Categories
Improving Bus Service

Metro Should Expand All-Door Boarding on Buses

It’s not your imagination: your bus trip is taking longer than it used to. Since 2013, local bus speeds have fallen about 5%, and rapid bus speeds are down more than 10%. Despite the branded limited-stop service, rapids now average about the same speed as locals. Buses are also running late more frequently these days. One in three rapid buses are late in 2017, an increase of over 30% from 2013.

Rapid Bus Speeds and On-Time Performance Are Down Since 2013
Rapid Bus Speeds and On-Time Performance Are Down Since 2013. Source: Metro Staff Report

Speed and reliability are major factors in deciding whether or not to take transit. After all, time spent on the bus is time not spent at work or at home. Even for drivers, the perception that buses are slow and not likely to show up when you need them forms a barrier to trying transit. These should be key focus areas for Metro as the transit agency endeavors to reinvigorate its bus network. Metro is already preparing to conduct a multiyear analysis of the network that will inform a potential systemwide “reimagining and restructuring,” but do we really have to wait years before we begin to address bus speeds?

 

Reversing the bus slowdown will likely require a toolbox approach, implementing separate fixes for the individual causes of delay. One tool that Metro has already tested is what’s known as all-door boarding. All-door boarding, or ADB, is simply the practice of allowing passengers to enter transit from either the front or rear doors. ADB is already in effect on Metro’s rail lines, but has been tried out only on a limited basis for buses.

 

Throughout the bus network, passengers are generally required to enter through the front doors, tapping their TAP card or paying as they board. This single entry point can significantly increase the amount of time a bus has to wait at a given stop, slowing down service and potentially leading to delays. Generally speaking, the primary justification of front-door boarding is that it ensures a high rate of fare compliance. The experience of other cities, though, should give us reason to doubt that this perceived benefit really exists.

 

In February this year, the National Association of City Transportation Officials and TransitCenter released a whitepaper called “Better Boarding, Better Buses: Streamlining Boarding & Fares” that analyzed the impact of all-door boarding in North American transit systems. In San Francisco and New York, two of the study cities that opted for a wider implementation of ADB, fare evasion not only did not increase, but it actually declined.

 

San Francisco implemented all-door boarding across its bus network in 2012, and, according to NACTO and TransitCenter, it remains the only U.S. transit agency to institute systemwide all-door boarding. Since ADB was instituted, the program has proven to be a major success, speeding up buses throughout the city and standardizing the time it takes to board passengers. In SFMTA’s final report evaluating the program, the transit operator found that ADB reduced passenger boarding time by 38% at the busiest stops and helped improve reliability. Bus speeds were up 2% across the network.

 

In New York City, the municipal rapid network, called the Select Bus Service, experienced even more pronounced changes in passenger boarding time after the implementation of all-door boarding. On some lines, boarding now takes half as long as it used to.

 

These cities are examples that show ADB can be scaled to include all rapid buses or even the entire network. But Metro can also look to its own pilot programs to see the potential of ADB. In 2015, Metro studied the impact of all-door boarding on the Wilshire rapid route, the busiest bus line in the county. During the pilot period, Metro’s data found that dwell time per passenger fell 32%, and staff estimated that additional time savings would be possible by requiring customers to have a loaded TAP card when they boarded. In its final evaluation, Metro’s report listed a number of additional benefits, including less crowding for passengers and reduced risk of injury as the bus began moving.

 

At the moment, all-door boarding is allowed only on the Orange and Silver Lines, the system’s Bus Rapid Transit routes. ADB was approved to continue indefinitely on the Silver Line in February after a pilot program found it to be extremely successful at improving on-time performance. Building off the experience of the Wilshire pilot, Metro required patrons to buy their fare before boarding, and now only TAP cards can be used on board the Silver Line.

 

Silver Line On-Time Performance Dramatically Increased With ADB
Silver Line On-Time Performance Dramatically Increased With ADB. Source: Metro Staff Report

 

Not only have Metro’s pilots proven that ADB works, they have also shown that it is extremely popular with riders. In evaluating the Wilshire pilot program, staff noted that ADB creates, “the perception of better service, which heavily influences a passenger’s decision to use transit.” Two-thirds of survey respondents found that boarding was “much faster” and nearly 90% of respondents said it was faster overall. A remarkable 82% of riders said they wanted to see ADB implemented.

 

In describing the lessons from case study cities, NACTO and TransitCenter emphasize that ADB should be implemented across bus networks to provide customers with a convenient and simple riding experience. If Metro has concerns about the logistics of a full-scale implementation, the rapid network, which has been hit harder by slowdowns and delays, would make an ideal next step in expanding ADB. It would also help provide the perception of BRT quality service on the rapid bus routes. ADB can be quickly instituted and would immediately begin to show results for Metro’s customers. At a time when every tool is needed, we shouldn’t hesitate to provide popular and effective solutions to help resuscitate our ailing bus service. For riders, every minute counts.

Categories
Uncategorized

Bus Rapid Transit: What’s Holding Los Angeles County Back?

Note: This blog was guest written by Jordan Fraade, a second-year master’s student in UCLA’s Urban Planning program. Jordan is completing his Applied Planning Research Project in coordination with Investing in Place.

Since September, I’ve been collaborating with Investing in Place on a study of dedicated bus infrastructure in LA, in particular “how we can work together to push Los Angeles into a future when bus riders can count on the same high-quality, frequent service that rail riders receive on a regular basis.” The school year is almost over, and I’m looking forward to sharing the final product with IiP’s collaborators and partners in a few weeks — including some concrete recommendations based on feedback I’ve gotten from everyday riders. But in the meantime, I’ve spent the last few months traveling all around Los Angeles County, talking to transportation experts from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. My task in all of these interviews was to find out what they think has been holding back the region’s bus service, and how they think we can fix it.

So, what needs to be done? A full analysis of what my interviewees told me will be included in the final report, but in the meantime, here are some major themes that kept coming up:

  • Many people feel geographic equity is key to getting things done in LA. Los Angeles County is huge and diverse, and any measure to raise tax revenue (like Measure M) needs a two-thirds majority to pass. This means a very high level of buy-in is needed across a huge region, and if every part of the county wants to feel like it’s getting its money’s worth, that might mean investing in more expensive, big-ticket projects for those regions, at the expense of upgrades to existing service in the urban core, where most riders live.
  • Taking lanes away from drivers is really, really hard. The Orange Line is the city’s only true BRT line, and it was built on a strip of land that used to belong to the Southern Pacific Railroad. In contrast, the success of future BRT projects in LA will depend on our ability to take existing mixed-traffic lanes, and turn them into bus-only lanes.   Planners call this the “concentrated costs and diffuse benefits”  problem: Thousands of bus riders from across the city will benefit from faster and more reliable travel, but they won’t be as organized or vocal as the handful of neighborhood residents who are furious that the lane in front of their house is being taken away — and want to make sure everybody knows it.
  • Bus riders are frequently “othered,” and have few champions in places of power. One of my interviewees said that even well-meaning transit planners and elected officials sometimes think of bus riders as “those people.” This could reflect unconscious racial and class prejudices. It could be because few Angelenos take transit, and therefore don’t know what it’s like to be a rider on a daily basis. Either way, it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that bus riders are “captive,” and will accept whatever quality of service they’re given. They vote with their feet, just like anybody else.
  • LA’s political structure is decentralized, which makes it difficult to cooperate on big projects. For example, transit projects are built and operated by Metro, but the city Department of Transportation controls street design and engineering. In order to build and maintain dedicated bus lanes, two agencies with very different institutional cultures have to work together and coordinate their efforts. Individual cities and neighborhoods can “opt out” of projects they don’t like, as Beverly Hills and part of Westwood did with the Wilshire Blvd. bus lanes. And LA’s city government is set up to have a small, powerful City Council, giving each Council member effective veto power over what happens in their district. Having a sympathetic ear in City Hall is crucial to success.

I included these findings in a poster I presented on April 3 at UCLA, joined by many of my urban-planning classmates who shared their own research projects. Take a look below:

 

For the last stage of the project, I have been convening focus groups to find out the community perspective — what do riders want and need for their communities, and how can they organize and work strategically to make it happen? I’m holding my final focus group on Wednesday May 24 at 6 p.m. in Downtown LA, and all are welcome! All participants will receive a gift card to La Monarca Cafe. If you’d like to participate, email jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu or call 203.246.8342.

Además, queremos hacer un grupo de discusión para los pasajeros y miembros de la comunidad que hablan español. Vamos a reunirnos dentro de 10 días, y todos los participantes recibirán una tarjeta de regalo a Cafe La Monarca. Si quiere participar, escriba a jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu o llame a 203.246.8342. ¡Gracias!

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

Richard France assists clients with strategic planning, visioning, and community and economic development. He is a strategic planner at Estolano Advisors, where he has been involved in a variety of active transportation, transit-oriented development, climate change resiliency, and equitable economic development projects. His work in active transportation includes coordinating a study to improve bike and pedestrian access to transit oriented districts for the County of Los Angeles, and working with the Southern California Association of Governments to host tactical urbanism events throughout the region. Richard also serves as a technical assistance provider for a number of California Climate Investment programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities, Transformative Climate Communities, and Low Carbon Transit Operations programs. He has also taught at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Richard received a Bachelor of Environmental Design from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. in Urban Planning from UCLA.

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

Matt Horton is the director of state policy and initiatives for Accelerator for America. He collaborates with government officials, impact investors, and community leaders to shape infrastructure, job creation, and equitable community development efforts. With over fifteen years of experience, Matt has directed research-driven programs and initiatives focusing on housing production, infrastructure finance, access to capital, job creation, and economic development strategies. Previously, he served as the director of the California Center at the Milken Institute, where he produced research and events to support innovative economic policy solutions. Matt also has experience at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), where he coordinated regional policy development and planning efforts. He holds an MA in political science from California State University, Fullerton, and a BA in history from Azusa Pacific University. Additionally, Matt serves as a Senior Advisor for the Milken Institute and is involved in various advisory boards, including Lift to Rise and WorkingNation.

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

Madeline is the Deputy Director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the Luskin School of Public Affairs. She oversees and supports students, staff, and faculty who work on planning and policy issues about how people live, move, and work in the Southern California region. When not supporting the work of the Lewis Center community, Madeline is doing research on the transportation patterns and travel needs of vulnerable populations in LA. Her recent work includes studies of low-income older adults in Westlake, public transit safety among university students, and uncovering the transportation needs of women, and girls in partnership with Los Angeles public agencies. Outside of UCLA, Madeline serves as the vice-chair of the Metro Westside Service Council and enjoys spending time seeing Los Angeles on the bus, on foot, and by bike.

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

Luis Gutierrez, works in the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as the Director of Energy & Water in the Office of Energy and Sustainability (MOES), Luis oversees issues related to LA’s transition to clean energy, water infrastructure, and serves as the primary liaison between the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Water and Power. Prior to joining MOES, Luis managed regulatory policy proceedings for Southern California Edison (SCE), focusing on issues related to equity and justice. Before joining SCE, Luis served as the Director of Policy and Research for Inclusive Action for the City, a community development organization dedicated to economic justice in Los Angeles. Luis holds a BA in Sociology and Spanish Literature from Wesleyan University, and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Cal State LA.

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

Kim is a writer, researcher and communications strategist, focused on sustainability, urban resilience and safe streets. Her specialty is taking something complex and making it clear and compelling. Harvard-trained in sustainability, she won a prize for her original research related to urban resilience in heat waves—in which she proposed a method to help cities identify where pedestrians spend a dangerous amount of time in direct sun, so they can plan for more equitable access to shade across a city.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

For over almost two decades, Jessica has led efforts in Los Angeles to promote inclusive decision-making and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation funding. Jessica’s current work at Investing in Place is grounded in the belief that transparent and strategic prioritization of public funds can transform Los Angeles into a city where inclusive, accessible public spaces enrich both livability and well-being. As a collaborator and convener, Jessica plays a role in facilitating public policy conversations and providing nuanced insights into the interplay of politics, power, and process on decision-making and fiscal allocations.