Roody

This is a short article in Vox by Matthew Yglesias.

Houston just dramatically improved its mass transit system without spending a dime - Vox

The lead paragraph:

There's also a cool map showing the changes that were made.

tandempower

Sounds good except for there needs to be some option in place for those who lost bus service as a result of the changes. On-demand shuttle vans or carpool-taxis could get people to bus lines from remote spots. Having a bike share for potential riders to get to bus stops would be another option.

If no additional spending is the goal, then floating shuttle vans or taxis could be driven by office workers or bus drivers before or after their shift. If they use a company car to drive from home to work, they could bring riders to or from the bus station from remote areas. At least that way people without bus service could still plan a ride to catch another bus, at least once or twice a day when it is convenient for drivers coming to work or leaving. If company cars aren't available, the drivers could be compensated for use of their personal cars. I'm sure at least some drivers would welcome the additional income.

cooker

It would be great if we had a regular poster in the forum who lives in Houston.

Roody

And actually rides a bus.

gerv 

I saw this article a while back and it seemed like the "no dime spent" trick was that the routing had changed. Basically, you drop service where no one would ride a bus and increase service where you are likely to increase ridership.

That's probably a smart move, at least in regards to making the transit system more profitable. We all know that if you can cover an area with a bus every 15 minutes, riders find it attractive. But at a certain interval, fewer and fewer opt for the bus.

The only sad thing about this is that I ran into a colleague today who said he had given his 2nd car to his kid and would share one car with his wife. He was thinking about taking the bus to work... which is attractive in that he can get a pass for around $20 a month.

The sad news is that coverage is very poor where he lives. And I can't see him being successful in using the bus. Sad because the same thing happened to me 12 years ago. I "gave" my 2nd car to my kind and started sharing the one car. A good bus route from the house certainly helped us.

Roody

That is the issue in a nutshell. Do you give crappy service to everybody? Or do you give great service to 80% of the people and no service to the other 20%? Since short-sighted austerity politicians rule most of the cities and states, marginal spending increases to give good service to 100% is apparently out of the question.

BTW--for your friend, is there any chance of bike ride or car drop-off to the nearest bus stop? Or any chance of moving closer to transit service?

tandempower

It is a marketing trick that stimulates more inelastic automotive demand by reducing the availability of substitutes. People argue that bus service needs to focus on poorer areas where they are 'more needed.' The consequence is that people who live in more affluent areas have less choice but to drive, pay for insurance, etc. Then, the people who pay higher insurance rates such as young people, those who have had accidents, etc., have less ability to give up driving and forego those insurance costs. This helps insurance companies market their product to investors as having more inelastic demand at higher prices.

It is, therefore, in the interest of auto-insurers to support transit cuts in affluent areas. Ridership may be low in those areas, but those who do ride may be the most valuable insurance customers if you can corner them into paying high auto insurance rates.

Roody

I think the goal is not to cut service to low use areas, but to increase service to more popular destinations such as shopping districts, leisure attractions, big employers, and high-density residential areas. This just makes snse to me as the most efficient use of resources.

For example, the #7 bus in Lansing serves a semi-rural suburban area for most of its route. This is one of those "empty buses" that people complain about. The nearby #2 bus is almost always jam-packed but has only 30 minute service. Why not get rid of the #7 bus and use the money to give the #2 line 20 minute service?

Bus route designers usually say that a hub-and-spoke route system is the most efficient for wide coverage. But bus passengers almost always want a grid system instead. That's because a grid system eliminates those trips where you have to ride 10 miles to get sonewhere that's only 3 miles as the crow flies. IOW, passengers are voting for fast service over broad coverage.

cooker

Is there another option for the no. 7 people?

tandempower

I agree it's a tough issue. Providing better service in some areas has the potential to attract more residents to those areas and facilitate more car-free living. On the other hand, though, cutting bus service to more remote areas opens those up to suburban developers whose investors may be motivated by the economic gains of building bus-free suburbs where young people and others with high insurance rates are cornered into driving and paying for insurance.

Surely you understand that suburban developers are motivated by money and that there is a culture that associates transit-free areas with affluence. Luring affluent people into an area where driving is the only practical option and then getting their money with high insurance rates is an exploitative business practice. It's even worse when you consider that at least some of the people buying into the area and driving up property values are funded by the insurance whose revenues as bolstered by reducing transit access and/or convenience.

Roody

No.

Roody

I don't agree that the developers and the car insurance sellers are even the same people. I also don't think that the presence of bus service affects the insurance business very much at all.

You might not have noticed that business interests are often among the strongest supporters of non-automotive transportation. (In my city, the local Chamber of Commerce supported Complete Streets initiatives as well as millage campaigns for public transit funding.) It's good for business to have a bus or bike lane coming to your store, bringing you both customers and employees.

tandempower

Ideally, you're right and there are no ulterior motives. In some cases, though, affluent people and business interests are overtly or covertly uncomfortable with bus service reaching certain areas. This could be because they personally worry about an influx of 'car-free people' or because of more calculated ideas about promoting driving and auto insurance as commerce.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that removing public transit from affluent areas secures automotive and insurance spending among the people that live there, and since it's an affluent area there is more money to be had than in less affluent areas.

All I'm really saying is that people living in more remote and/or more affluent areas also deserve transit as an option and it's not right to exploit them for more money by taking away their choices just because they have more money to get from them.

What's more, concentrating transit in less affluent areas and leaving more affluent areas unserved is part of what has created the cultural stigma surrounding public transit in the first place. Transit shouldn't be associated with income levels but with social responsibility for reducing motor-traffic in any area by people with any level of income.

Roody

I didn't even realize that the Houston areas with service cuts were affluent.

tandempower

I'm not sure they were, but it doesn't really matter because even if they were relatively remote areas, cutting bus service to them could be a first step toward redeveloping them into pricier suburbs designed to attract affluent people who seek distinction for their affluence in the form of bus-free suburbs to live in. It is sad, but some people view status in terms of the absence of public transit.

It doesn't really matter whether the people living there currently or in the future are affluent or not. Either way they need alternatives to driving. Maybe all it takes is some kind of ride-sharing system where people in that area are able to pre-plan a ride, with transit operators driving smaller vehicles as-needed to shuttle people to route buses.

Surely there's a way to extend the possibility of building a transit route to residents in those areas. If nothing else, there should be a hotline or discussion forum devoted to hearing from people who previously used the cancelled buses, or who would want them available for occasional use if they weren't cancelled. That way there could at least be some openness to providing some transportation in some form as funding becomes available.

Bike share could be another good option but of course that requires investment and user fees. Theoretically, old cruisers could be maintained by volunteers and a small budget made available for parts, tires, etc. If bike racks are placed at old transit stops, people could park the cruisers there and ride them to stops where bus lines are still running.

gerv 

Cutting poor service isn't really that difficult to do. The bus company can even revert to some form of "on call" business... but often there isn't much demand.

I'm really confused about developers. But I guess they, like the rest of us, are just trying to get along. Some of them already see a market for real estate in slightly more densely populated areas with good bus service. Business owners -- at least the smart ones -- already understand the value of walkable streets and bike infrastructure.

As for making transit stronger... if you can have a routes with buses every 15 minutes... ridership goes up. As you move to 30 minutes you notice the buses have fewer people. And routes that are 1 hour or more are often empty.

Roody

Ridership goes up for two reasons, both important. First, a greater number of individuals ride the buses. Second, People ride more often, as in workers and students making a new habit of daily commuting. This gives the bus company a stable group of customers that provides regular revenues and reliable political support.

loky1179

Ridership also goes up when individuals make some cost calculations - the costs come in the form of both time and money.

If drivers in affluent suburbs do not have to deal with major traffic congestion, and they get free parking at their place of employment, there would be very little incentive to take public transit. In fact, it would likely cost MORE in both time and money to use public transit. Putting gas in the tank of a car you already own is almost always cheaper than a bus pass.

Now, if that same affluent suburban driver needs to get to the city, where parking is not free, and requires sitting in traffic jams while watching buses fly by in the sane lane, they may make a different choice.

loky1179

Did riders lose service, or did they actually gain service? Like Gerv has pointed out, frequent service = better service.

Having a bus route close to my house isn't very useful if there are many hours of the day that the bus does NOT run. On the other hand, if a bus is running every 15 minutes, it is easy to plan around, even if the bus stop is 2 or 3 miles away. I can bike that in 15 minutes, or if need be, walk it in an hour.

Dahon.Steve

Here’s my observations of the new Houston bus network. First, I like to thank Jarred Walker for at least changing the public thinking transit use. Quite rare indeed!

1. Walker’s plan is to get whites in the suburbs to use the bus: If you look at the map, the bus travels further into the suburbs where there maybe more jobs. It’s main goal (although he doesn’t say it) is to increase rider ship by having whites who moved out of the inner city to use the bus. I believe they maybe successful in this regard.

The people who lost the most were minorities living in the center whose frequent bus service was disrupted. They now have to wait longer as routes expanded to the suburbs. In fact, many of their stops were situated on highways exposed to the elements. This was done to speed up bus travel between cities.

2. With the bus traveling greater distance in the long run will result in transit cuts: Walker’s plan doubles the number of miles each bus travels and most certainly over time result in higher operating costs and fuel consumption. Furthermore, it will result in the bus having a shorter life and once gas starts to climb, cuts in service or fare increases will be needed.

3. The three tier bus system benefits only those living close to the red line: I reviewed the schedules of 31 bus lines and 7 were providing 15 minute service. However, about the same number were providing 1 hour service. The remainder routes were providing 20-30 minute service. I’m not going to trash the system for providing 20-30 minute service since this is expected. Those who had their service cut to one hour might want to think about moving!! The solution for me is simple. Move within quarter mile of those bus lines providing 15 minute service.

I can’t say that I’m for this plan since it requires transfers to make it useful. The bus lines that are providing 15 minute services are to be used as feeders for the second bus which is take you to your final destination. Furthermore, only a small number of people actually have improved 15 minute service.

In the long run, if they can get whites in the suburbs to use the system, it might result in greater funding down the road

Roody

Thanks for breaking it down like this--very informative and helpful.

My initial thought is that cutting service to minority areas is bad. And it would be bad, it that were the intention or even the main result. However, I wonder if the minority areas are in some ways getting better service to the suburb? More and more jobs are being relocated to the suburbs, so that could be a good thing if done in a "color-blind" fashion. Did you notice if that is the case, that service from inner city minority areas to the suburbs is being improved?

Also, if you don't mind one more question: What are your general thoughts on hub-and-spoke bus route plans versus grid plans?

gerv 

I suspect this is a brilliant plan! If you can prove the service is working amazingly well for a small segment, you can make that service a "gotta-have" for other neigborhoods. Especially if there is a link to improved real estate values... which there often is.

Walter S

I think the real reason buses go to the suburbs is so white folk don't have to go pickup the housekeeper.

Dahon.Steve

You're right. i'm going to correct my prior comment because I don't know how many passengers are able to take advantage of the 15 minute bus routes. I would hope for the sake of the system those buses are packed.

You have to understand the history of current public transit routes were actually based on the old trolley routes. In New Jersey, the old trolley routes are still in use but it's buses that continue service. The trolley was slow traveling at 15 mph or less and therefore could cover a distance of 5 miles within a reasonable amount of time.

Later, the Interurban (a faster trolley) was developed and it's objective was to reach the suburbs and bring passengers back to the city for work. However, the automobile killed the interurban dream.

Jarred Walker is trying to bring back the concept of the interurban with the bus using limited stops and placing the routes near or on highways to increase overall speed. I can't say that I'm against this concept but we'll have to see if it works in the long run. I'm always searching for any articles or comments on this radical plan. To this date, I have not seen many so people are getting used to it.

Dahon.Steve

I’m starting to see a number of complaints appear on the net. The objective was to make a faster system but this often means having the bus travel in a straight line or highway. I don’t mind walking or riding a bicycle several blocks but a lot of people want door to door service.

Senior communities were built around bus stops and now these same people have to walk several blocks. If you read the comments section in these links, people are not noticing any time saved because you have to transfer and time is wasted waiting for the second bus to arrive. Bottom line, you’re just going to have to accept the fact that you’ll walk more for bus service.

What’s my opinion on hub and spoke. It works if there are still jobs downtown and they haven’t moved to the suburbs. With my bicycle and the rack, I can travel pretty much everywhere using the bus’s bike racks. However, it’s not as efficient when there’s no service going east to west. People don't like to walk and would rather waste an hour and travel 5 miles downtown and catch another bus for door to door service. This is where change is needed in a traditional hub and spoke system. It needs a bus that travel east to west in a loop. Lets keep in mind, it was never intended to travel beyond 10 miles from the center.

I’m beginning to think the idea of having the bus travel 30 miles to the suburbs and attract more white riders is too much for the Houston system. The new bus stops are often located in locations with no bus shelters on dirt roads. Also, since they didn’t put more money in the system and hired more drivers, did people really expect more service when buses routes doubled in length?

I think a more attractive system for those living in the suburbs would be a park and ride commuter rail line or maybe lightrail that goes straight into the city.

Changing METRO bus route upsets residents of senior living facility | abc13.com


Residents of Fifth Ward struggling with new METRO bus routes | abc13.com