TriMet reports that it has installed exhaust filters on 45 of it’s oldest buses. Combined with the use of cleaner fuel, this reduces particulates and emissions by up to 90%.
This brings the buses up to the standard applied to newer vehicles. TriMet will eventually roll out this technology to the oldest 1/3 of it’s fleet.
Good progress towards removing the “stinky” component of the “stinking and noisy” objection to buses.
70 responses to “TriMet Cleans Up its Act”
Actually, a slight clarification.
Tri-mets plans go like this:
They are applying the “retrofits” to their newest old busses. Meaning the newest busses in the fleet that do not already have the emissions controls in place.
The idea is to clean up as many old busses as possible – but also to get the most bang for the buck and longest service life out of the retrofits.
So the “newest old” busses are getting much cleaner.
They have secured federal funding to clean up a large number of their busses. The big thing to remember is that they have a LOT of busses.
Still really noisy… and still stinky. But none the less great news! :)
I wonder what kind of an impact TriMet would make if it hadn’t cancelled the orders for the new busses that would have replaced the 1400-1600s, as well as the order for the articulated busses (where one artic can replace between 1.5 and 2 40′ busses).
Now if we can just get them to quit running red lights to “keep their schedule”. As if they’re ever on time in the first place.
I can’t wait till we hear the news that Tri-Met and Metro are eliminated!
What about all those “spare the air days” where we were suppsed to take transit?
Were we being tricked into switching to dirty air machines?
Why does will TriMet “eventually roll out this technology to the oldest 1/3 of it’s fleet.” Instead of cleaning up its act NOW?
Thanks
JK
“What about all those “spare the air days” where we were suppsed to take transit? ”
We just shift everything to coal generating factories in Eastern Oregon for powering the toy trains and bring their livability down, too. All they need are the homeless and they’d be like Portland, too.
Remember that thread that wondered why the “State of the Conversation” is so bad? Posts like the above four appearing in every single thread might have something to do with it….
Scott, my thoughts exactly… Maybe there needs to be a rule that people’s posts need to actually add something to the conversation, instead of just “hurling insults” as Hawthorne put it…
I deliberately try to avoid riding my bicycle behind TriMet buses because many of them don’t smell good, (neither do most large vehicles, including most large SUVs,) although there are a few that do, (I could believe 1/4, which is what they say in the article.) However, I have to keep in mind that about 10% of regular cars don’t smell good either, so I really the buses are pretty good… (I’ve looked into reporting the polluting cars to DEQ, (cause I’m fairly sure that if it is small and newish, it shouldn’t smell like it is burning oil or not burning all the gas,) but apparently you can only report them if there is visible smoke, a standard that in my mind is way too low.)
For the record, there are only two coal-burning power plants in Oregon, both of which are in Boardman.
http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/corporate_info/power_plants.asp?bhcp=1
(Pacificorp doesn’t own any coal plants in Oregon, and I don’t know of any other companies that own standalone coal plants.)
Even PGE’s use of those two coal plants represents a minority share of its power consumption – about 25% of its own capacity, and PGE generates about 50% of its own capacity, so only about 15% of its total consumption is generated by its two Oregon coal plants.
Also considering that the Blue Line MAX from the Steel Bridge to Menlo Park, and the entire Red Line MAX line, plus the southern portion of the Streetcar are served by Pacific Power and not PGE; and that TriMet is not a significant consumer of power from PGE or Pacific Power, the overall impact by MAX is neglible.
Whether TriMet purchases green power (the Port of Portland does, and so does Metro), I don’t know (I’ve never seen TriMet mentioned as a buyer from Pacific Power, but not sure about PGE.) Then again, TriMet has more important things to worry about – like replacing the entire fleet of busses purchased before 1995 which constitutes half of its bus fleet, is nearing retirement age, and doesn’t meet current EPA regulations.
On the other hand, I’d like to know why TriMet insists that their field supervisors drive Ford F-250 trucks, instead of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. And many of their business vehicles are Explorer SUVs; when I am still at a loss as to why they even need personal vehicles (when they have free access to over 600 busses and a large light rail system).
Or given the large garage facilities they have, why they don’t install solar arrays on the garage roofs to help offset the energy consumption used (particularly at Center Street).
Or why TriMet has had an “experiment” of hybrid busses; yet they have made no commitment towards purchasing more hybrid busses (while King County Metro has purchased hundreds of them, on top of their extensive electric trolleybus network.) (Why hasn’t TriMet considered re-introducing trolleybus service, especially on busy intercity routes like the 6-MLK, 9-Broadway, 12-Sandy, 14-Hawthorne, 15-Belmont, or 20-Burnside?)
Erik –
Regarding TriMet’s experiment with hybrid buses vs. King County’s extensive purchase program, there may be legitimate reasons why TriMet hasn’t leaped in as fast as other agencies.
Here are the results of the December, 2006 Hybrid Bus Evaluation for King County (pdf format).
There is much good news in the report, such as better than 25% improvement in fuel economy and tremendous reductions of certain pollutants.
However, it appears that the current hybrid buses experience 16% worse performance in terms of field calls (meaning a bus has had to stop while en-route for some kind of repair) and no significant improvement in overall maintenance costs.
The evaluation appears to cover only operating costs but not the increased capital costs involved in purchasing these buses — TriMet may feel that the higher rate of field calls combined with the higher capital costs may not yet be worth it.
In my book, the significant reductions in emissions and consumptions are worth pursuing more vigorously at today’s costs, and the 16% difference in field calls should be able to be eliminated with one more generation of improvements to hybrid design.
If TriMet doesn’t show a serious commitment to upgrading the majority of its fleet to hybrids after 5-10 more years after hybrid reliability and costs have improved, I’ll definitely join the chorus of folks saying that TriMet needs to re-prioritize bus procurement.
– Bob R.
Why does will TriMet “eventually roll out this technology to the oldest 1/3 of it’s fleet.” Instead of cleaning up its act NOW?
I think Jim asks a good question here. If there’s current, available technology to substantively improve the emissions of its existing bus fleet…why NOT do this now, rather than later? It doesn’t seem cost-prohibitive.
Frank
Exactly. These aren’t posts with differing opinions. These are trolls. I would ABSOLUTELY vote in favor of a forum moderating policy that deleted obvious troll posts such as these.
Personally, I’m looking for genuine conversation and discussion about Portland transportation.
Bob,
Thanks for the link.
Does TriMet have any detailed information regarding the test of its two DE40LF busses compared to its fleet of D40LFs, or even the 2100 Phantoms?
Robert writes: “Exactly. These aren’t posts with differing opinions. These are trolls. I would ABSOLUTELY vote in favor of a forum moderating policy that deleted obvious troll posts such as these.”
Sorry Robert I could not disagree more. I have every reason to think that Trimet fudges the data and these guys are point to errors in many cases.
MW
Hi Erik –
Unfortunately, I have no detailed information regarding TriMet’s hybrid test program.
– Bob R.
Michael –
When Scott made his remarks about the tone of the conversation and “trolls”, he was referring to statements like these from four comments in a row:
Which of those statements, as you imply, are pointing to errors in TriMet’s “fudged” data?
If people wish to present evidence-based critiques of TriMet without resorting to words like “rape” other inflammatory remarks, I’d love to engage in such a conversation. Those four posts added nothing to the conversation.
As for the potentially substantive argument about whether riding transit on “clean air days” has any effect, I already posted my rebuttal to the person who complained about clean air days weeks ago — to which he did not reply — and now here he is again making the same crass remarks again as if they were fresh or original.
– Bob R.
If people wish to present evidence-based critiques of TriMet without resorting to words like “rape” other inflammatory remarks, I’d love to engage in such a conversation. Those four posts added nothing to the conversation.
While I understand that my choice of word (not included in your examples, but referred to in the above quoted paragraph) is strong, I specifically chose it because of TriMet’s long standing (for at least the last ten years) policy of focusing capital spending efforts on LRT, at the expense of bus network improvements.
Not only is such readily available at TriMet’s annual reports as filed with the Secretary of State’s office, but has also been confirmed to me by various (at least four) TriMet employees.
As TriMet continues to fully fund LRT projects without the ability to raise general obligation bonds, it must do so with revenue bonds and/or dipping into its own reserves – something that it did with the Airport MAX (Red Line) and Interstate MAX (Yellow Line) projects, that severely crippled TriMet’s financial outlook. TriMet used to have a program to replace its busses on a regular basis. Fred Hansen, when he came on as GM, decided that it was a smarter idea to purchase 25-50 busses a year instead of waiting several years and then making large orders; which isn’t a bad idea. The problem is, after a couple years, he stopped ordering any busses. The options to purchase articulated busses, which is a well documented need, were cancelled – on the premise that the bus network could be made “more efficient”. However articulated or not, any newer bus will be more energy efficient and less polluting than an older bus; however an articulated bus would have the ability to carry more people; thus fewer would-be riders would be inconvenienced by being passed over by a full bus, disenfranchising some that would take transit but drive to work out of necessity.
The end result is that while 30-40% of TriMet’s busses are in the 2000-newer series (most of which are low-floor New Flyer busses, except for the 2100 Gillig Phantoms), the other 60-70% of TriMet’s fleet consists of busses purchased in the early 1990s, and accordingly do not meet current emissions guidelines; are more difficult to retrofit; and are generally more maintenance intensive.
Had TriMet maintained its bus replacement program, the 1400s-1600s wouldn’t be in TriMet’s fleet today; they would have been replaced a few years ago by newer, more modern, cleaner busses. And the 1700-1900s would be up for replacement very soon.
While TriMet glouts its small improvements like the addition of particulate filters on a small fleet of busses; it has a LONG way to go, and many of the suggestions I pointed out are very simple – like eliminating most of TriMet’s business motor pool fleet, and eliminating the use of large Ford F-250 light duty trucks for its field supervisors (which are completely unnecessary).
But as TriMet puts over 600 busses on the road each day, and over 300 of them are older busses, wouldn’t it make more sense for TriMet, if it wants to be “environmentally conscious”, to focus on the “biggest bang for the buck”? Instead, we see old, obsolete and frequently broken down busses on a regular basis, while TriMet spends millions in planning costs alone after the lone LRT route here or there; with no regard for the “total transit system” (using TriMet’s own words).
However – I do agree with you in that we are here to discuss environmental concerns and not whether something is cost-effective transit or not (that’s for another thread), and I pointed out the energy consumption of MAX generally does not rely on coal-fired power plants, or even natural gas or other pollution-emitting sources of generation.
Now I read that Trimet will not release individual line and stop ridership numbers, supposedly because of “terrorism” concerns.
Do you really think I am stupid enough to believe this? Any fool with two eyes can go scope out stops for heavy concentrations of people if he has malacious intentions.
What’s the real reason for this new policy? Now do you want to talk about the ability to fudge?
Nick –
Where did you read that?
Erik –
I agree with much of what you have to say in your most recent comment. One point, however, regarding articulated buses: I have spoken to more than one TriMet planner and/or operations person who has told me that TriMet wishes to avoid articulated buses because they interfere with Mall operations.
I can see how this would have been the case in the original mall design – with two separate stops in a block, each stop was capable of easily holding two standard buses, but a standard plus an articulated (or two articulates) would block a stop or block an intersection.
The new mall design features a single stop in bus stop blocks with a queue system – riders always board at the front of the block. Perhaps this may facilitate better use of articulated models (or, perhaps, with the queue system in combination with rail you need to standardize bus size so that bus operators can easily tell how much spaces is available in the queue).
In any case, I have stated before that I believe better suburb-to-suburb (“regional center” to “regional center”) bus service is required, and such routes would not use the mall, so there is no excuse in these cases not to expand using articulated fleets.
There are also some close-in arterials where articulateds simply would not work, like upgrading the #14 on Hawthorne. The lanes are too narrow, there is too much activity on either side of the right lane, and today’s standard buses have great difficulty maintaining lane discipline. Having a trailer section would only make matters worse. That’s one reason why I’ve been advocating for streetcar service along Hawthorne.
– Bob R.
so there is no excuse in these cases not to expand using articulated fleets.
Assuming there is ridership. But how many routes require articulated buses that wouldn’t be better served by more frequent service?
(“regional center” to “regional center”)
Which regional centers are you talking about?
Ross –
Yes, assuming there is ridership. I agree that in many cases more frequent service is desirable, but there are few staffing cost impacts to operating articulated buses (slightly greater maintenance) but running more frequent service requires additional operators.
My main point was not to suggest we immediately put articulated buses on a number of routes, but to suggest circumstances where any potential problems of operating articulated buses on the mall would not apply.
Which regional centers are you talking about?
I was using “regional center” in the METRO sense… I can’t find a specific list on their web site but did find this text from an old press release:
Today you can get from regional center to regional center by bus, usually without needing to go downtown, but it isn’t easy or timely in a number of cases.
The new Green Line will make for great connections between Clackamas TC and Gateway, for example, but what if you want to go from Gresham Station to Oregon City, or Tualatin to St. Johns?
Those journeys are far greater than the transit average of 5.5 miles… to serve those trips would require limited-stop or express service. I would envision a series of hub-and-spoke “feeder” routes within each regional center area, with express routes connecting the regional centers, but perhaps they would prove cost-prohibitive and impractical. Transit is best at serving trips of less than 10 miles, and express buses are about the most expensive form of transit to operate. Still, the possible routes, schedules, costs, and ridership ought to be seriously studied.
– Bob R.
Here’s a page on TriMet’s site about the particulate filter installation. It contains a few things I didn’t catch from the original press release:
This may have some bearing on why TriMet isn’t upgrading more buses faster… the money is coming from an outside source so that source can dictate which bus models it wishes to work with.
I didn’t recall seeing anything about new bus purchases in the original press release… of course this doesn’t say just how many buses TriMet intends to purchase but at least it confirms that there are plans to replace at least some of the older buses in the next 3 years.
And finally:
The 90% figure may be primarily due to fleet replacement in the past 10 years, but it does indicate that TriMet has been doing something in the past decade to improve emissions.
– Bob R.
I was using “regional center” in the METRO sense
I think in the METRO sense, most of the regional centers are getting connected by rail. Once the Green line and commuter rail open, Oregon City will be the only one without some form of rail connection.
But I think people often are talking about connections to town centers, like the one you suggest between Tualatin and St. Johns. Neither one of those are regional centers. There are never going to be high capacity connections for all the town centers. That was one of the reasons for identifying regional centers. People who choose to live in Tualatin are not going to get the same level of transit service as someone who lives near downtown Beaverton or Hillsboro.
Ross –
I think we’re just talking from different angles around the same point here… this whole meta-discussion really just stems from brainstorming places where articulated buses would be appropriate and wouldn’t be limited by mall operations.
– Bob R.
The TIP provides a nice map of both Town Centers and Regional Centera, (page 11 of the full, page 4 of the ES,) but for things like St. Johns to Tualatin, that is most likely just going to involve going downtown anyways.
Assuming there is ridership. But how many routes require articulated buses that wouldn’t be better served by more frequent service?
(“regional center” to “regional center”)
Which regional centers are you talking about?
You mean like the Beaverton -> Lake Oswego #78, which only runs a bus every 30 minutes? Not only are extremely low frequencies a problem, but getting stuck in the hell-hole traffic of the ‘burbs’ also completely obliterates any semblance of a ‘schedule.’ On many an occasion I have waited 1+ hours for a bus that is supposed to be frequent service or every 30 minutes.
There should be absolutely no doubt as to why more people in the burbs don’t ride with such abysmal service: it would be like eating at a restaurant, when 50% of the time a waiter just never showed up.
But how many routes require articulated buses that wouldn’t be better served by more frequent service?
Ross – #12. It was an articulated route; when the 700s were retired in 1997, it was made into what we now call a “frequent service” route, because TriMet (under a previous GM) knew that losing the artics would be a problem, so it needed more service.
10 years later, we have frequent service, plus the 94s – and the busses are still standing room only well past morning and evening rush hours. We need frequent service PLUS artics on that line.
There are also some close-in arterials where articulateds simply would not work, like upgrading the #14 on Hawthorne. The lanes are too narrow, there is too much activity on either side of the right lane, and today’s standard buses have great difficulty maintaining lane discipline. Having a trailer section would only make matters worse. That’s one reason why I’ve been advocating for streetcar service along Hawthorne.
I entirely agree with you. While I have my reservations about Streetcar (I won’t get into my reasons being this is the wrong thread), S.E. Hawthorne presents certain challenges yet has a high level of transit use, that dictates special consideration for transit development.
But I think people often are talking about connections to town centers, like the one you suggest between Tualatin and St. Johns. Neither one of those are regional centers. There are never going to be high capacity connections for all the town centers. That was one of the reasons for identifying regional centers. People who choose to live in Tualatin are not going to get the same level of transit service as someone who lives near downtown Beaverton or Hillsboro.
Based on the above paragraph, can anyone at Metro point at Tualatin on a map? (Maybe they are using http://www.terraserver-usa.com, where the first reference to Tualatin links to somewhere in the Coast Range.)
Now that they have pointed out Tualatin on a map, maybe some of the “elected” Metro councilors might want to, maybe, come here! Let’s see what in Tualatin makes Tualatin a “regional center”:
1. Confluence of major transportation routes: Highway 99W (via Tualatin-Sherwood Road), Interstate 5, Interstate 205, Highway 217 (just north of Tualatin); not to mention TWO railroad routes. (Neither Beaverton nor Hillsboro share such a “hub” significance.)
2. Confluence of outlying communities which are interdependent (Sherwood, Wilsonville, West Linn, Rivergrove, Lake Grove area of Lake Oswego, Durham, Tigard)
3. Major employer base (including UPS, FedEx, GE Security, and numerous small businesses) (Hillsboro’s major employment center is located well east of the downtown core; and Beaverton’s is spread out but generally not located close to the central core; Tektronix is an exception but is diminishing in importance.)
4. Emerging retail environment (Bridgeport Village and surrounding area) (Hillsboro has no major retail environment in its “central city” area.)
5. Meridian Park Hospital. Meridian Park Hospital is the only hospital within at least an 8 mile radius. (Even Beaverton cannot claim a hospital of its own; Providence St. Vincent is at least one mile outside of its city limits!)
it was made into what we now call a “frequent service” route, because TriMet (under a previous GM) knew that losing the artics would be a problem, so it needed more service.
I don’t know the reasons, but since I regularly rode the 12 to King City from Portland and back, I am happy with the increase in schedule. Given the choice between an articulated bus every half hour and a regular bus every 15 minutes, I think most of use would prefer the latter. But, as a rider, I would also prefer service every 10 minutes to service every 15 minutes.
the busses are still standing room only well past morning and evening rush hours.
Then why isn’t the solution more frequent service instead of larger buses?
Let’s see what in Tualatin makes Tualatin a “regional center”
The decision on what was a regional center was made over a decade ago. Perhaps it should be revisited. But I don’t think Tualatin wanted to be a regional center since that implies much higher levels of development beyond what its current zoning calls for.
Then why isn’t the solution more frequent service instead of larger buses?
Or both? 10 minutes is a reasonable headway. If the buses are full, run an artic every 10 minutes. That’s standard practice for many lines here in Stuttgart, Germany.
Why can’t we have articulated busses every 10-15 minutes? I know of no law that prohibits the use of articulated busses in frequent service.
We seem to have some topic drift here, but Erik your questions about articulated busses got me wondering. Personally, I am not a big fan of them- either as a driver or a cyclist- especially close to the city center. But I also recognize that I really don’t know that much about them other than being around them in Seattle. As I was looking for more information I found this web site from the World Bank that has some pretty interesting information on urban bus systems. I’d be interested in other information that people have.
http://www.ppiaf.org/UrbanBusToolkit/assets/1/evaluate.html
First, I agree the the 94 would be a good candidate for artics. I have no idea how full the 94 gets since the 95 was taken away, but I’ve seen packed 94s before that. And in general, artics work good on express routes since these buses often have to deadhead (return empty). Also, on a local route, if you replace regular buses with artics on a reduced schedule, things will go slower because there’s more stopping/boarding/fares per bus.
As for TriMet purchasing green power see http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2001/01/15/daily31.html
Certainly another question is how are people paying/who is riding… For instance, in N Portland the 4F has a lot of strollers, wheelchairs and people paying with cash, and that slows things down a lot. It is better to run more buses (vs artics) in those situations because while each lift deployment/wallet fumble takes a minute from the entire bus, it slows down comparatively less passengers if there are more buses running more often, than bigger buses running less often…
New Flyer makes a low-floor articulated bus, the D60LF (a sister model of the D40LF that TriMet operates). King County Metro operates the D60LF model; and LTD’s EMX system uses low-floor articulated busses as well (also made by New Flyer).
The point is not to reduce service; it’s to increase capacity. Right now TriMet is operating runs that have to turn away passengers because of lack of capacity, and the busses are already “frequent service” – the need for articulateds has been known since 1997.
TriMet had an option order for articulateds. Fred Hansen killed that order. Why…I have no idea. I can only surmise that he has no idea what the line 12 is, or where it goes, because it isn’t a MAX line; nor does he bother to read the ridership numbers for that line, or even the on-time stats for that time (when a 40′ bus overfills, you can guarantee it’s not within five minutes of its schedule; and that causes scheduling problems that affect at least the next 2-3 busses after it.)
Erik –
I don’t know why the option order was killed… as I said earlier I have been told by multiple TriMet operations people that articulated are (or were) considered difficult to operate on the transit mall — that may have something to do with it.
I do know that Eugene’s EmX hybrid buses cost over $1 million each, but they are built for a special purpose. I wouldn’t include them in a discussion of simply upgrading from 40′ standard buses to 60′ articulateds on a particular route.
(I do believe that you could run Eugene-style buses on the left side of the new transit mall if more transit capacity is needed. Like a streetcar, the EmX buses can board from multiple doors on either side of the vehicle.)
– Bob R.
You’re right, Bob – the busses used on EmX can’t be used as a direct comparison because the EmX busses are BRT spec busses.
The point I was getting at is that the busses used in Eugene/Springfield are articulated, and low floor – and so they do exist. The argument that an articulated bus would take any longer to board for lift deployment is a non-issue; New Flyer makes an articulated bus that can board using a ramp and not a lift (as Eugene demonstrates with a BRT spec, and Seattle in a non-BRT spec bus.)
In fact, with two rear doors, I think an articulated, low floor bus would be faster to load and unload than a non-articulated bus (D40LF, TriMet 2000, 2200-2800 series).
If you could board through the rear door, then certainly more doors on the bus helps. I mean, MAX can board a couple of bikes, wheelchairs and strollers and 50 passengers in under a minute, and it does it with 8 doors that are wide enough for two people at a time. However, if all those people had to go past the operator and show their pass/pay their fare, (Pittsburgh’s light rail line does this, although it has two fairboxes and therefor people form two lines to fumble with change. But there isn’t room in the front of a low floor bus for two lines of people because of the wheel wells,) then MAX would be fairly slow to load too. Certainly the way many places do it is with a conductor that walks up and down the train/bus, checking/taking fares, but that extra person eliminates most of the cost savings of going to artics in the first place. The other solution is to make the artics like MAX and be on the honor system, would require ticket vending machines (TVMs) along the route, which again, is expensive and probably eliminate the savings of the artics. (The third solution: TVMs in the artics, a la Streetcar, barely works on a route that is mostly fareless anyways, so I wouldn’t suggest it for the artics.)
I think fare collection is another rouse as to why TriMet can’t do something as simple as run a bus.
Look at the hoops that TriMet claimed to exist, regarding the low floor busses – that they needed special sidewalks along the bus routes. There are plenty of stops where the low floor busses operate today, that didn’t require sidewalks or sidewalk renovations.
Plenty of cities operate articulated busses, without resorting to complex fare collection issues. Portland need not be any different. However, on my ride today, I wondered if it would be better if Portland resorted to collecting fares outside of downtown, just as Seattle does, and Salem used to do – pay as you enter inbound, pay as you exit outbound.
I wouldn’t exactly call fare collection a rouse. For instance, London switched from a conductor and an operator on their double decker buses to a single operator that took fares in the 1970s, and the travel times increased significantly, and as such ridership declined significantly. Fare collection is a big deal, and when people complain that the bus is too slow already, slowing it down more seems like a bad thing… A lot of articulated buses in other cities run on very long distance routes, where the amount of time spent fare collection is minor compared to the time on the road.
I’m not inclined to agree necessarily that running artics would absolutely increase stop dwell times, since a bus where the passengers are less crowded allows better interior flow, letting people board/alight faster even if they have to pay the operator.
But, I also have no objections to proof-of-payment fare collection for heavily-used articulated lines. Heck, give them special branding–MetroBus, SuperBus, or similar–and people will realize it’s different.
And Matthew, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss on-board fare machines. There are many available off-the-shelf from various manufacturers that work quite well. Problems with people not using them/fare evasion I blame squarely on lack of enforcement. On-board fare machines on buses are used all over Europe (where farebox recovery rates tend to be much higher–91% in Stuttgart, in fact).
We aren’t London. We aren’t eliminating bus Conductors. Nor do we have double-decker busses (which require stairs which will undoubtedly slow loading/unloading, and requires all passengers to exit through one door on the lower level).
Nor do I see the value in having some busses that operate with onboard TVMs and others where the driver takes the fare – and given TriMet’s ability, nor would an “articulated route” consistently operate with artics (even back in the day, the artics generally didn’t work weekends). So someone who might board a bus on a Friday and again on Saturday (particularly out of town residents) might be confused that they very same bus line, at the very same stop, doesn’t take fares the same way; nor is it feasible to equip every line 12 stop with an off-site TVM. Nor is the point of articulated busses to reduce the number of stops.
I’m NOT talking about BRT. All I am talking about is very simple: TriMet needs to buy articulated busses due to capacity constraints on EXISTING ROUTES, using EXISTING STOPS, and with NO CHANGE IN SERVICE (including service frequency). It’s very simple.
BRT might be an off-shoot of the idea, but it’s certainly not what I’m proposing.
Just for the record:
There are also some close-in arterials where articulateds simply would not work, like upgrading the #14 on Hawthorne. The lanes are too narrow.
But Tri-Met DID use articulated buses on the #14. I’m guessing that yes, the too-narrow lanes was not doubt a problem, but it’s a problem with regular buses too.
On the issue of taking fares, Tri-Met spent well-over a million dollars some years ago switching its fleet to an automatic fare collection system with boarding both at the front and rear of buses. The system apparently was breaking down often, and ultimately yanked.
TriMet needs to buy articulated busses due to capacity constraints on EXISTING ROUTES, using EXISTING STOPS, and with NO CHANGE IN SERVICE (including service frequency). It’s very simple.
What does an articulated bus do that making the buses more frequent won’t? I can’t figure out what problem you are trying to fix by having Trimet add another type of vehicle to its bus fleet.
Ross – again, ride the #12 out of downtown sometime; and re-read my earlier posts.
1. NEWER, more fuel efficient and less pollution busses.
2. MORE CAPACITY, eliminating the need for TriMet to pass up riders due to overcrowding.
TriMet did go to 15 minute intervals on the #12 and routinely I see operators passing up riders (myself included). Public Transit is no good if riders can’t use it – and I am passed up at the PSU stop southbound on the Mall (isn’t PSU TriMet’s largest transit user generator???)
If the concern is fleet standardization, TriMet already has a substantial fleet: 1400/1500 and 2100 series 40′ Gillig Phantoms, 1600 series 30′ Phantoms, 1700/1800 series 40′ Flxible Metros, 1900 series 30′ Flxible Metros (never mind that Flxible went out of business over ten years ago), and the 2000, 2200-2800 series New Flyer D40LF. That’s on top of four different models of LRVs, LIFT busses and sedans, and now the Colorado Railcar DMU. Busses, unlike automobiles, often use components that are standard across manufacturers – in fact even the DMU uses transit-standard components. So the Flxible, Gillig and New Flyer busses use similar (if not identical) engines, transmissions, axles, drivesystems, and interiors.
Even still, New Flyer makes the D60LF which is essentially the SAME EXACT BUS as the D40LF (remember, TriMet’s 2000, 2200-2800 series, over 200 in the fleet), just in a longer, articulated version.
So the issue of “another model of bus” doesn’t pan out to be an issue. If it did, then TriMet would have never ordered from Flxible (the 1700-1900s) nor would it have ordered the New Flyers (2000, 2200-2800s) when it could have maintained fleet commonality with the Gillig Phantoms. Or TriMet could have stuck with the GMC RTS (900 series, purchased in 1982 and now retired), which is the backbone of New York City’s MTA fleet and also used extensively in Salem and in Spokane. From what I hear, the RTS wasn’t especially popular in Portland, however.)
However, various transit systems nationwide don’t seem to have an issue with having more bus models; just look at King County Metro – and they use four different drivetrains – straight diesel, diesel-electric (hybrid) and diesel/electric (trolleybus) and straight electric (trolleybus) on top of having many more models of busses from different manufacturers. And Metro is doing a darn good job of attracting ridership, so they must be doing something right.
Ross
The articulated bus versus more frequent service argument misses a fundamental point. The more frequent the service, the more desirable it becomes to potential passengers. This will result in higher demand requiring more capacity on each trip. Artics are a way provide this capacity.
the more frequent the service, the more desirable it becomes to potential passengers. This will result in higher demand requiring more capacity on each trip.
Or more trips, leading to more passengers …
I understand how articulated buses make sense if you have a lot of routes where you are running buses back to back just to keep up. But how many routes are like that? The 14, Erik claims the 12 although that wasn’t my experience. It just seems to me that if you can fill a bus over half the route, you are better off turning that bus into an semi-express the way they have on Hawthorne rather than adding a larger bus.
TriMet did go to 15 minute intervals on the #12 and routinely I see operators passing up riders (myself included).
I was under the impression that this was inevitable. That once a bus gets behind schedule there will be more passengers than planned at each stop slowing it down further as even more passengers that would normally catch the next bus fill it up. The result is that bus passes people up, but with another bus behind it that is relatively empty.
Of course you CAN fix it. You just have to put so much capacity on the street that even a bus that is slowed down doesn’t get full. But I am not sure that is a good use of resources.
Maybe Jim can comment.
We can ignoring the fact that artics are cleaner because they are new, because all new buses are cleaner than old buses, and that has nothing to do with artics vs regular…
The 94 runs at about 7.5 minute average headways in the afternoon, which is good for Portland. If it was done with artics which carry ~150% of the capacity at about ~120% of the cost of a regular bus, then assuming that it wasn’t over capacity now, (if it is, Tri-Met should add more buses: Again, that doesn’t have anything to do with artics vs non-artics, when a line is over capacity, you need to add more capacity,) then you’d change the headways to 11.25 minutes, which would increase average wait time by 2 minutes. I don’t know how much of the 94’s time is spent at stops, hopefully it is probably less than the 4F, (which is about 25%: ~10 minutes of the 40 minutes from my house to downtown is spent with the door open. Thats a large part of the reason I walk a few blocks to the 35G,) but over the distance of the run that time adds up to another couple of minutes. Add another few minutes because of the lousy lane control that artics have, and as a result they are driven slower, and you’ve probably added 10 minutes to the total trip time for the passengers, which would have a significant impact on ridership, but you saved ~20% in operating costs right? No: Since it takes about ~10% longer to make the trip, you need 10% more buses than the same headways with regular buses, so that 20% cost savings is now only 10%. And you lost some riders in the switch too, so… (If you don’t increase the headways with the artics, but just drop them in as a replacement for regular buses, then you are just wasting money: About $20/hour.)
(I should point out, I’m not completely opposed to artics, but it isn’t as simple of a decision as some people are trying to make it…)
And yes, TVMs work much better in Europe because the smallest bill they have is a 5, and most transit fares are less than that, so the TVMs only have to accept coins for single tickets. I also suspect that education has something to do with it: People in Europe learn how to read a transit map and operate a TVM at a young age as a way of getting out of the house and away from one’s parents, where as in the US most people learn how to drive instead.
Matthew,
You state that articulateds must be driven slower.
Can you back that up with factual data from schedules and timekeeping results from TriMet on routes where in 1997 the switch was made from artics to 40 footers (i.e. lines 12, 33, 57)?
I am not proposing artics on narrow streets like Hawthorne, but on routes where the street design allows it – like Barbur Blvd/Highway 99W. Artics don’t work everywhere, admittedly; nor am I proposing that it is an “end-all” solution. But why not buy an articulated, which will kill two birds with one stone? TriMet will still need a mix of 40′ busses, and even 30′ busses on the neighborhood collector/shuttle routes – especially on those that serve narrow/curvy streets like the 18, 43, and 63.
As for the 94 – I would love to see TriMet completely realign its service on Barbur/99W, so that essentially the 94 becomes a seven-day-a-week service and always runs express from Tigard north; another bus serves Tigard (King City to Barbur Blvd TC) then runs express; and another bus serves the intra-Portland segment (Barbur Blvd TC-PSU). This however would require more busses (but likely not articulateds) but would provide more service and better service, particularly to the outer regions.
This would also require eliminating the interline with 12S, and any interline that takes place at Gresham TC (with 4D, 9P or 20). (Which I would like, because this practice allows a bus that becomes late in Gresham to affect the commute in Tigard – and makes highways MUCH better! At least a traffic jam at MP 5 on I-84 doesn’t affect my commute.)
But why not buy an articulated, which will kill two birds with one stone?
What two birds are those? It won’t end pass-ups. They are really only useful where you have a full bus for a long haul. And I don’t see much benefit to reducing frequency. I am trying to figure out why this is something to second-guess Trimet’s professional staff on.
Ross,
FOR THE THIRD TIME, I am NOT suggesting reducing frequency!!!
Let me spell it out for you again:
1. TriMet, by eliminating the use of articulated busses, has had to use SMALLER busses but with increasing ridership, resulting in overcrowded busses.
2. Because TriMet needs to buy new busses anyways (and there is an environmental benefit in buying newer, cleaner, less polluting and more efficient busses), there is a clear need to look at larger, articulated busses to use on higher density routes to better accomodate ridership patterns.
3. NOWHERE am I suggesting reducing service frequency; rather using larger busses ON THE SAME SCHEDULE, SAME SERVICE FREQUENCY (i.e. every 15 minutes on a frequent service route) to avoid overcrowding situations.
4. One articulated bus can carry almost the same capacity as two busses – but one articulated bus means one driver and one awful, annoying, polluting diesel engine and not two. So TriMet wouldn’t have to look at running a 5-10 minute service interval – it could continue to operate reliable 15 minute service (same as today) but with larger busses and accomodate more passengers.
5. Most bus manufacturers are offering hybrid busses; so now would be an excellent opportunity for TriMet to buy into it, since they claim they are environmentally conscious. Two busses (out of nearly 700) doesn’t cut it.
So, let’s review.
1. NO REDUCTION OF SERVICE FREQUENCY.
2. BIGGER BUSSES = MORE CAPACITY.
3. 60 FOOT ARTICULATED BUSSES RUNNING EVERY 15 MINUTES CARRIES MORE PASSENGERS THAN 40 FOOT BUSSES EVERY 15 MINUTES.
Sorry if I’m breaking any rules about this forum but I shouldn’t have to state my point three times and have my views misrepresented when I am writing in clear and concise English.
As for second-guessing TriMet’s professional staff, well then will someone from TriMet’s professional staff that had a say in cancelling the order for the articulated busses (Fred Hansen???) speak up? Fred? Anyone? Hello? The room is eerily quiet, but what should I expect from a non-representive, non-elected form of government – of which TriMet is only one of two bodies of government within the state of Oregon that has no elected officials.
Well, Erik, if that is really what you are proposing, then I’m totally opposed to it.
Artics cost about $20/hr more to operate than regular buses, due to them being more expensive to maintain and using more fuel, (not that big of a deal compared to the $80/hr a regular one runs in the first place, but still, it is money.) If you simply threw 60 artics at the system in place of the fullest regular buses, (Guess what? They are almost all full in at least one direction at rush hour, if they weren’t, TriMet would have reduced their frequency long ago,) without reducing frequency or changing the routes or anything else at the same time, it would cost TriMet roughly $3.5M a year. To put that number in perspective, that is a 10 cent increase in fares.
Now, if you actually design the routes/frequency for the artics so that you could actually use their full potential, and so that $3.5M wouldn’t simply be wasted, then I might be in favor of it, but you have to keep in mind: When they switched from the artics in 1997 they did change the frequency at the same time, it wasn’t like they just decided that those passenger liked to stand and gave them shorter buses or something like that, it was a design decision made by a professional that weighed various trade-offs and came to the conclusion that the route would best be served by a certain size bus running at a certain frequency. What didn’t happen was that someone just decided that it would be fun to run the buses more often, and that they personally didn’t like artics, so they were going to get rid of them.
And yes, it looks like you are breaking rule #8, although I don’t know if those are in force yet.
FOR THE THIRD TIME, I am NOT suggesting reducing frequency!!!
You’re right. I was making a logical jump that if you have larger buses to pick up the same number of passengers you would need fewer of them.
What you apparently are arguing is that buses are overcrowded. There are two alternatives to relieving overcrowding. One is adding more buses the other is using larger buses. One adds frequency of service, the other doesn’t. So you are saying they should spend money on larger buses instead of spending money to increase the frequency of service.
Since rule violations are being discussed here, let me just say that I think the conversation here is valuable, if a little heated. While I might want everyone to be a little calmer, this is not a conversation I would feel the need to limit with enforcement of the rules.
Proposed Rule #8 is also the one with the least consensus at this point :-)
I have not run the numbers, but my experience with Streetcar leads me to believe that labor generally dominates capital in service hour costs.
Is it not possible that artics would provide a more efficient cost-per-passenger-mile on crowed routes?
Of course, it’s a complicated trade-off as there are definitely trade-offs in have another vehicle type in the fleet for just a few routes.
Chris –
I agree with all your comments. Which is why I am willing to leave it up to the folks at Trimet to figure out what works best. I don’t think there aren’t articulated buses because they haven’t considered the question.
On the other hand, I once made the argument that every passenger should have a seat. I still think that is true. I think that guaranteeing everyone a seat would increase ridership. But at what cost. How many more seats do you need to provide if you don’t allow standing customers? I was never able to get anyone to do an actual costing out of that. Even most of the transit advocates didn’t think it was an important issue.
The original intent of this thread is “TriMet Cleans Up its Act”.
That is part of the reason I believe artics are the way to go: Do we want to have scenes of New York, where there are entire streets jammed with busses (and the resulting emissions/smell) – in many areas of Portland, there isn’t much of a desire to increase service frequency.
Let’s take another look at the 12B line: from PSU to Capitol Highway (a.k.a. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway) the following busses travel on Barbur: 1V, 12B, 38, 44, 45, 54, 55, 56, 92, 94.
South to Terwilliger, the 1V, 12B, 38 and 94 continue.
South of Terwilliger the 1 and 38 splits but the 39 and 64 join Barbur (for a short time).
At Barbur Blvd TC, only the 12 uses Barbur into Tigard. So from Terwilliger north, there is already significant service frequency with multiple routes. The same is true on McLoughlin out of the central eastside.
Is it truly desirable to add MORE busses (remember that the Lair Hill neighborhood is already whining and complaining about traffic as it is because there are four primary north-south roads in “their” neighborhood)? Articulateds do cost slight more to operate, but a $100/vehicle hour cost vs. $80 for a 40′ – the other alternative is TWO 40′ busses, at $160/vehicle hour, two diesel engines that have to be fueled and put out pollution, two drivers that must be hired (given TriMet’s current driver retention and hiring problems)…I have yet to see an actual disadvantage to the articulateds, except where street geometry don’t allow for their use (i.e. SE Hawthorne – too narrow and congested; many routes have too many hills/curves but generally don’t have the same demand/ridership anyways to need an articulated).
Look at the 94 – even at a 10 minute headway there are numerous trips that pass up riders. So are we proposing that Barbur Blvd. service should be at least 5 minutes? I wouldn’t mind that but there are numerous drawbacks to such – including the very topic of this thread, DIESEL EXHAUST. Anyone want to sell that to Corbett/Lair Hill?
– in many areas of Portland, there isn’t much of a desire to increase service frequency.
I don’t know where those places are. Maybe the transit mall.
Look at the 94 – even at a 10 minute headway there are numerous trips that pass up riders.
But pass ups are a separate issue from lack of capacity. The problem of pass-ups is created by mismatched capacity. Buses that are behind schedule picking up passengers who should be waiting for the next bus, forcing them eventually to pass by other passengers who then have to wait for the later bus. That will happen whether the buses are articulated or not unless you provide enough capacity to allow the following bus to remain mostly empty.
That happens sometimes, but keep in mind that a line 94 bus originates downtown. So there is already a built-in layover before every run – a bus would have to be significantly late on its prior trip, or somehow become significantly delayed on its trip back. Given that a dead-head run is not street specific (a line 94 deadhead from Sherwood back to Portland in the afternoon rush hour doesn’t have to return on 99W/Barbur Blvd., it could take I-5 or any other suitable street in order to return), such occurances are rare. Unlike, say, the line 12 bus which might have begun its day as a line 9-Powell, running out to Broadway, then back to Gresham, then becoming a line 12-Sandy…then the situation becomes where a traffic jam in Gresham affects the commute in Tigard.
Besides, with Transit Tracker on my cell phone I can tell if a bus is running significantly behind schedule, and if I know to wait an additional five minutes for the next (and significantly less crowded) bus. I would even offer to volunteer this information to other people waiting for the same bus at the same stop – especially if the bus passes them (and me) up. This was not my experience on the 94 – the bus was on time (or a few minutes off, but within the acceptable deviance) but the bus was overcrowded. That meant more people waiting for the next bus, which would also become overcrowded. So if you’re the unlucky soul waiting at the last stop on the Mall and got passed up by two busses – what’s your opinion of TriMet?
(Of course, there are some here on this forum that might argue that “well that’s what you get for choosing to work outside of the prime area”, even though it’s only by six or eight blocks.)
Erik –
I seriously doubt that anyone here would argue that any transit mall stop was somehow outside of the prime area.
If buses are regularly skipping transit mall stops due to being full and a departing bus with adequate room is not regularly along in less than 5-10 minutes to pick up the slack, then I agree that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
– Bob R.
I think Erik is identifying a situation where a articulated buses with more capacity could help. If there are so many people trying to get on the 94 downtown that the buses all fill up before they get to PSU then the PSU folks are going to be standing there for a long time. I doubt that is really the case, but it would be a situation where higher capacity vehicles could help.
Erik, I think I understand your argument now. The problem you are seeing isn’t lines that are truly over capacity and therefore need 150% more capacity immediately, what you are seeing and trying to fix is bus bunching, where individual buses on popular routes are over capacity as a result of being a few minutes late.
Artics aren’t going to solve bus bunching, in fact the opposite it true: Smaller buses don’t have as big of a bus bunching problem… What is actually over capacity is the specific bus that is running late and is pulling more than it’s share of the passengers, (and then running later as a result.) What would happen in Pittsburgh, where they used a lot of artics, was that you’d often times get 3 artics in a row on an hour long route because the first one would deploy it’s lift a few times and then be late, and as a result, full and the one behind it would be completely empty, and so that one would slow down a little to try to pick up more passengers, which would result in the one behind it being able to run relatively faster. By the time they got downtown, the “front” one was running 20-30 minutes late, and the one in the “back” was more or less on schedule, (once they caught up with each other, they’d pass so that people would get on the empty one, so the one in the front was may not have been in front all along.) Smaller buses get full faster, and then they start bypassing stops, and the problem doesn’t get any worse. However, if there is more capacity on the particular bus that is late, and so it can stop and load more people, the bus gets later and problem actually gets worse. In any case, it isn’t going to stay on schedule at that point, and you are just going to be late. (Bus bunching also isn’t limited to rush hour, many of the frequent service route suffers from it to various degrees most of the day, it is simply a result of being popular.)
Ultimately bus bunching is actually a very different problem than route capacity, and as such requires a very different solution… The stop light trick that TriMet has is actually fairly good. Certainly another solution is stopping at every stop with enough door capacity to load/unload everything in the same amount of time every time, (a la MAX,) although that wouldn’t work too well for the average bus that takes a minute to deploy the lift and has a stop every 500 feet…
I’ve seen bus bunching and yes, it is a serious problem.
However part of the problem that results in bus bunching is overcapacity in itself – for example, a crowded bus that has a wheelchair user on it. In order to deploy the lift/ramp, the entire front half of the bus has to exit, to allow the wheelchair user to navigate out of the bus. Coupled with a 1400-1900 or 2100 series bus that has a lift as opposed to a ramp, and the process takes much longer.
So, by employing a low floor, articulated, hybrid bus (yes, they exist – see:
http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/hy-diesel.html
https://www.newflyer.com/index/hybrid_buses_intro
– you have achieved all the benefits:
1. Lower greenhouse emissions,
2. Better fuel economy,
3. More capacity,
4. Better ADA accessibility,
5. Better reliability
Because of #3, #4 and #5 – you are directly impacting several of the reasons why “bus bunching” occurs. Because of #1 and #2, TriMet would directly be “improving the environment”.
Will artics by themselves eliminate bus bunching? No; but TriMet needs to purchase new busses; why not purchase new busses that are better for the environment, are more efficient, and have a greater capacity? TriMet has already seen the benefit of low-floor busses; and low-floor articulated busses exist (I think there is a misconception that they don’t exist) that are directly compatible and fleet-common with TriMet’s existing D40LF low floor bus fleet. So there’s another benefit; savings in that its operators and mechanics ultimately will only have to be familiar with two versions of the same general bus design.
The New Flyer design is well proven and successul in numerous other cities (Seattle and Vancouver, BC, as well as Eugene and Spokane all use them); and the D40LF has been in Portland’s fleet since the mid-1990s. So that in itself is a major difference between TriMet’s first foray with articulated busses (the Crown-Ikarus, which was a relatively uncommon bus used only by Portland and a few other agencies; and was a Hungarian design. It also had a poorly designed ADA lift that had to be disabled; the D60LF eliminates that issue by having a ramp instead of a lift.)
There is also at least one other manufacturer of a low floor articulated bus, NABI – however NABI’s roots are in Crown-Ikarus…
http://www.nabiusa.com/buses/product_profile.cfm?bus_type=1&bus_id=8&link_id=31
Erik –
I agree that hybrid low-floor buses with deployable ramps would be far superior to the standard 40′ buses we have today, but now you’re back into $1M bus territory, and the maintenance track record for the hybrid buses thus far is not quite as good as standard buses.
I’m not suggesting it shouldn’t be done, but I am saying the $1m per bus price tag is a likely reason why it hasn’t been done yet. It’s not just an easy swap out.
– Bob R.
I would still be happy if it were straight-diesel (as opposed to hybrid), because a newer bus is still going to be cleaner than something that was manufactured in 1991.
So if TriMet bought new 40 foot buses, they would get used all the time, (weekends, non-rush hour, etc,) and then they’d only need to run the “dirty” (because you will always have some buses that are older/dirtier than others,) buses at rush hour. In fact, this is what they try to do now. The old buses are only really used for rush hour service. (The cleanest vehicles in the world are the ones that don’t actually move. :-)
Where as if TriMet bought new 60 foot buses, that would only be needed/used at rush hour, then the dirty buses would be used on weekends and non-rush hour, i.e. all the time, and the new “clean” buses would only come out for maybe as little as 1000 hours a year…
Yes, in both cases the emissions would be less than doing nothing, but my point is that the emissions reduction from buying new 40 foot buses is far greater than the emissions reduction from buying new 60s…
Likewise for the better ADA accessibility and better reliability arguments. You’d be putting your best buses into service for a few hours a day, the very time when if a bus breaks down there is another one not far behind it anyways. When a bus breaks down at 11pm a night, the next bus may not come for an hour, or 6… Yes, ADA accessibility and reliability would increase with new 60s over not doing anything, but it would increase more with new 40s.
(I’m not going to call you an “articfan,” :-) there are indeed good arguments for artics, (Chris, for instance, pointed out that they are lower cost per passenger, which is absolutely true,) it is just that you are trying to use other arguments for them instead…)
Back in the days, the 57 used to be an artic route – of course, Monday through Friday (although throughout the day, not just at rush hour.)
Predictably, the 57 would be standing-room or overcrowding on the weekends and holidays; while during the week there was plenty of room. So while I would have no problem riding the bus during the week, I’d avoid it at all costs during the weekend.
On the #12 I see a similar ridership trend – the busses are not crowded just at rush hour – in fact I commute primarily AFTER rush hour, and even in my evening commute in the 7:00 PM hour, busses are crowded. I’ve seen busses as late as 9:00 or 10:00 PM that were standing room only. During the rush hour the #12 is augmented by the #94 (and previously the #95).
So the artics are just one part of a fleet replacement program; of course they would also include new 30′ or 35′ busses, and maybe even more sub-30′ busses (both C-Tran and Cherriots operate a smaller low-floor bus; and TriMet has the WorldTrans 300RE (2400 series) busses, although I’m not sure if those busses are even still in service (one suffered an engine fire almost immediately after being placed in service).
So, the artics would only be used on the busiest routes – like the 4, 9, 12, 20, 33; and I would see little reason to not operate them on the weekends unless specific trip ridership dictates.
Whether I’m an artic fan or not…I just see too many advantages towards the artics that I do not understand why TriMet abruptly cancelled its order, while at the same time has done little to improve bus service (other than new bus stop signs, which could hardly be considered an improvement yet came at a cost). Then TriMet turns around and claims they are being environmentally conscious while operating old, dirty busses when other transit agencies have looked beyond diesel (Cherriots is almost 100% CNG except for their RTSes; KC Metro has a large fleet of hybrid busses and trolley busses.)