CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . Metro Transit I. I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I -- I I Sectors 1 and 2 Restructuring Study Volume II: Service Plan Maximum stop spacing encourages passengers to gather in larger numbers at fewer stops. A bus stopping for two able-bodied passengers takes very little longer than stopping for one, so stops with more passengers mean a faster operation for everyone. While few agencies follow Metro Transit in putting stops every block, there is some debate in the industry about two-block vs. three-block spacing. Where the surrounding street pattern is a grid, the case for three-block spacing goes like this: Most passengers using the service arrive on the bus line on one of the intersecting streets. With two-block stop spacing, they are then at most one block from the stop - in fact, they are one block from two stops, one in each direction. But of course, a passenger doesn't need two stops. With three block spacing, everyone arriving on an intersecting street is still at most one block from one bus stop. Since three-block spacing requires 1/3 fewer stops per mile than two-block spacing, the resuiting time savings can be substantial. Exceptions may need to be made in dense business districts where many trips are originating along the arterial itse~, but even there, stops should never be less than 600 feet apart Finally, stop spacing strikes many people as so mundane that it is often treated as a detail to be left to the operational department that installs bus stops. In fact, though, stop spacing requires a carefully thought-out policy that is then implemented consistently throughout the system. While this plan has not assumed running time savings due to respacing of stops, those savings could be substantial, exceeding 10% on the busiest local corridors at the busiest times of day. Like most of the other strategies discussed here, the greatest bEmefit will be achieved in the busiest areas, and for this reason, the downtowns and the Primary lines should be the first priority in any stop- respacing program. Rear Door Alighting Many transit agencies include in their rider education materials and onboard signs the simple message: "Please exit out the rear door, so people can board through the front." Seniors and disabled persons are often unwilling or unable to use the rear door, but many able bodied people exit out the front without thinking. The typical resuit is that the rear door, which can be used only for alighting, is idle even as passengers are still boarding at the front. This lengthens the dwell time at the stop unnecessarily. Of course, rear-door alighting is only relevant on busy lines and at busy stops. It would be absurd to prohibit front-door alighting systemwide, because if nobody is boarding at the stop then rear- door alighting saves no time. However, a more aggressive campaign encouraging rear-door alighting, including an announcement from the driver when approaching a stop where people are waiting to board, can make a difference in the dwell time of busy lines. As with any other attempt to affect passenger behavior, the messages about rear-door alighting should clearly explain why Metro Transit asks its passengers to exit out the rear, rather than simply stating it as a rule. Protections from Traffic Delay A wide variety of tools are available to protect transit from traffic delay. The following tools are the most common, listed in order from lowest cost and benefit to highest cost and benefit Cost in this' case is not necessarily money; oiten, the cost takes the form of a negative impact on single- occupant traffic that must be tolerated to optimize transit speed. Nelson Wygaard Consulting 7-3 November 2, 1999