Embark (OKC Metro Bus Service)

[Spartan]

Natural traffic flow to where?

You know what is kind of sad, is that you don't even understand that my local circulator concept is exactly like the downtown streetcar route,

But you don't even understand what we are doing with the streetcar system. We are talking about a vision that is reaching into north side neighborhoods, and restoring the streetcar network. The couplet is NOT a loop or a circulator. It is a Midtown-to-Bricktown spine, that is just split up to put track down more streets. That is a line extending to the north side, that is going to be heavily influenced by reinforcing existing patterns of circulation. For instance, the fact that Classen is a major thoroughfare is relevant to the route, as is the fact that 23rd is a major thoroughfare, and so on. These aren't random loops like what you keep creating.

[rcjunkie]

My system uses exactly 46 buses, which is 46% of the current fleet. With 46 buses I can get within 4 blocks of 99% of all house in the urban core. Not only that, but a majority of my buses cost half the price of a bus in the existing fleet.

Absolutely impossible, and I'll leave it at that.

[RadicalModerate]

Yes. A very pretty grid . . . But you are talking about Phoenix.
It's a "dry" grid.

(Just out of curiosity--and to clarify context--is that whole "streetcar deal" just an expensive frill?)

[shane453]

If you want to see a pretty grid Kerry, check out Phoenix's system map.

http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_...bus_rail_link/

Phoenix has about 55 million rides per year on its transit network. We have 3 million. A notoriously sprawly metro with 4x our population has a bus system based on their arterial grid and it results in almost 20x more bus rides per year!

[leprechaun]

What this city desperately needs is a bigger budget for the bus system. If this were to ever happen, I would like to see a grid system for the urbanized core with stops every fifteen minutes, and then something like what we currently have now for the suburbs. Of course the current system doesn't make any sense, but it wouldn't be fair for the people in which the bus is their only mode of transportation to simply drop the routes beyond the core.

[Just the facts]

If you want to see a pretty grid Kerry, check out Phoenix's system map.

http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_...bus_rail_link/

Thanks - that is a pretty good grid based system and at 55 million riders it seems to be working. Very interesting that they use transit hubs (15 of them across the valley). It seems their grid routes leave the grid to go to the nearest transit center for transfering pasengers and then return to the grid to continue their crosstown routes. A quick look at their system on Google Earth shows that the routes are only 1/2 mile apart which means everyone in the service area is within 1/4 miles of a NS and EW route. To do that in OKC we would need 4X as many buses as we have now.

http://www.valleymetro.org/getting_o...ansit_centers/

A transit center is a facility where transit vehicles converge, enabling passengers to transfer among routes and services. Transit centers are generally located off the street and provide passengers with a shaded or enclosed waiting area, seats, drinking fountains and transit information.

[Spartan]

Yes. A very pretty grid . . . But you are talking about Phoenix.
It's a "dry" grid.

(Just out of curiosity--and to clarify context--is that whole "streetcar deal" just an expensive frill?)

Well, it's not streetcar, in Phoenix it's actually full-blown LRT. But it was hugely fed-funded, which is nice for them I guess, and it actually does seem to be producing success in reforming their lackluster land use problems over there in the desert.

[Larry OKC]

If our extreme drought conditions prevail, maybe we can be just like Phoenix!

[Just the facts]

I tried to model the grid type system used in Phoenix (1/2 mile between routes) and it is darn hard to do in OKC. We don't have the grid system many people think we have. The Oklahoma River, interstate system, and lightning creek really makes it hard to keep the routes in the 1/2 mile range. Sticking to a one mile grid would be easier (and use half as many buses) but I think that spreads the service too thin. If people have to get intheir car to get to the nearest bus stop then they will mostly likely just drive to their destination. The challenge is to prevent from getting in the car at all.

[Larry OKC]

Isn't our grid essentially a 1-mile variety anyway? Seems the major intersections are spaced about that far apart. Seems logical to utilize the main thoroughfares anyway...doesn't it? But i understand your point about having to get in their car to get to the bus stop...LOL

[Just the facts]

Isn't our grid essentially a 1-mile variety anyway? Seems the major intersections are spaced about that far apart. Seems logical to utilize the main thoroughfares anyway...doesn't it? But i understand your point about having to get in their car to get to the bus stop...LOL

Even the 1 mile doesn't work as much as you might think, especially in the urban core. Phoenix seems to be the ideal grid model and they use 1/2 miles spacing; if you do something different then you aren't following the model and you can't expect the same results.

[rcjunkie]

How do you propose the upfront cost to purchase the smaller buses required to operate a smaller grid system ? (your talking millions of dollars)

[Just the facts]

How do you propose the upfront cost to purchase the smaller buses required to operate a smaller grid system ? (your talking millions of dollars)

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-lead...rticle/3575188

[Snowman]

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-lead...rticle/3575188

While that would help with purchase costs of buses, fuel and maybe even maintenance; personnel tends to be the largest cost in any operation anyway. I am guessing you are proposing a massive change in the routes since they can not cover the current the current routes with 99 with a low time between buses, they certainly will not be able to with half of that.

[Just the facts]

While that would help with purchase costs of buses, fuel and maybe even maintenance; personnel tends to be the largest cost in any operation anyway. I am guessing you are proposing a massive change in the routes since they can not cover the current the current routes with 99 with a low time between buses, they certainly will not be able to with half of that.

I don't know how many people Metro Transit employs now or how many employees a new system would need, but if I only have half as many buses then I probably only need half as many drivers and fewer mechanics since there is less to maintain. With the 7 additional transit centers there will be some new position created as well. But the bus system is not a 'job creation' operation for bus system employees. It is about moving people around OKC in an efficient and timely manner. One of the things that save money in my operation is the size of the service area being greatly reduced. I don't try to serve 400 sq. miles. I only serve the 50 sq. mile urban core.

I think it is better to serve a smaller area really well than to serve a large area poorly. The urban core would become a mass transit district where owning more than one car would become optional (thus freeing up $300 per month for other things). In fact, as the urban core fills in it would become totally possible to not even need a car.

An effective mass transit system would also allow the core to be developed much denser than would otherwise be possible and the increased density brings a lot of positives with it. It would encourage national retailers to locate near downtown, new technologies would come to OKC sooner (i.e. 4G), and it would reduce the tax burden of providing City services to an ever expanding geographic area. Of course, the increased density would also result in higher property values which would then better fund the school system.

[rcjunkie]

I don't know how many people Metro Transit employs now or how many employees a new system would need, but if I only have half as many buses then I probably only need half as many drivers and fewer mechanics since there is less to maintain. With the 7 additional transit centers there will be some new position created as well. But the bus system is not a 'job creation' operation for bus system employees. It is about moving people around OKC in an efficient and timely manner. One of the things that save money in my operation is the size of the service area being greatly reduced. I don't try to serve 400 sq. miles. I only serve the 50 sq. mile urban core.

I think it is better to serve a smaller area really well than to serve a large area poorly. The urban core would become a mass transit district where owning more than one car would become optional (thus freeing up $300 per month for other things). In fact, as the urban core fills in it would become totally possible to not even need a car.

An effective mass transit system would also allow the core to be developed much denser than would otherwise be possible and the increased density brings a lot of positives with it. It would encourage national retailers to locate near downtown, new technologies would come to OKC sooner (i.e. 4G), and it would reduce the tax burden of providing City services to an ever expanding geographic area. Of course, the increased density would also result in higher property values which would then better fund the school system.

But with the type of grid system you favor, you couldn't do it with half the number of buses/employees.

[Spartan]

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-lead...rticle/3575188

Facepalm.

[SkyWestOKC]

You still have the upfront cost of purchasing all that equipment.

[shane453]

The real catch on small buses is explained in this FAQ from Madison, Wi. There is a particular prerequisite to receiving federal funding (which we desperately need) plus apparently there really isn't a lot of difference in gas savings when you add in additional insurance, maintenance skills, etc that would be required for operating varying types of buses.

Why does Metro use 40 foot buses? Or run small buses on some routes?

This is a recurring question. Residents look out their window during midday, weekend or evening hours and see a small number of passengers scattered through a 40 ft. bus. The bus they see looks like a needlessly expensive way to provide transit service, and a ‘small bus’ feels like the right sized package.

The simple answer to the question is that our ridership is too high; ridership during the peak exceeds the capacity of small buses.

Transit systems in general, including Metro Transit, tailor their fleets to meet peak hour needs. The average ridership per hour in Madison is over 30 passengers per hour, making us the envy of our peers. During the AM and pm peak hours, we have standing loads on core routes and commuter routes.


Then why not run small buses during other times? Wouldn’t that save money?

No, not necessarily.

The main cost of putting a bus on the street is driver wages. The skills needed for driving a bus - safety, customer-orientation, judgment, reliability - are the same regardless of the size of vehicle. Wages would not be lower for small bus drivers. And swapping out the big bus for the little bus after the AM peak, and then back again in the afternoon will increase labor costs due to the put-of-service time spent driving buses to and from the garage.

There are other added costs to small buses; you not only have to purchase buses that are only used part of the day, you also have to buy insurance for two vehicles instead of one, and keep parts on hand for another type of vehicle.

A further complicating factor is the federal regulation concerning spare ratio. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides 80% funding for vehicles, and regulates the fleet size they will fund.

The FTA will not fund a duplicate fleet that allows changing buses off due to fluctuations in ridership over the course of the day.

A transit system is allowed a 20% spare ratio. Out of this spare ratio we need to accommodate buses out of service awaiting parts, buses damaged in vehicular accidents, buses held out of service for the day to allow for routine maintenance and repairs, buses in reserve to replace vehicles that encounter mechanical problems on the road, etc.

These negatives outweigh the slight savings in fuel cost of operating a small vehicle.

[RadicalModerate]

I rode the bus to work this morning (after walking the 250 or so yards to the bus stop.) The bus was right on time--if not a little early. I think it was one of the smaller buses and there were only about ten or so other people riding it at that time of day. But remember--as I said before--I rode it downtown early one morning (starting from the same area, but going south) and it was standing room only on one of the bigger buses. I'm certainly not sure of the "perfect solution" but as far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. =)

[Just the facts]

I gave my solution and ideas - but in the end, it's your bus system, you figure it out.

[Larry OKC]

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-lead...#ixzz1TvgRql9F

Rick Cain, director of Metro Transit, said the agency is doing better in terms of passenger counts, with average ridership going from 14 passengers per hour a few years ago to 16.22 per hour this past year. He said he is working to improve that figure next year to 18 per hour.

This is considered to be "Mass Transit"?

[Spartan]

I desperately hope that refers to ridership on all the routes.

[RadicalModerate]

Sid: In order to validate your self-proclaimed credentials vis-a-vis actual "Bus Ridership, Experiencial" (even if "Experiencial" is misspelt . . . I think you might want "to re-think your numbers":

(And here's why) . . .
There is no [The/Number] 18 Bus! (Any actual occasional bus rider would know that! =)
All of the buses in the fleet have at least three, sometimes four digit designations!

The only thing that The 18 could apply to would be The Route! =)
Which would be eliminated or devolved into something completely different.
Like, maybe even using Abacus (as compared to Arabic) "Numbers" or whatnot . . . =)

[Just the facts]

Might I add this about capacity. While a larger bus might transport 50 passengers per hour, my local circulator buses would transport 60 passengers per hour. Hub to hub would be 200 people per hour. So I actually get more capacity (4X as much) AND faster service (in some case 4X faster). Sid, if you miss your bus how long till the next one?