Shameful bus routes

This is part of an ongoing series to identify inefficient bus routes.

Every year, Streetsblog has a "competition" (2017 link) to find the sorriest bus stops in the country. It's a competitive title in America to be sure. I would like to propose another category to the mix: sorriest bus lines in the country.

For me, there are two that stand out as particularly useless (again, it is a very competitive title and I will continue to keep watch for additional contenders). These bus lines makes so little sense that I would rather adopt the Rankine scale for daily temperature measurement.

Here are just a couple I have stumbled across. Note that public transport in the Untied States is considered public welfare and not public good; therefore, limited resources are routinely spent to direct buses where they have no business going.

C-Tran in Vancouver, Washington

This is a real bus route. It is about 2km long.

C-Tran operates a bus route that is essentially a ~10-times-daily parking lot shuttle. Most runs carry zero or no passengers. The entire route consists of circling a mall parking lot.

For what it's worth, the bus circle starts operating bright and early.

The area where C-Tran's unused, taxpayer funded parking shuttle is surrounded by an ocean of asphalt. 

I reached out to C-Tran to ask why this route existed. The response was essentially as I expected: politics, social welfare, and fear of resources being siphoned to more expensive paratransit rides (a topic worth covering in depth for an entire blog post).

The email response from Jim, C-Tran's Director of Operations:

Thanks for asking Nicholas.

We developed Route 73 after hearing from several riders who live in the residential area just north of the Mall. They came to a board meeting and asked that we not move the transit center to the south side where it is today. Knowing we had to move, we thought a route looping around the Mall would continue to serve these riders. As you've observed, there are very few taking advantage of this service. If ridership does not grow on this route, it will likely be eliminated. We'll see what happens over the next few months. Thanks again, Jim

ABQ Ride in Albuquerque, New Mexico

The "BUG" bus, which also holds the title for "worst bus name".

The route looks like someone was trying to carve their initials into the city. Rather than "driving in circles", the route "drives back and forth". Hardly much better.

Albuquerque isn't know for having superb bus service (yet, anyway). Unlike C-Tran, which is apparently considering the elimination of a useless bus route, ABQ Ride has no intention to do so. However, this route actually does see ridership that can only be described as completely transit-dependent people.

Some ABQ Ride buses in downtown Albuquerque, where route 16 forcefully veers off route to go.

A sad route 16 bus stop along a busy, high speed road (though, due to construction, it was reduced to only 35mph!).

ABQ Ride route 16 is actually a blending of routes 16 and 18 (which was discontinued) due to budget constrictions. While both routes suffered from low ridership, it's difficult to believe that anyone on the right side of the map would ever take this bus to anywhere on the left side. It would be faster simply to walk.

As I have hinted previously about route maps, I expect this to be a regular thing. There are just too many examples, especially in small towns where buses operate along squiggly lines. Then again, they serve a very different purpose in small towns.

Right of way, the right way

Note: The world has many words for its fascination with motorways, freeways, interstates, highways, expressways, autobahns, carriageways, autoroutes, and more. These are all assumed the same in this post.

Which is better: a street with no sidewalks, or a street with a sidewalk on every-other block? Or, is having a sidewalk every-other block no better than having none at all?

Let's talk grade separation.

One of the reasons that freeways are fast, efficient, and have such a high vehicle flow rate is because of their complete lack of interruption. They are free ways; they operate freely without other modes of transportation or crossings. In short, they have controlled access which also bans non vehicular modes of travel from entering, except at designated locations.

Overpasses are another prime example of keeping traffic separated

We're all told when we are young to look left-right-left (or right-left-right, for left-side driving countries) before we cross the street. What is it that makes this necessary? The short answer: inefficiency. If you eliminate the road or provide a bypass/overpass/underpass, there is no need to stop, wait, and look both ways before crossing the street.

Transit, meanwhile, requires the same level of separation for similar efficiency to be achieved as freeways. Traffic can flow freely without interruption (aside from congestion due to insufficient capacity) whether you are on road or rail, provided it is dedicated its own right of way.

This holds true regardless of where you are or how you are getting about.

This train sitting in traffic in Portland, OR is no better off than a bus or car sitting in traffic

Buses and trains in Portland, OR sharing space with cars, bikes, trucks, and pedestrians; this greatly slows the system down and makes it far less reliable

Often times, this is not a black of white situation. While transit sharing space with automobiles is one of the worst examples, it can be significantly more cost effective to operate trains over their own space on the surface. Usually, the most important thing that can be done is simply removing cars. However, one of the reasons metros (subways) are so effective is because they operate without interference. When passenger barriers are in place, as discussed in a previous article, transit doesn't even need to be concerned about pedestrian interference on platforms. This can be done with all modes of transit, even buses.

Passenger barriers operating on the Paris Metro

Casablanca, Morocco operates trams on surface streets which do not allow automobiles - only pedestrians

Grade separation is important for many reasons, including, first and foremost, reliability. It keeps transportation on-time and on-budget. I use the general term "transportation" here because this applies to freight and passenger vehicular traffic, too!

What if the Sydney Harbour Bridge had a lift for ships to pass under? What a mess that would be!

Any time you are suck waiting for a train at a grade crossing, think inefficiency

The primary cause for grade crossings, whether you be at a red light, on a train, or floating on a river is one of cost. It is very expensive to untangle modes of transportation. Airplanes tend to be the mode of transportation entirely grade separated, except for a few places (Gibraltar's airport, for example, mixes airplanes and cars).

In general, the more dedicated right of way you have, the faster, safer, and more efficiently you will get to where you are going.

High speed trains, like Russia's Sapsan, operate just as a car on a motorway would - fast and reliably

Examples from uncommon places: more good branding and human connections

It is obvious: there are too many missed opportunities around the world for creating a connection between people and the way they get around. No one drives an unpainted car or keeps it completely sterile of character. How we travel is intimately a part of us, and inescapably so.

It is time for "good example, bad example."

On human connections, the good: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

"It's really good to have you with us every day. Thank you..." sign in Rio de Janeiro. Photo from Google Street View

On human connections, the bad: Rome, Italy

Sorry, Rome. Your graffiti trains don't count as a human connection.

On branding and logos, the good: South Africa

PRASA's (Passenger Rail Agency South Africa) "Shosholoza Meyl" long distance train. The name holds special meaning in South Africa.

Shosholoza Meyl, aside from a meaningful name and visually unique paint job, also has one of the best transport logos in the world.

On branding and logos, the bad: anywhere with metallic trains

Looking at you, CityRail (Sydney, NSW, Australia). It's not possible to tell what this is from the outside, besides a train of some kind.

Nice try, MTA (New York City, New York, United States). The American flag does not count as unique transport branding no matter how many times you paste it on a carriage.

At least put a little effort in. Give it character. Make it an experience and a pleasant life choice. If it's a joy to ride and people can be proud of it, the system as a whole will prosper.

The United States has the best bus system in the world.

You have, again, read the heading correctly. Like in my last post, the United States has one of the best bus systems in the world.

Fast: Many buses operate express or limited
Frequent: Buses can operate around every minute or two during peak times
Easy to use: All stops are clearly marked, have passenger queues, and distinct, helpful signage
Crimeless: You can bet there is a zero tolerance for shenanigans.
Span: The system operates virtually around the clock, and at high frequency for as many as 20 hours a day.
Free*

*Here is where my game is up. It is only free to Walt Disney World customers and employees, not that it is really useful for anyone else.

Disney Transport, owned by the Walt Disney Company, operates around Orlando, Florida. The bus system operates alongside a network of monorails, people-movers, and boats. It was said to me, although I could not independently verify (and don't try it), that Disney Transport will dispatch a bus to your location if you ever find yourself stranded. This is a critical "lifeline" service that only a handful of bus systems in the United States use, if it does indeed exist. However, with such an impressive service span, it is unlikely to be utilized. Offering such a service is an important thing for any system that wants to overcome a barrier of transit: "Can I get home no matter what?"

Disney Transport is the greatest bus system in the United States

A typical crowd pleaser for the far right, it is also worth noting that the system operates entirely without subsidy, with the exception of a few roads that the buses operate on. One could also say that because of Buy America, taxes, and things like the GM government bailout, there are a few other strings attached to that statement, but more on vehicle subsidies another time.

A recent (2016) unofficial map of the Disney Transport system. Credit: Arthur de Wolf.

At least one part of the United States understands how important a robust, total transportation system is. If it brings such a great amount of value to a private company (and to a level where they foot the bill themselves), imagine what it could do to an entire city? State? Country?

The United States has the best trains in the world.

You have read the heading correctly. This is no trick; the United States has some of the best rail systems in the world.

What do I mean when I say the best?

Fast.
Frequent.
100% grade separated (including from passengers - I reviewed passenger gates on a previous post).
Easy to use.
Electrified.
Crimeless.
Free (some of them!)

There aren't just one of these systems in the United States... there are actually many. And nearly all of them have these characteristics.

Okay... so I may have omitted one detail. These trains are technically "Light Metros" or "People Movers", and all the ones worth mentioning exist at airports. Miami and Detroit have them, but they do not serve much of a transportation purpose. Newark, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Dallas, Houston...

Entry to Denver International Airport's train

Just imagine what the United States would look like if railway networks were taken half as serious as airport trains. One of these systems even excels at uniquely conveying a meaningful message to its passengers: Denver International Airport (DIA) has a train uniquely branded with music at each station.

DIA's train departing from a station

DIA's train has clear messaging, up-to-the-minute arrival information posted (trains depart every 2-4 minutes), and total grade separation from passengers. The system operates 24 hours a day.

Although no ridership statistics exist as far as I am aware, I would bet that ridership is much higher on a single airport transit system (at one airport) than on the entire Amtrak national rail system. What does this say about national priorities?

The North American Transit Trifecta

Back in my transit days, I worked with all kinds of diversity. It was truly great: bus riders that were old and young, educated or not, eco-conscious or thrifty, poor or otherwise, all in various mental states. It was truly a pleasure and one where I found myself continuously in my element while at the same time being on the edge of my seat in preparation for the unexpected all at once. Then, in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the recession hit. It was time to cut transit service.

How can such a thing be accomplished? What goes and what stays? Countless late-night meetings, public input sessions, and comment database entries later, a decision had to be reached to plug a growing financial gap from a deep recession.

The pyramid of  transit in North America

"We should cut the hours of Bus 10, because it's redundant." "Let's reroute the Buses 11 and 12 to cover the areas of the 10 that we lost." "Let's eliminate the 14 - no one ever rides it anyway." All of these are examples of the priorities that an agency with a limited pot of money can choose to allocate its resources to.

Coverage:

Question: Do we want to serve as many places as possible, even if the frequency is poor?

Example: Should we operate buses on rural routes?

Ridership:

Question: Do we want to make sure that the areas with demonstrated demand are adequately served?

Example: Should major corridors remain at high frequency, possibly with limited, express, or skip-stop service?

Need: 

Question: Do we want those with mobility challenges or those with an economic disadvantage to have fair, equal, and/or adequate access to service?

Example: Should a bus detour to serve a large retirement community, even if it adds time to a schedule and/or ridership is not high?

There are no right answers here

These questions are ethical and morale decisions that all agencies face. The answer is clearly "Yes!" to all of them, but no agency is able to provide a ridership-based, need-responsive, wide-coverage area of service on a budget. In the perfect world, a transit provider would be able to say to its government, "This tram, bus, or train is full. We should add another..." but this isn't always the case. And so, we must compromise and hash out our values.

Perhaps your agency, whether it be a board of directors, citizen committee, or otherwise, chooses to weigh its service 20/20/60. 20% of the service budget for Coverage and Ridership, 60% for Need. Or, to put it another way, $60 of every $100 of service will be designed to serve those with the greatest need for transit.

Perhaps you prefer something else; maybe you'd like to maximize ridership and therefore you focus on core corridors with no deviations and a frequent, skip-stop, 24-hour service: A real 10/80/10 breakdown.

A real agency would never have something as extreme as 100/0/0 (maximum Coverage), because that would mean something crazy like one bus, once per day, down every single road in the entire metropolitan area: truly maximum coverage.

There is no good ending when transit service is cut. At the end of the day, no one was happy with the decisions that were made.

So, what are your values?

Lessons from TriMet, Part 1: How do you like your bus system?

This article deals primarily with Portland's transit agency, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), using basic transit simplicity.

Everyone understands a line. It is the shortest distance between two points. Roads often travel in lines, and buses run in lines. Except when they don't.

This is a real transit map, located on a bus stop pole. It is supposed to explain to you where a bus travels.

Where does line 1-Vermont travel to, and how does it get you there? Where is "Maplewood," which doesn't appear on the map? When bus lines drive in circles, it's hard to think of an easier way to confuse riders. As an experienced transit rider, I immediately have the following questions:

1. Which loop does this bus travel on first?
2. Is each loop served in the same frequencies and times, or does it vary by time of day?
3. Which direction does the bus travel in the loops? Does this reverse during evening and afternoon rush hours?
4. Is it faster to walk than to take this bus?

This bus route looks like a catch-all route that was designed as lifeline and essential commuter service for a small group of vocal and/or exceptionally needy individuals. This an important part of the trifecta of transit, which is essential enough to merit its own post at a later date. One final question to draw from this map: where does the bus start and end?

This is hardly an isolated example of trying to cram too much information about a complex system in to a small space.

So... when does it run?

Runs every day? Runs once per day? Runs every weekday? This statement is ambiguous as it is pointless. When is the first bus? The last bus? What is the frequency? More questions are asked than answered by such a statement.

Transit aficionados have heard the saying "frequency is freedom". However, there is a point when frequency becomes too frequent and the system simply fails to provide better service by adding an additional bus to serve a line. This is nearing that point:

This line is leapfrogging.

Each bus is held up in traffic, stuck behind the bus in front of it. The buses are unable to proceed more than one stop in front of the other without delaying the one behind it. Essentially, this is a negative feedback loop, and it is very common when agencies "throw more buses" at the problem of high demand. In this case, we are nearing peak rush hour. More service isn't adding anything.

Here is a simple solution: create a higher level of service. Instead of operating the line (in this case, Bus #12) every 3-4 minutes, operate it instead every 6-7 minutes. Then, create a parallel line.  This new line, the 12L or 12E (Limited or Express) can serve less stops and provide a higher level of service.

This is the basic principle of the slow evolution to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

Lessons from TriMet, Part 2: Rail will be posted at a later date.