When’s My Bus Coming?


In the Sunday O, Jim Mayer has an article about the TriMet bus lines that are most consistently late (TriMet defines this as more than 5 minutes behind schedule).

The champion is the #95 I-5 Tigard Express. In fact, all of the worst performing lines are long-haul lines, often expresses, that are most likely to get caught in traffic congestion.

This seems like a very strong argument for the dedicated right-of-way for MAX (presumably Bus-Rapid-Transit with dedicated right of way would enjoy the same benefit). The article offers no solutions, TriMet works to fine-tune schedules to reduce variation, but it’s not a game you can win.

I think the better strategy is to put more real-time information in the hands of riders, exactly what we’re trying to do with Transit Surfer. Stop having riders rely on schedules, and let them know when the bus is really coming!

,

18 responses to “When’s My Bus Coming?”

  1. Well, I would like to point out another advantage the MAX has over busses:

    -mechanical reliability
    -no need for refueling along route (more time per day spent making trips instead of pit stops)

    While I don’t have any statistics, I have never seen a MAX broken down, except when the electrical system has failed (ie, during a storm). I have seen dozens of busses just in the last year – and have been on several – when they’ve broken down. And maybe twice with the streetcar.

  2. Justin –

    MAX cars can and do break down, but the problems are generally less serious due to redundancies.

    If a motor unit fails in a 2-car train, the remaining working car can safely continue the linked train long the route until it reaches a maintenance yard or pullout.

    There are two wheelchair ramps on either side of a car… if one ramp fails, that door can be taken out of service. There are 8 doors per car… if any one door fails, the train can still continue with service without significant delay.

    I once asked a TriMet representative about procedures should a train completely fail (power loss, control system shutdown) along the new transit mall alignment. I asked if tow vehicles would be located nearby for rapid assistance. According to this representative, “every LRV is a tow vehicle”… it would be one of those times where the specified ability to form a 3-car or 4-car train could actually happen.

    All of the above things can be disruptive or cause delays if they happen in the wrong place at the wrong time (especially on the transit mall), but redundancies in the LRVs themselves generally prevent complete failures… If a bus motor fails, that bus is stranded.

    That being said, as you have noted, MAX can be and has been disabled system-wide by failures caused by storms or electrical problems. Although rare, they are noteworthy due to the amount of disruption and the number of people affected. This is why I’ve always been an advocate of building further redundancy into the system (additional turning tracks, crossovers, and passing sidings), and an advocate for eliminating bottlenecks and potential system-wide points of failure, such as the Steel Bridge.

    – Bob R.

  3. Artierals adjacent to freeways are subject to excessive demand when incidents cause the freeway to fail. Hence Barbur’s poor reliability for bus transit as compared to McLaughlin or Powell Blvd.
    Transit only ROW for either buses or MAX is the only way to insure reliable transit service. Time for the Barbur MAX!…which should continue from Tigard down to Kruse Woods.

  4. Exactly…

    As compared to twice-daily (routine) massive traffic congestion on I-5, which stops everything.

  5. As one would expect all the regional freeways and expressways slow at the ususal pinch points…you can hear this on the morning radio reports. But it is “incidents” that account for the complete breakdowns. These are random events, but overall incidents account for 50% of the congestion on these roads.

  6. Buses are late even on Sundays, when there is
    much less traffic. It seems to me that Trimet’s
    abysmal punctuality problem is more of a result
    of poor management than anything else.

  7. I ride the 15 Belmont line, which is a frequent route. During the morning rush (and even at other times throughout the day), it is a definite culprit of the ‘bunching’ mentioned in the O article, and often the first bus will not even stop, either being at capacity load, or because the next bus is close behind. You adapt, I guess – or at least, for frequent routes you do.
    A few things I would like to mention-

    My stop used to have a scrolling bus tracker, which let us know when the bus was due to arrive. I know that they were accurate, and that the GPS on the buses was used to keep them that way. When it said the bus was due in 2 minutes, it arrived in 2 minutes. If the bus got stuck in traffic, the tracker adjusted to 4 minutes. About 6 months ago, Trimet removed the trackers at bus stops. I would love to know why. Seems to me the best thing they can do is keep their passengers informed.

    I am originally from Chicago, and I recall many years ago upon arriving in Portland how wonderfully on time Trimet was! They even had posted schedules, something that the CTA does not have – I am not sure they even *have* schedules. You just hit the stop, and hope it arrives in a short time. Not a great system, especially in the dead of a Chicago Winter. Sometimes, when I remember this I can’t help but think about how much we whine about Trimet, considered one of the best transit systems in the country. Sure, it has some flaws (I really wish it would go to 24 hours! And, who’s brilliant idea was it to have multiple uses on the ‘bus mall’?!) but all in all, I am generally happy to have my bus pass in my pocket.
    Karin

  8. TriMet has been phasing out the tracker boards because of the expense of maintaining the wireless communications (each one essentially has a monthly cell phone bill associated with it).

    The exception is along the MAX lines, where TriMet installed their own fibre network.

    I likewise think this is going in the wrong direction. One of the things I hope Portland Transport can do in the future is deploy displays with our Transit Surfer in coffee shop windows or other locations near bus stops. This would require donation of some computers and access to free WiFi.

    Any volunteers to work on this as a project?

  9. * I was predicting that the crowded 72 would make the top spot. I’ve also heard some bad things about the 4-Fessenden.

    * I will admit that Nick is correct. I’m not sure it was a Sunday, but not too long ago neither the last 9 or 4 made it to Portland in order to meet up with the other last buses. This is at 1:30 in the morning. One trip should not affect the next, but it does.

    * Looking at the charts, time needs to be taken out of the 157. 20% early!

    * Besides the long 72, most of the lines with the lowest headway adhearence are double-ended, becoming one of the other unevenly spaced lines. It would be interesting to see if one line is causing problems on the other one.

    * As far as I know, buses only need to be fueled once per day, generally at night. Both buses and MAX need to be cleaned and maintained.

  10. This is my first comment here… nice website! (Yes, this is a different Jason then the one that just posted here while I was writing this.)

    I used to live in Tigard a few years ago, and used what was then called 95X. In 2001, TriMet tried to replace the route with the then-new 94X (now 94), which started in Sept. 2001. Earlier that year, many 95X riders signed a pre-printed (by a 3rd party) comment card at a TriMet Open House in Tigard, stating that they were choice riders and if 95X were cancelled, they would not sit on a bus through Barbur TC and every stoplight between SW 68th and Downtown Portland, they would go back to driving to Downtown or Lloyd Center. TriMet listened – and so far, 94 continues to operate alongside 95 – although 95 is now down to a handful of morning trips and 3 evening trips.

    I started using the route both to and from work in May 2001 because it was faster and more enjoyable then sitting in traffic on 76/78 (same route North of Tigard TC), even though I was ultimately going out towards Hillsboro. Besides, I like Downtown Portland.

    My point? The fact that 12, 94, and 95 are all on the list prove the even bigger problem of 99W – the area’s growth has exploded, but there are no new throughways to get to destinations unless one winds their way through neighborhood streets (gasp!). With that kind of traffic problem, being late no matter what your mode of transportation is (bus or car) is going to be a fact of life.

    Now, what I really don’t understand, now that I’ve lived in SE Portland for a few years, is that 71 and 75, which seem to run late quite a bit, didn’t make the top 5. Maybe because 75 is Frequent Service and 71 supposedly is every 15 mins. M-Sat. and 30 mins. Sunday, the ones that are actually on time balance the rest of them out. I can only handle “TriMet can’t always be on time” only so many times, and I hate to ask the drivers because there’s always that afterthought that they took the question personally. I could go on and on… but in the interest of length I won’t, unless someone wants me to.

  11. The on-time record of the 75 is a farce,
    at all times and all days of the week.
    I know from experience, because I used to
    live near 39th & Gladstone, and I don’t drive.

    Why don’t they just split this line at
    Hollywood TC?

    Nick

  12. This article is pretty far off the mark. First off busses such as the 4, 72, 9, 75 etc all find themselves late even in the evening and weekend times when traffic is not so bad. The article also blames the operators a bit by saying they leave the end of the line late. Well.. if you get to the end of the line late.. and need to use the bathroom your gonna leave late.
    The problem here is that trimet is trying to squeeze every ounce of efficiency they can out of their system and they are doing it on the backs of their drivers. The schedules for the most part are unrealistic and drivers find themselves having to run their busses late just to use the restroom.

  13. Speaking of the #4, almost every other Sunday
    I have go from NW Portland to SE 34th & Division.
    When I transfer at Nw 5th & Couch to catch the
    1:48 PM bus, EVERY TIME lately there have been
    problems with the arrival (e.g., 7 minutes late,
    or doesn’t show up at all).

    Since this is happening on a Sunday, draw your own
    conclusions.

  14. Why don’t they just split this line at
    Hollywood TC?

    I’ve thought the exact same thing about 75, which I feel should almost be 3 routes – 75-Lombard (Pier Park to MLK), 42-Dekum/42nd (MLK to Hollywood TC), 39-39th Ave (Hollywood TC to Milwaukie TC) [route numbers are my suggestions and I’m assuming 39-Lewis&Clark gets a new number.]

    I’ve asked TriMet about a different route split idea at a recent Open House, and the answer I got was that in order to split a route, they usually have to add buses/drivers to each route in order to make it work, and they rarely have the money to split routes – the last major one was splitting 5-Capitol Hwy. from 5-Interstate (BTW, 44-Capitol Hwy. is now interlined w/ 40-Mocks Crest).

    My route split request – 71-60th/52nd (Clackamas TC to Parkrose TC), and 73-122nd Ave (Parkrose TC to 96th/Woodstock). What I don’t get is why they don’t just use the same amount of buses that currently run the route, and both routes could be interlined, but there’d be a 10-15 min. layover at Parkrose TC to accomodate for traffic, driver restroom breaks (I’m assuming they have them in that little building at the TC), etc.

    The TriMet staffer also mentioned another popular request is splitting 72-Killingsworth/82nd at – where else – the intersection of NE Killingsworth St. and NE 82nd Ave.

  15. but there’d be a 10-15 min. layover at Parkrose TC

    I believe that’s basically why. I’m not sure, but I think that operators generally are given a bus and use that until they get a long break or shift ends. Note the many buses laying over at Clackamas TC. Also, I know some operators who agree with you on creating a Line 73 from half of Line 71. As for the 72, it would be awkward to split it at 82 & K., since it would require transfers and I don’t think there’s a good place to end a line there (though it would be nice if K. buses went to Parkrose, connecting it with N/NE).

    Moreover, though, a lot of potential route splits would occur in downtown Portland where more buses/operators really would be needed. One of the advantages of thru-routing downtown is that the same bus can drop off people coming from one side of town and pick up people going to the other.

    Related trivia:
    #42 is used internally to refer to the Cedar Mill Shuttle; 73 is the Washington Park Shuttle (supplements Line 63). Also, the 72 didn’t use to turn on Killingsworth–it went to the airport. The 71 went from Swan Island to Culley, but then turned south.

  16. Time for the Barbur MAX!…which should continue from Tigard down to Kruse Woods.

    Why would MAX need to go to Kruse Woods – when the area barely supports the one regular (at 30 minute intervals) and one rush hour bus that serves the area?

    And taking out lanes of Highway 99W (a.k.a. Pacific Highway, a.k.a. Barbur Blvd.) would merely force congestion onto every side street in Tigard and Tualatin — many of the cars you see on 99W didn’t originate in Tigard – they originated in Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg, Dundee, McMinnville – and elsewhere in Yamhill County. 99W is a state highway and unless someone comes up with the hundreds of millions to replace it (i.e. the “I-5 to 99W Connector”), MAX can’t go there. If anything, 99W needs to be widened to three through lanes, and two left-turn lanes, from Durham Road north to I-5 – and eliminating intersections and driveways, particularly north of Greenburg Road/Main Street.

    It’s bad enough that Yamhill County residents are getting screwed by being told they will have to pay a toll to drive anywhere (the toll to drive either the “toll road” or existing 99W) – but no other county is being subjected to even the idea of having to pay a toll just to drive out of town. Now the idea of taking road capacity away from them?

  17. many of the cars you see on 99W didn’t originate in Tigard – they originated in Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg, Dundee, McMinnville – and elsewhere in Yamhill County

    As I recall, that isn’t really true. The bulk of the commuters from Yamhill county end their trips in Tigard and Beaverton. The traffic on 99W between 217 and Downtown Portland largely originates in Tigard, King City etc.

    And taking out lanes of Highway 99W (a.k.a. Pacific Highway, a.k.a. Barbur Blvd.) would merely force congestion onto every side street in Tigard and Tualatin

    There aren’t any side streets that work as alternatives – which is the reason 99W is so congested with local traffic.

    If anything, 99W needs to be widened to three through lanes, and two left-turn lanes, from Durham Road north to I-5 – and eliminating intersections and driveways, particularly north of Greenburg Road/Main Street.

    The problem of 99W is mostly how to make it work for the people who live in and around it. I don’t think local access to 99W should be cut off to serve people who want to commute from Yamhill County. If it takes to long, find a place to live closer to your job or a job closer to home.

  18. As I recall, that isn’t really true. The bulk of the commuters from Yamhill county end their trips in Tigard and Beaverton. The traffic on 99W between 217 and Downtown Portland largely originates in Tigard, King City etc.

    Look at ODOT’s own traffic counts. Compare the difference in traffic from just south of the I-5 interchange, to just south of Durham Road.

    Further, what major employers are located in Tigard, that have such a huge base of employees who live in Yamhill County?

    Still further – Beaverton isn’t on Highway 99W. So if all those Yamhill County residents aren’t going to Portland, then they must be clogging up all of Tigard’s side streets – and Highway 217.

    But the traffic on 99W south of I-5 is over 50,000 cars daily, on a road designed for about 35,000. If you put MAX there, you’ll reduce the capacity down to about 25,000 cars – and have to figure out where to put 25,000 cars. There is no way, that MAX, and/or its accompanying park-and-ride lots, could handle that crush.

    Bottom line is that Highway 99W is still a state highway, and ODOT’s primary responsibility is not to the city of Tigard but to all state highway users. Since the city of Tigard is in no financial situation to take over responsibility for maintaining Highway 99W (much less Hall Boulevard, which is also a state highway) – maybe Tigard needs to consider its growth and building patterns – a duty it has neglected since the 1960s.

Leave a Reply to Nick Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *