An interesting new paper from VTPI: “Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements: Considering Comfort and Convenience In Transport Project Evaluation” (that’s a mouthfull).
Basically the idea is to look at what the amenities (or lack thereof) are that make a transit trip seem longer or shorter (as a proxy for more or less attractive compared to another mode choice).
It turns out good arrival time info is high on the list, one of the reasons I’m so fanatical about NextBus.
A pilot of countdown information displays at public transportation stations indicates that:
o Waiting is more acceptable (89%).
o Time seemed to pass more quickly when passengers knew their wait duration
o Passengers perceive a shorter waiting time (65% felt this was so).
o The service is perceived as more reliable.
o Of those passengers travelling, waiting at night is perceived as safer.
o General feelings improve towards bus travel (68%).
o About 70% of passengers refer to the display when they arrive at a stop, about
at the sign while they wait, and about 60% look at the sign at least once a minute.
o Passengers approve of the 3 essential pieces of information provided (route number, destination and wait time).
o There is strong overall customer support for the system.
o Countdown has been found to generate a minimum of 1.5% new revenue.
33 responses to “What Makes Good Transit?”
I would estimate that at least 20% of my bus rides out of downtown include a “wait” stop, where the bus driver allows the bus to stand idling, while catching up with the schedule.
Further, the Burgerville stop on Hawthorne is where drivers end their shifts and change…during rush hour. Nothing like waiting while the new driver adjusts the seat, the mirrors, puts away their coat and lunch.
My point is that we need more than “Nextbus,” we need a paradigm shift in the importance of customer service. That includes “Nextbus,” sure, but in Paris the newest buses also tell you arrival times while on the bus, which suggests, somehow, that our time is valuable.
In the end, though, if we’re treated like cattle on our transit systems, it doesn’t matter how much information we get if we still can’t get a seat. I think it is so bizarre that we insist on “buckle up…it’s the law” unless you’re a child on a school bus, or a harried commuter standing in a cattle car.
It seems to me the goal in Portland ought to be universal transit service. That is to say you can get within walking distance of any location from any location. Then apply frequency and speed standards until you can get anywhere from anywhere almost as fast by transit as you can by automobile.
I would estimate that at least 20% of my bus rides out of downtown include a “wait” stop, where the bus driver allows the bus to stand idling, while catching up with the schedule.
What is your suggestion as an alternative? You certainly don’t want buses running ahead of schedule and have passengers miss their bus.
On Monday I took a trip to Seattle and returned into Portland at 9:20 PM. I walked the two blocks to a waiting 9-Powell bus…and sat for 10-15 minutes.
I got downtown to 3rd and Yamhill and waited for my “frequent service” bus, 12-Barbur – for 15 more minutes. At that time of the night TriMet’s definition of “frequent service” is 30 minute intervals, not 15 (as confirmed by using Transit Tracker on my cell phone.)
Once the 12-B showed up I made it one stop, before another wait of seven minutes waiting for connections. (At least the driver announced this twice.)
Got to King City, and my wait was 30 minutes for a Sherwood bus (I opted to walk the distance; it took me about 25 minutes walk to my home.)
The good news is that Transit Tracker, when it works and is available, is helpful, particularly for late busses. The bad news is that few people use cell phone internet access (and TriMet doesn’t even advertise the WAP page anymore); and it’s a hassle using the IVR system (238-RIDE).
What would work better and make transit more friendly in Portland is, as Ross stated, universal service. We can’t wait for MAX extensions everywhere; TriMet would do well to shut down the capital planning department, and beef up bus service. It’s working well in Seattle – most of their busses are new and pleasant to ride; and ridership is increasing. Here in poor Portland, transit ridership is declining, average fleet age of busses is increasing, actual bus service is decreasing, fares are high ($1.70 for an short distance trip in Portland, compared to $1.25 in Seattle), and morale is down. Fred Hansen is on his high-horse proclaiming MAX to be the end-all solution to everyone’s transportation problems; whereas busses can serve more (both people and geographical) for less.
Yes – in high usage corridors, MAX is cheaper; but how many of those are in Portland, which is not a linear metropolitan area but a large splotch on the map? We have already lined up Gresham-Portland, Hillsboro-Beaverton-Portland. We could use a Portland-Tualatin MAX line but TriMet’s idea of doing so is riddled with fatal flaws (my suggestion for the route serves more people and has less adverse impacts to virtually every group; but it would conflict with Commuter Rail.) Other than that, the only logical way to expand is with busses.
I agree with the idea that customer service should be emphasized more by Tri-Met. I have heard bus drivers say that, for example, they are not allowed to stop for a passenger after they have left the curb at the transit center, even if that means driving away from someone right in front of their faces.
Another time, I made a comment to the effect that for everyone with a job in the United States, customer service comes first, and the driver said, “You don’t know how Tri-Met works.”
That having been said, Tri-Met serves me very well almost all the time.
No question customer service is very important, but I say “I would rather a grumpy operator who is on time than a friendly one who runs late!”
A frequency of at least 10 minutes on key lines makes the NextBus stuff redundant, if headways are maintained.
Having a dedicated transit lane makes that task that much easier. Why not push for such lanes out Barbur, Powell-Foster, Mclaughlin for a kind of poor man’s BRT.
What is your suggestion as an alternative? You certainly don’t want buses running ahead of schedule and have passengers miss their bus.
When we’ve buses coming every 7 or so minutes on the #14 during rush hour…I don’t see the point in wasting the time of passengers who got on the bus, only to stop and wait somewhere.
I think the point, though, is that nobody asks us, the ridership. We just get jerked here and there. Part and parcel of how we got shuffled over the Morrison Bridge…and only one of our three stops downtown has a shelter. Our buses are packed…who needs to provide good service? What are we gonna do…take another bus line?
I don’t see the point in wasting the time of passengers who got on the bus, only to stop and wait somewhere.
Frank –
The problem is that if you are ahead of schedule the people you are supposed to pick up will be standing there when the next bus comes. As the bus you are on gets further ahead of schedule, even more people will be standing there for the second bus. Now the second bus is getting way behind schedule as it picks up more and more passengers. And the bus behind it is getting ahead of schedule – just like yours. Pretty soon those headways disappear.
The bunching of buses is a well-known problem. The only solution to keeping buses on schedule is to keep them on schedule, even if that means sitting at a time stop occasionally. Or regularly.
On King County Metro’s timetables, there are various symbols marking delays, usually up to 5 minutes. Plus there is the 20 minute end of run break. Now I have seen some stay on schedule even if they are early. Now that inconveniences riders too. Now most of the North-South routes in the city are constricted by decisions made a 100 years ago, with the Montlake and Fremont Cuts. THe routes are bundled onto the 6 major canal crossings, Ballard Bridge, Fremont Bridge, George Washington Bridge(ake Aurora), Interstate 5, University, and Montlake. This morning a water main next to the 1919 vintage University Bridge burst, shutting down the bridge, which is used by Trolleybus Routes 49, 70, as well as Diesel Routes 71, 72, and 73, all heavily used, all very frequent. Not sure how old the water main was, but I guess it could be as old as the bridge. The pipe was made out of cast-iron, 1 step ahead of the hollowed out logs the SPU’s predecessor(the Water Department, put under municipal control in the wake of June 6, 1889) replaced. The Montlake runs Trolleybus Route 43, plus Diesel Routes 25, and 48, the latter a long route, very frequent, with several short-turns).
With $4 per gallon gas (or higher) coming soon, Trimet needs to get on the ball with improved, expanded, and more frequent bus service… they are going to get overwhelmed, and at the same time they may have an opportunity for synergy and sustainability if they can provide affordable/efficient/reliable service. Buses need to be emphasized, even if that ends up delaying one of their precious rail projects by a few years (and this is coming from a rail fan who lives a few blocks from the Orenco Station stop).
Well, here’s a thought:
What if all Frequent Service routes were to receive the Next Bus displays at all major stops?
Then, for those routes only, scheduled would be eliminated in favor of minimum headways.
Finally, buses would just attempt to drive the routes as fast as possible, and would receive light-jumping abilities at major, congested intersections.
That is, all Frequent Service bus lines would become Rapid Bus lines.
Tri-Met would then just need to commit to always running the buses at 15-minute-or-better headways.
And ultimately, *every* stop would need to get a reader board to display the time until next bus arrival (because even in this day and age, not everybody owns a cell phone).
If there were times, like say after midnight or before 6am, when Tri-Met chose to not run buses at a minimum 15-minute headway, then they would need to publish a schedule for those runs and stick to it.
In the schedule for the route, headways would be listed, rather than strict arrival times, for all runs running as rapid buses — as well as predicted (or average) travel times between stops.
Thoughts? Could this fly?
For true relable service you need dedicated ROW. MAX gives you that, plus more capacity and frequency. Giving Frequent Service bus lines dedicated ROW in key corridors would be a start, but cost per ride is so much better with MAX, you will want to do the capital investment asap on those corridors.
Lenny, were you responding to my post? If so, do you see all ~15 Frequent Service routes going to LRT?
I don’t. Not the 15, the 14, the 75 or the 72… but Rapid Bus could work for them, and could be implemented comparatively… rapidly.
You can’t put MAX everywhere.
Do we want to sit on our asses and wait for MAX in 20 years, or do we want to make cheap, incremental improvements that we can put into place NOW to improve transit reliability?
In 20 years, if TriMet continues on the way it’s going, we won’t have bus service, because TriMet won’t have any functional busses.
Traffic is not a sole problem with TriMet’s bus reliability (it is a contributing factor, but not the sole issue). As mentioned by another poster – I once had a “friendly” driver who managed to consistently be on time at my stop (Hazelbrook and 99W) and ten minutes late at PSU. I had another “friendly” driver that was consistently 10-15 minutes late going home (although that worked to my advantage, it probably didn’t to other riders).
Bus drivers can be firm but still deviate from rules as long as it doesn’t present a safety or timekeeping issue; my biggest gripe (it doesn’t personally affect me, but I watch others impacted by it) is operators failing to abide by their paddle instruction to wait at transit centers for connecting busses. Far too often, I see a bus pull out just as another bus is pulling in, where at least a half dozen passengers want to make the connection but can’t. Typically I see this in Tigard between the 12 and the 76/78 – if you’re heading south/eastbound on the 76 or 78 that means a 40 minute wait for the next bus; and if you’re headed to Sherwood a 30 minute wait for the next bus (and the 94 isn’t an option during rush hour, it bypasses Tigard TC).
Transfer points exist for a reason and need to be upheld; I once had an experience where a bus driver made a route deviation (not published in the timetable) and I saw my connecting bus (the 76 to Meridian Park Hospital) (at Mohawk P&R) disappear as my bus (the 96) pull in. Needless to say I had to walk the mile to my doctor’s office (where I was going for a post-surgical appointment) because the next bus was 40 minutes, and my doctor’s appointment was in 20.
All because a bus driver deviated from his route. Good thing I wasn’t in that bad of shape (other than having a one and a half inch diameter surgical opening in my abdomen).
The funny thing about all of these comments so far is that the demands for “service” and “functional results” are all on the complete other end of the spectrum of how a politically liable corporation (Tri-met) works.
There priority for customers is ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be second to the primary order of existence which is to assure political funding to assure ongoing existence.
Thus if transit where independent of its political lifeline its priority would be to provide customer service above and beyond. Tri-met can never do that because if they bounce up or down of 5% of their current ridership, nothing less of a 20% increase in ridership matters little to the bottom line and thus the existence of the Tri-met Corporate Government entity.
If one wants real service; competition, independence, business, and integrity need restored and brought to the forefront of the industry.
Until that’s done, all we’re getting out of all these comments is merely comments.
On the topic though, is Tri-met ever gonna get us commuters some comfortable seats like on the Sound Transit & Pierce Country busses? Sure would be nice.
Not all Frequent Service lines can be upgraded to LRT or even BRT. TriMet and the City of Portland have done some things to improve bus travel on “transit streets,” such as stops at curb extensions, signal preemption, bus only lanes at busy intersections, but these only get you part way there.
Clearly Barbur, McLaughlin, Powell/Foster could be outfitted with transit only ROW for BRT today, with LRT as the money becomes available. Without the ROW, you can’t really use the work “rapid.”
What I proposed above is a hybrid service, called Rapid Bus, which is a bit different from true Bus Rapid Transit. Basically, it’s just a really fast bus route that can jump the queue at certain traffic signals, or at least hold them green longer (or turn them green earlier) through traffic signal control. Tri-Met has already instituted these physical changes on many routes. The other part — elminating the schedule in favor of just running the route as fast as possible — could be dropped in favor of fine-tuning the schedule even more, such that buses that tend to run early get adjusted tighter so they don’t need to stop to allow the schedule to catch up to them.
Also, the mid-route driver changes do seem like they are begging for a better solution, though my only proposal is to finish the route and perform them at end-of-line, and I realize there are other issues that might prevent this.
Adron said: “Thus if transit where independent of its political lifeline its priority would be to provide customer service above and beyond.”
No, if it were independent of its political lifeline, its priority would be to be profitable, regardless of customer service. Routes would be reduced only to those carrying enough paying cutomers to justify operations on that line, and then only during specific hours. Drivers would be payed less, and possibly become less skilled (if there were no regulatory agency to maintain minimum standards, then they certainly would be less skilled).
Customer service works only when multiple providers serve the same market segment. With taxis, you get competition because taxis require no facilities on the road. With transit, you need facilities. You need transit hubs, covered stops, etc. Providing them for multiple services would be difficult at best.
The main reason why transit failed in the 1950s is because transit is a money loser. It needs public subsidy to survive.
The main reason why we need public transit is to keep the load of the system below road capacity. The lead time and expense involved in public road projects, and the “central city” effect which concentrates trips, both requires and justifies the public expense.
Adron & Matt Picio (“Thus if transit where independent of its political lifeline its priority would be to provide customer service above and beyond.”/”No, if it were independent of its political lifeline, its priority would be to be profitable, regardless of customer service.”):
If anybody really wants to see transit independent of a political lifeline, you only need to go down to Mexico. Drivers making what probably amounts to less than the U.S. minimum wage will gladly charge you 5 pesos to take you anywhere in most Mexican cities in converted school buses, with little or no pollution controls, very little scheduling, and very little in the way of bus-stop improvements.
I, for one, think we should be happy to follow the Western European/Japanese model of public transportation, rather than the Latin American/Mexican.
Not to diss on Latin America, of course. Mexico City, Bogota, Colombia, Curitiba, Brazil and many other cities south of the border have transit systems that befit a large city. But I digress.
I have no doubt that TriMet, like most organizations, could do better. However some readers here seem to have faith that the market is somehow the solution. Have you tried customer service at a bank or a cellular carrier lately? How is cab service in LA, where there is lots of competition? Terrible in my experience.
To be honest, while far from perfect, I find that TriMet beats lots of “free market” orgs hands down.
and possibly become less skilled (if there were no regulatory agency to maintain minimum standards, then they certainly would be less skilled).
The ONLY regulatory oversight over TriMet’s “standards” is that TriMet drivers must possess a CDL Class B license, which is issued by the Oregon Department of Transportation/Driver & Motor Vehicle Services. The qualifications for a CDL is determined by the U.S. Department of Transportation in collaboration with the various state DOTs.
TriMet itself has ZERO oversight; it doesn’t even have citizen participation in its governance (only one of two governmental bodies in Oregon to employ such Communist-like powers). The Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor; certainly Governor Kulongowski has better things to worry about than TriMet.
I don’t think opening Portland area transit to the private sector will fix anything, because as already noted – the private sector will operate the very few routes that can financially pencil out – and leave the rest of the area with no service. I would think that even the most adamant critics of “public welfare” would agree that some form of public transit is necessary, as there are many people who need to get around but can’t by private auto, and for congestion/ecological benefits. But we can introduce private sector contracting of the existing service (Seattle and Los Angeles employ this, and TriMet will with Commuter Rail).
What we need is a transit agency that puts the customer first, not to simply exist for its own self-fulfilling benefit. Combined with a regional planning agency that understands that highways are an essential part of the transportation network, and that people don’t want to be packed like sardines in a Communist-era Moscow high-rise apartment building, we can have everything we want, if people come first and not developers and complacent “public servants”.
…”Combined with a regional planning agency that understands that highways are an essential part of the transportation network”…
I’ve said this many, many times: Even in Metro’s wet dreams, they know that most people will still drive.
…”people don’t want to be packed like sardines in a Communist-era Moscow high-rise apartment building,”…
Moscow was actually quite good at getting “affordable” housing into it’s core for the “lower wage earners” in it’s society. It is too bad you aren’t a fan, Communism is the only system that actually worked fairly well for that.
Communism is the only system that actually worked fairly well for that.
Yes, it’s working quite well in North Korea.
Erik Halstead Yes – in high usage corridors, MAX is cheaper;
JK: Do you have a source for that? I ask because the best bus lines are cheaper than MAX’s system wide average. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
Thanks
JK
Matthew Moscow was actually quite good at getting “affordable” housing into it’s core for the “lower wage earners” in it’s society. It is too bad you aren’t a fan, Communism is the only system that actually worked fairly well for that.
JK: Of course, the system made everybody low income, except the politically connected. Just look at the current worker’s paradises of N. Korea, Cuba and coming soon: Venezuela.
Its too bad, that, after 100 years of destroying people’s lives, some people stall fall for that crap.
Thanks
JK
Did I read somewhere in the news lately that Oregon has the highest number of minimum wage workers per capita? Correct me if I’m wrong, PLEASE! If it really is true, then I don’t think our experiment in “livability” is working very good, is it?
Greg I hope you are wrong. With the price of housing, in how it has gone up this would put a real strain on anyone in the lower income brackets.
The Pearl and South Waterfront are not for the low income, or people with school age kids.
The Portland area has turned its head on most Blue collar jobs and if you are not professional and/or white collar you just about have to move out of town to where you can afford to find housing.
Of course we have some few low income areas and those areas are being bought up by higher income young families displacing what few options many have. Even the seniors are being displaced.
….. or extremely destitute. Just look how many homeless shelters they have in the Pearl.
Jim,
I think you and I agree that there’s some debate over how much MAX costs to operate.
However I would tend to think that in a corridor in which rail transport is heavily used and frequently used, that it is cheaper than the bus alternative.
Whether MAX meets that criteria is questionable; given that MAX often is heavily used in one direction but not in the other (thus diluting potential revenue but not operating costs), and both the service frequency and the inability to create longer than two-car trains (subway trains in many cities are often much, much longer – all with the same labor and maintenance costs as TriMet’s one and two car trains.)
Jim and Erik: Nigeria is a capitalist country, and they are the most corrupt nation on the planet. Sure, North Korea is bad, but there are worse countries in the world, and they are capitalist.
“the system made everybody low income, except the politically connected” is actually a very good way to describe capitalism… Ted Wheeler is worth, what, $100M?
Let’s stop giving high priced developers easy access to Metro/TriMet, and let those forms of government actually be democratic (particularly TriMet, with its unelected Board of Directors and its ability to establish operations and rules with absolutely ZERO public involvement), and force major decisions to be voted upon.
Then I’ll reconsider my views of corruption right here in the Portland metropolitan area. Never mind Portland’s own history of corruption… It’s a sad day when a “democractically” elected government actually picks and chooses which citizens to help and which citizens to not help; it’s no wonder there is such a backlash against immigration right now when government chooses not to help those who can’t afford $300K+ homes; and nobody wants to build homes less expensive even though there is a market for it (due to government interference in that market).
I’d say a good start would be to get rid of Metro and Tri-Met altogether and let some private corporation run the system. Give people choices, not mandates.
Matthew Says: Jim and Erik: Nigeria is a capitalist country, and they are the most corrupt nation on the planet.
JK: Forgive me, I assumed some level of effective legal system.
Matthew Says: Sure, North Korea is bad, but there are worse countries in the world, and they are capitalist.
JK: Care to name one? Be sure to pick one where people are literally starving and are truly capitalist, not dictatorships pretending to be capitalist.
Matthew Says: “the system made everybody low income, except the politically connected” is actually a very good way to describe capitalism…
JK: You have to be joking, or are you playing stupid?
Thanks
JK
Jim, you don’t seem to understand capitalism. It is a market system. It has nothing to do with the form of government. A county can be capitalist and be a dictatorship, (like Kuwait, (technically it is a monarchy, but it is basically the same,)) or it can be socialist and be a democracy, (like Sweden.)
People are literally starving in this country. You can find them downtown sitting on the sidewalks asking for change. The city is trying to arrest them for that, cause apparently we feed our prisoners better than our poor or something, (I’m not exactly sure what the logic is behind the rule, but we have more of our population (as percentage) in jail today than any other country since Germany in WWII.) The only real question: do you consider our president to be legit, or are we just a “dictatorship pretending to be capitalist”?
(And I could make the same complaints about North Korea that you make about Nigeria… “Playing stupid” sounds like how the whole subject of North Korea came up. Just because some country is screwed up, you seem to assume that all countries that use that economic form are messed up.)