Posts about Signal Priority

Transit

What can we learn from the 7th/Georgia bus errors?

by Craig Simpson   •   May 21, 2010 11:09 am

In 2007, WMATA and DC introduced several measures to improve service in the 7th Street/Georgia Ave. corridor: Metro Extra Route 79, signal priority at 28 intersections, and bus lanes on 7th street and 9th Streets downtown. Some of them have helped, while others have failed. Why?

Signal priority was introduced on the corridor for Route 79 only, but has only yielded a 1.5% time savings per trip and those results were not deemed totally reliable. That's because DC and WMATA tried a one-size fits all approach.

Each of the 28 intersections provide the same 10 second green extension in either direction. They also can't be triggered more than once every ten minutes in both directions combined—a bus northbound that triggers it will then prevent southbound buses as well as northbound buses from taking advantage for 10 minutes.

The bi-directional approach means that buses traveling counter-flow may trigger the signal when the need for extension is in the peak travel direction. Bus stops were also not relocated to take advantage of the signal extension.

Stop location has been another impediment to reaping the full benefits of signal priority as no stops have been relocated to take advantage of the extra signal time. The photo shows a crowded bus stop at Georgia and Kennedy that regularly causes buses to miss the light. Moving the stop to the far side would take better advantage of the signal priority.

Transit

Bus priority getting priority in DC

by Craig Simpson   •   May 21, 2010 10:30 am

Spurred by a federal TIGER grant, planners at WMATA and DDOT are moving closer to making bus priority measures a reality in the District of Columbia.

WMATA has identified operational savings estimated at $5.6 million annually for six corridors in the District for measures funded by the grant including transit signal priority (TSP), bus bulb-outs and stop improvements. Similar projects in Maryland and Virginia are also being funded by the TIGER grant.

In addition to the TIGER grant improvements, DDOT is developing a comprehensive multi-modal network plan that includes bus lanes and other bus priority measures. The first place that we may see a difference is a new bus lane on I Street NW between 13th and 19th Streets and the removal of the 9th Street bus lane downtown. The new lane could be operational by the fall.

Transit

Using stimulus money for Metro operations? Make a plan to pay it back

by David Alpert   •   March 11, 2009 1:38 pm

The WMATA board has reached a deal to use stimulus money to fill Metro's budget gap. It's great that we'll be able to save current levels of service. However, it's even more important to act responsibly with Metro's budget in the future. Metro needs to start work now on ways to make the bus system more efficient, build political support for stronger subsidies, and explorer targeted sources of revenue.

The stimulus money was intended to fund capital repairs. During tight budgets, agencies often defer maintenance. That saves money now, but costs more down the road. If Metro is putting off some repair, the bill will come due later, and the longer we defer, the worse it will be. Right now, avoiding service cuts may be a more important goal, but Metro should also devise a plan right away to pay it back.

Think of it as a loan. Metro is borrowing from the future. We're doing a lot of that lately. But this should be a very short-term loan. We need a plan to cut costs, enhance revenues, and/or grow jurisdictions' contributions. That plan must plug the following years' budget gap, fund the maintenance we didn't do this year, and perform extra maintenance to make up for the year's deferral.

With the looming deadline for fare hike or service cut hearings, Metro staff didn't have time to thoroughly analyze the system to find more ways to save money. Nor was there time for Board members to build a political consensus in the states and the District for more funding. Once they pass this compromise and win a year of breathing room, the real work must begin.

Transit service is incredibly important. The more convenient our service, the more people take transit, which helps not only riders but all the drivers who enjoy roads with fewer cars. Still, the bus system can be more rational without harming riders. Right now, it still bears the legacy of multiple independent bus operators. The routes, especially downtown, are tangled and confusing. As a result, commuters take the one route from home to work, while casual users seldom know where or when to use the bus system. We've optimized the route network for those who already take the bus, but at the expense of many who would but don't.

Metro should immediately begin a study similar to San Francisco's Transit Effectiveness Project. That comprehensive analysis found changes in the bus system which improved service while simultaneously cutting costs. In downtown SF, they had multiple lines running on parallel streets. Without taking away service to needy groups, they combined some of these. They added service on high-demand "trunk lines" and divided some lines that experienced heavy delays. We need a similar study here. No change can benefit every single rider, but on balance, it should help more riders than it inconveniences, and balance both the gains and the few losses among rich and poor alike.

We can also save money by investing in priority bus corridors. With dedicated lanes, queue jumpers, and signal priority to "hold the green", buses can move much more quickly. Not only do they get riders to their destinations faster, but they finish their routes faster, saving on labor costs or allowing more service with the same number of drivers.

Finally, Metro should continue exploring targeted opportunities to raise revenue. Our underpriced parking garages are one example. Metro can explore vending, advertising, and more. Many of these take time to develop. The time is now.

At the same time the Metro board votes to redirect the stimulus money, they should pass a resolution directing staff to develop a bus route restructuring and streamlining plan within six months. The plan should save at least $20 million a year in bus service efficiency improvements while not unfairly burdening low income or transit-dependent riders. These would not be cuts, but enhancements that save money while improving, rather than diminishing, service for more people. The resolution should require a report within six months containing recommendations Metro can implement within one year from now.

Last year, Metro balanced its budget with a one-time trick. The fare increase went into effect in January, but all of the money went into the fiscal year beginning in July. They had 18 months of a fare increase for only 12 months of costs. We can't use that trick again. Transferring capital stimulus money to operating costs is another one-time trick. Soon we're going to run out of tricks. It's time to start working on a serious plan that balances Metro's budgets without any illusions or sleight-of-hand.

Parking

Golden Gate congestion pricing out, performance parking in

by David Alpert   •   August 20, 2008 11:48 am

After New York rejected congestion pricing, At the same time they offered money to New York for congestion pricing, USDOT also dedicated funds to San Francisco for a limited congestion pricing experiment on Golden Gate bridge approach road Doyle Drive. But according to the SF Chronicle, Golden Gate transportation officials wouldn't agree to make the tolls truly market priced, and USDOT won't give them the money for a mere $1 toll hike.

Instead, SF will implement market-based parking pricing on major bridge approach roads, like Lombard and Van Ness. We don't have all the details, but I doubt just pricing the main roads will help much. The idea is to reduce congestion on those roads by discouraging circling for parking, but if side streets are underpriced, people will still circle and still use the main streets amidst the circling.

The Bay Area's proposal calls for $145 million in federal funds, with $47 million for Doyle Drive reconstruction, $20 million to set up the SF Park congestion-based parking program, $13 million for regional ferry improvements, and $58 million for the SF Go program to synchronize traffic signals along many of the city's busiest boulevards.

Moscovich said federal officials have agreed to everything but the traffic signal money. In their letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, Bay Area officials pitched that program as an effective way to reduce congestion and attract more riders on public transportation.

This time, it's the SF officials who are right, though the Chronicle article is misleading. Synchronizing traffic lights isn't the right approach and just speeds up traffic. That might speed buses a bit, but it'll make driving even more appealing. But SFgo is about more than "synchronization". It allows timing signals to help pedestrians or bicycles instead of just for cars. And it'll provide signal priority for buses, which really is a great way to speed transit and reduce congestion.

Correction: The SF money wasn't New York's reallocated—SF was offered money in the first round, like New York.

Also, the Chronicle article claims that USDOT doesn't want to fund signal priority, but the existing agreement between SF and USDOT includes signal priority. I'm trying to find out if the Chronicle article is wrong or what.

Transit

Metro will speed key bus corridors

by David Alpert   •   May 19, 2008 11:23 am

Saturday's Post reports on plans by Metro to add "rapid-bus service" on the highest ridership bus corridors in the next six years. The corridors include 16th St (S1/S2/S4) in DC, Veirs Mill Rd (Q2) in Montgomery, and Leesburg Pike (28AB/28FG/28T) in Virginia.

Each corridor would get limited-stop express buses like the Metro Extra running on Georgia Ave and will have some signals upgraded so they can wait a few extra seconds before turning red to let a bus through. According to the article, WMATA is testing this technology on Georgia Ave and plans a pilot program in June.

If Metro and its partners adopt the plan, transportation officials will have to make a fundamental shift in the way they think about traffic, [WMATA planning head Nat] Bottigheimer said.

County and state governments own the intersections and the right-of-way on the roads, he said. They are used to thinking about traffic flow by getting the greatest number of vehicles, rather than people, through an intersection.

But if buses start to carry 25 to 30 percent of the total number of people going through an intersection, then "we need to ask the question, at what point do you start treating a bus as a special vehicle," Bottigheimer said.

At what point? How about right now? County planners should be designing intersections for the most people rather than the most cars today, and that means buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists as well as single-passenger cars.