A Wave of Innovation from the Bus Industry

It’s a bus. No, it’s a train. No, it’s an articulated vehicle. Photo credit: WSJ

Municipal bus operators across the country are introducing a wide variety of innovations to a long-stagnant transportation mode. They’re replacing the old bread-loaf vehicles with sleeker, more train-like designs. They’re outfitting buses with Wi-Fi and and they’re adding racks where cyclists can load their bikes. They’re creating apps so passengers can time a bus’ arrival at the bus stop, and they’re introducing off-bus ticketing to speed boarding. They’re even synchronizing traffic lights so buses can avoid red lights.

The innovations seem to be having an effect where they’re implemented, as the Wall Street Journal describes in “The Commute of the Future” today. However, two key points go unaddressed in the Journal article:

First, while it’s encouraging to see these new technologies and strategies being adopted, we should be asking, can we move faster? Is the organizational culture of municipally owned transit monopolies conducive to the implementation of change? Would successful innovations spread more rapidly if we opened up the industry to more competition? Here in Virginia, is anyone even asking these questions?

Second, there’s a geographic limit to where buses can operate profitably, and that limit is defined by the density and walkability of development along the bus routes. As a broad rule, people are unwilling to walk more than a quarter mile to a bus stop. The more densely populated the neighborhoods along the bus routes, the larger the potential market. Local governments can improve the economics of bus lines by permitting more density in transportation corridors and encouraging more pedestrian-friendly design. Outside of Arlington County, which local governments in Virginia are coordinating zoning and mass transit policy? Not many, I would wage.

— JAB


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. municipal transit is different from commuter transit – in many ways.

    Commuter Transit is what you’d see in the VDOT commuter lots in the Fredericksburg Area. They do one thing and thats take commuters up I-95 to their jobs and back to the commuter lot at the end of the day.

    Municipal transit – to be cost effective …to be able to operate primarily off of fare-box needs a density of at least 8du from what I’ve learned in my activities at our local MPO.

    Commuter buses are generally faster than the mainline traffic; from what I understand – can be as much as an hour faster on the Fburg to NoVa run since they use the HOV lanes.

    Municipal transit can be faster if there are more buses, more drivers that in essence “leap frog” the stops – i.e. bus 1 skips some stops, bus 2 right behind it picks up the skipped stops, etc..

    but then you’re doubling your operational and capital costs….unless ways are found to cut costs.

    You said the distance threshold for walking to transit was 1/4 mile. What about the length of time to wait between buses?

    the second number if awful for some parts of the Fredericksburg system – like one to two hours for the ends of the lines. It’s essentially untenable.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I saw the WSJ article too and was intrigued. Just took a business trip from DC to NYC on Amtrak and was able to get a lot done with Wifi. Can’t do it on a plane.
    The issue as LarryG notes is municipal or intercity. Also, I wonder how city bus firms could afford higher grade buses.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Peter:

      You must fly United. Lots of airlines have WiFi on planes these days. Jet Blue for example. United seems to be the only mega-carrier that hasn’t figured this out. However, even United is now playing in-plane advertisements that describe a $500M (I believe that was the number) in-plane renovation effort for the existing fleet that will include WiFi.

      I like Amtrak too. Getting into downtown Manhattan is a big advantage. However, the ability to use WiFi may not be the deciding factor in train vs plane much longer.

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    Jim’s point about competition is tricky. I assume that the goal for the buses is to operate in special bus lanes rather than to sit in traffic with everyone else. If so, the government is practicing a rough kind of eminent domain whereby it can sieze general purpose lanes and dedicate them to special vehicles. No problem with that. However, once it becomes a tool for enhancing the value of private enterprise problems emerge. Are the private bus company executies pouring money into the pockets of state and local politicians? Sounds like crony capitalism to me. What constitutes a “bus”? A mini van with “bus markings”. We’re going to need a lot of government regulation here.

  4. in terms of HOT, any vehicle with 3 or more is all it takes and I’m of the view that the smartphone is going to revolutionize transit as we know it.

    The smartphone may well be able to allow people to pick their own bus stop and have the “bus” come to them and it may well be a smaller vehicle that will transport folks to transfer stations. the smaller vehicles may be “jitneys” or multi-door limo-type vehicles.

    Transit, as we know it and as current designed and operated is an anachronism with modern life.

    What’s holding things back is government that is being influenced by transit and cab status-quo seekers who do not want competition from an ad hoc fleet of smartphone-dispatchable vehicles.

Leave a Reply