoid. If a bus gets stuck in *more* traffic & can't clear the intersection or access a queue jump lane, then the benefits are moot.
Furthermore, it must be considered what happens if priority calls are placed on the signal from multiple directions. One bus may inadvertently allot more delay to another bus.
While WMATA is making a bigger push for transit priority, it must also be considered what would happen if Ride-On, The Bus, & MTA all followed suit. Now it goes from a priority call every ~10-30 min (at least about every 3 cycles or so) to a call *every* signal cycle. That's not priority anymore; that's just reassigning the typical signal splits.
There's also an element of what hardware & software to use. There are essentially 3 stages to placing a priority call on a signal: transmitting the request, processing the request, and then serving the request...
TRANSMITTING:
Transmitting might be done visually, such as placing an Opticom emitter in every bus. This requires line of sight & can pose some difficulty in differentiating between fire preemption calls & bus priority calls. It might be done over WiFi, which is a new technology for this purpose & hence comes with unique costs all its own. Or perhaps GPS: expensive when fitting a fleet of vehicles, but can come with a variety of other benefits.
Or perhaps infrared detection, or detectors in advance of the signal, or a multitude of other methods. The cost per installation and the cost per vehicle must be considered, as must line of sight issues, and determining what direction a bus is traveling, how far it is from the signal, and whether it is running late or early.
PROCESSING:
In processing the request: through this all, keep in mind that each jurisdiction has unique systems. This is relevant for receiving & serving priority requests, but even moreso for processing it. Software packages are expensive, and in some jurisdictions: providing the capability to serve bus priority could prompt a fundamental overhaul of their *entire* signal system -- particularly the more antiquated ones.
From the perspective of the agency maintaining the signals: it's more ideal to establish a standard hardware/softward package for processing transit priority. From the perspective of the agency running the buses: it's ideal to establish a standard between different jurisdictions. That essentially means DC, Maryland, Virginia, Counties, and Muncipalities *all* have to get on the same page. That's a task for the COG.
SERVICING:
Lastly, servicing the request. It must be considered whether the bus is in regular traffic, using a queue jump, or in a dedicated lane. The latter two might be using transit signals, but they also might not... each location could be different. Positioning signal heads & providing adequate signing/marking is absolutely necessary to both be readily visible to bus operators & also to not confuse general motorists. Enforcement must also be considered for any dedicated facilities -- as was already noted about Wheaton's bus lane.
There's a lot more that goes into providing bus priority than may meet the eye, which is why it is rolled out in the span of years; not weeks. However, the transportation agencies in the region are all interested in it -- just as MDSHA's Neil Pedersen noted at a Smart Growth meeting a couple months ago: the task is to move people; not cars.
by Bossi on Aug 13, 2009 10:02 am
by Douglas Stewart on Aug 13, 2009 10:56 am