Right-sizing bus routes to capacity (taking examples from the airline industry)

[aemoreira81]

In the airline industry, one used to see large wide-body planes perform routes such as New York to Los Angeles or San Francisco, with planes like the 737 flying "local" routes and the 747 (and planes like it) flying longer routes. However, when travelers began to demand more choice and frequency, that turned out to be just "too much plane" and with longer-range planes developed (as well as medium-range smaller planes) and more reliability, one now can "right-size" planes to routes, with smaller planes flying from New York to Europe on routes that would not support a "heavy" plane (when Continental was in business - United continues this today, they decided that a narrow-body 757 could open up new routes across the pond, most of which still exist today - and the 757 was never expected to fulfill such a mission), cross-country, and even domestically. One also has the concept of "regional airline" flying smaller planes on routes that could not support a 737 or A320-sized plane (a plane with at least 120-130 seats. and up to about 200 seats), and new markets have also been opened up with these smaller planes. (These regional operators also have a lower wage scale than the planes operated by the airlines directly.)

 

How this relates to buses, and New York City in particular: a typical NYC bus has 33-40 seats (rigid) or 57 seats (express). However, for some routes, this is just "too much bus", especially for routes that are just there for network coverage purposes. Greyhound has also begun to right-size some of its routes by using longer truck-based cutaway buses for certain routes (usually based on a Freightliner or an International chassis), and this has opened up new markets for which an MCI could not otherwise be justified. Why does the MTA not consider the concept of right-sizing routes, especially in parts of Staten Island, the Bronx, and even Queens, to a "regional" operator partner who could operate certain routes more efficiently and cheaply, with better seat capacity usage, then the MTA? In addition to saving certain routes from the chopping block, this could also allow the MTA to open up new routes using smaller equipment that may not have the capacity numbers to justify an MCI-Prevost or a 40-foot transit bus, as well as expand to new markets, especially from Staten Island, such as Staten Island to Metropark, Staten Island to Raritan Center in Edison, Staten Island to New Brunswick, and Staten Island to Elizabeth and Newark Liberty (which I see as a glaring gap in the transit network of the region)? A Van Hool M1235 is a good mid-sized bus that could do some lighter-use express routes and the Coach and Equipment Condor could do some local routes. The MTA could always write in its contracts that they would do school trippers directly. I see this as a money-saving way to operate better and more efficient service. (I make no route proposals here - just the idea of new markets opening up.)

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

In the airline industry, one used to see large wide-body planes perform routes such as New York to Los Angeles or San Francisco, with planes like the 737 flying "local" routes and the 747 (and planes like it) flying longer routes. However, when travelers began to demand more choice and frequency, that turned out to be just "too much plane" and with longer-range planes developed (as well as medium-range smaller planes) and more reliability, one now can "right-size" planes to routes, with smaller planes flying from New York to Europe on routes that would not support a "heavy" plane (when Continental was in business - United continues this today, they decided that a narrow-body 757 could open up new routes across the pond, most of which still exist today - and the 757 was never expected to fulfill such a mission), cross-country, and even domestically. One also has the concept of "regional airline" flying smaller planes on routes that could not support a 737 or A320-sized plane (a plane with at least 120-130 seats. and up to about 200 seats), and new markets have also been opened up with these smaller planes. (These regional operators also have a lower wage scale than the planes operated by the airlines directly.)

 

How this relates to buses, and New York City in particular: a typical NYC bus has 33-40 seats (rigid) or 57 seats (express). However, for some routes, this is just "too much bus", especially for routes that are just there for network coverage purposes. Greyhound has also begun to right-size some of its routes by using longer truck-based cutaway buses for certain routes (usually based on a Freightliner or an International chassis), and this has opened up new markets for which an MCI could not otherwise be justified. Why does the MTA not consider the concept of right-sizing routes, especially in parts of Staten Island, the Bronx, and even Queens, to a "regional" operator partner who could operate certain routes more efficiently and cheaply, with better seat capacity usage, then the MTA? In addition to saving certain routes from the chopping block, this could also allow the MTA to open up new routes using smaller equipment that may not have the capacity numbers to justify an MCI-Prevost or a 40-foot transit bus, as well as expand to new markets, especially from Staten Island, such as Staten Island to Metropark, Staten Island to Raritan Center in Edison, Staten Island to New Brunswick, and Staten Island to Elizabeth and Newark Liberty (which I see as a glaring gap in the transit network of the region)? A Van Hool M1235 is a good mid-sized bus that could do some lighter-use express routes and the Coach and Equipment Condor could do some local routes. The MTA could always write in its contracts that they would do school trippers directly. I see this as a money-saving way to operate better and more efficient service. (I make no route proposals here - just the idea of new markets opening up.)

Forget about the express buses being "right sized". Many of the operators interline all over the place like there's no tomorrow, and trying to keep them on one route would be difficult to maintain and would increase costs. So even though they operate on lightly used routes, some of their runs may consist of a higher-utilized route. In addition, on some of the "light" routes, they have their own times where it is utilize well, so running short buses wouldn't be ideal. You also have to see that these low preforming routes either run in lower-income areas, they duplicate other express bus services, or their "catchment area" is just too small (with some, it's a combination of the former reasons).As for local buses, it is somewhat much easier to schedule them, because of their more consistent headway (in both directions). However, if they used other buses, they would still need to keep the wages the same as the other drivers, or else they'll be an argument arising between the TA and the unions. 

 

In addition, right sizing routes will be hard because unless their garage is within reasonable distances of these routes, it will be very hard to keep costs down (you might increase costs as well). For SI, if Atlantic Express still operated, those weekday routes (S55, S56, S54) could've been transferred over, if the unions would've allowed it  but that wouldn't have is not the case.

[aemoreira81]

Forget about the express buses being "right sized". Many of the operators interline all over the place like there's no tomorrow, and trying to keep them on one route would be difficult to maintain and would increase costs. So even though they operate on lightly used routes, some of their runs may consist of a higher-utilized route. In addition, on some of the "light" routes, they have their own times where it is utilize well, so running short buses wouldn't be ideal. You also have to see that these low preforming routes either run in lower-income areas, they duplicate other express bus services, or their "catchment area" is just too small (with some, it's a combination of the former reasons).As for local buses, it is somewhat much easier to schedule them, because of their more consistent headway (in both directions). However, if they used other buses, they would still need to keep the wages the same as the other drivers, or else they'll be an argument arising between the TA and the unions. 

 

In addition, right sizing routes will be hard because unless their garage is within reasonable distances of these routes, it will be very hard to keep costs down (you might increase costs as well). For SI, if Atlantic Express still operated, those weekday routes (S55, S56, S54) could've been transferred over, if the unions would've allowed it  but that wouldn't have is not the case.

 

 

In terms of route duplication, one may not be able to avoid duplication, but the MTA also needs to design routes so that, where possible, a route has its own specific market, especially outside of major corridors. This may require that certain routes be redrawn, merged, split, or cut. All of this goes into right-sizing. Fully integrating MTA Bus into the NYC Transit Authority and MaBSTOA is also needed.

[B35 via Church]

BM5, even though you just obliterated this suggestion by bringing up interlining, don't waste your time.... This is basically a mini-bus argument.

Running smaller buses on lesser utilized routes won't keep those routes around.... What is being implicated here AFAIC is, had mini buses been ran on routes like the Q75 & the Q89, they would still be around.... This aint Chicago, but that's Bullshit.

 

AEMoreira posts these long-winded introductions to his suggestions to make them seem plausible.

 

Go suburbanize some other urban area's bus system..... It aint warranted here.

[bobtehpanda]

Unless you are going to pay the operator of a minibus less (and good luck with that), it is not going to be more economical. If they were viable markets, they would be served by commuter van operators already. Heck, we have a commuter van from Flushing to Fort Lee, so nothing is out of the question.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

In terms of route duplication, one may not be able to avoid duplication, but the MTA also needs to design routes so that, where possible, a route has its own specific market, especially outside of major corridors. This may require that certain routes be redrawn, merged, split, or cut. All of this goes into right-sizing. Fully integrating MTA Bus into the NYC Transit Authority and MaBSTOA is also needed.

Wouldn't the routes that end up getting cut be the ones that would have gotten smaller "right-sized" buses? The only right sizing left to do would be placing articulated buses on heavily used routes the TA would like to cut runs on. Such is already being done.

 

Also, to reference the comparison with the airline industry, the airline industry consists of publicly traded companies that exist to make a profit. Which means if they fail to align capacity with customer demand, profit margins (which are low as is) get threatened and the companies end up having to exit the business. The MTA does not exist to seek a profit as it's a state chartered agency providing a public service. The goal is to gain enough money (through customer's fare and government sources) to offset their operational costs (which many would agree are too high). As far as operational costs are concerned cutting a route that does not have enough demand to use existing capacity saves more than using smaller buses to provide service on said route. I would agree that your premise would make sense in the event that we're designing a bus system from scratch and thus can't prove the capacity needs for each route but that's not what the situation is in NYC. 

[B35 via Church]

Wouldn't the routes that end up getting cut be the ones that would have gotten smaller "right-sized" buses? The only right sizing left to do would be placing articulated buses on heavily used routes the TA would like to cut runs on. Such is already being done.

.....which is part of the reason what & why I believe NYC's bus system will resemble in the distant future.... a bunch of long, drawn out routes all with artics on them, and a bunch of shorter distanced routes (like the B42 & B74) with which 40' would still remain on them..... I've never said this in my prediction, but I also believe there's going to be much less total bus depots in our city when it is said and done... What does that mean? They'd start getting rid of a lot of 40', not adding to them....

 

This notion that the MTA would waste money on equipment they don't currently have, to accomodate LESS bus riders, is too far out of touch with reality....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I have to agree with all of the comments posted to AE's original post.  They're all spot on.  I also could see more consolidating in the near future of bus depots. There are a lot of small ones around and if bus service continues to dwindle, I could see that happening, unless the unions fight tooth and nail to stop that, but all it takes is another deal like the one Spring Creek has to see more service cuts with those part-time drivers.  Utterly ridiculous.

[GojiMet86]

I'm not exactly fond of the idea of the MTA using cutaways.

[Q43LTD]

Didn't we have a discussion about this before? 

[NewFlyer 230]

Didn't we have a discussion about this before?

We probably did a few years back.

 

I personally don't favor right sized buses due to the fact that each depot only may have one route that has lower ridership so it is a total waste. A depot like Jamaica with the Q42 may only need about 6 buses to cover that route and they cant be placed on other routes such as the Q5 or Q17. At least with Artic buses they can be placed on routes that have low frequency and are SRO on most trips. Articulated buses are now in the past few years have been seeing service at different depots and I hope Brooklyn and Queens can see more usage from Artics other than the B44, Q10 and Q44.

[paulrivera]

By this logic, the real busy routes like the Bx12 should have some of these:

(Yes I know they won't fit under the el structures, but a man can dream...)

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

By this logic, the real busy routes like the Bx12 should have some of these:

(Yes I know they won't fit under the el structures, but a man can dream...)

I'm pretty sure boarding and exiting that thing would be a mess, especially on a route like the Bx12. Those kind of buses are for high-capacity, low frequency trips where all of the riders are sharing similar origins and destinations like a Greyhound or Megabus.

[B35 via Church]

I see the point Paul's making in regards to the original suggestion (putting buses that offer the highest capacity on the highest utilized routes in the city), but still, I agree with Jubai here.... A double decker artic is pushing it (LOL); it would nullify any time savings gained from off-board payment.....

 

Just getting off a non-articulated double decker bus is a PITA - especially if you're sitting way in the back of the 2nd tier.

Head over there around State st/Battery pl. to see what I mean....

[Eric B]

I'm pretty sure boarding and exiting that thing would be a mess, especially on a route like the Bx12. Those kind of buses are for high-capacity, low frequency trips where all of the riders are sharing similar origins and destinations like a Greyhound or Megabus.

I've imagined something like that for a hypothetical excursion on the 7000+mile trip to Cape Horn. It would be s little like the somewhat more convenience of a train, where you would not have to be cooped up in the same seat or cabin for the whole time (and you could have a food counter, etc. Plus, in the really dangerous areas in Central and northern South America, you could have a section for heavily armed guards, while the riders would be safer upstairs. (I got this idea, when reading of bike trips from Cape Horn, and they had to fly over those areas).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I've imagined something like that for a hypothetical excursion on the 7000+mile trip to Cape Horn. It would be s little like the somewhat more convenience of a train, where you would not have to be cooped up in the same seat or cabin for the whole time (and you could have a food counter, etc. Plus, in the really dangerous areas in Central and northern South America, you could have a section for heavily armed guards, while the riders would be safer upstairs. (I got this idea, when reading of bike trips from Cape Horn, and they had to fly over those areas).

LOL! Heavily armed guards.... You're thinking far too hard!!

[bobtehpanda]

Double decker buses only really work for routes where a lot of people are riding to the end and not many people get on in intermediary stops; so basically, feeder routes to the outskirts like the Q43.

[161 New York]

The airlines utilize different equipment as they seek to (by using complex algorithms and market research), maximize revenue per seat and class of fare as well as to maximize fuel economy an to an extent transport cargo. It also takes into consideration distance and availability of runaway and gate facilities.

 

For example, United Airlines has a whole alphabet of fare classes for those in First, Economy Plus and Economy. Looking at my prior receipts in the last 7 or so years, for both United Airlines and it's predecessor Continental Airlines, I have been in K, L, I, X, W and N classes for both domestic and international itineraries (though for ~12 flight segments it was K and L classes). 

 

My point is that the  is not concerned with managing a diverse fleet to get folks from St. George to Grymes Hill or Bayonne to Eltingville, or Riverdale to Midtown Manhattan with maximizing revenues/profit centers etc.. The only different class of service is a local bus or an express bus fare and it applies whether you are seated or standing. 

 

Also, from a procurement and maintenance perspective it would be easier to purchase a large amount of buses from MCI or Prevost without much variation. Additionally from a training and operational perspective (discussed by others), standardization of the fleet within a mostly homogeneous operating area (urban NYC) would appear from a management perspective - predictable (fuel consumption, maintenance schedules as well as manageable   .

 

As for testing new markets, lets focus on providing an adequate level of service for everyone in NYC, forays into New Jersey should not be considered by the    at the moment, if  wants to take a look, they are more than welcome to as the overall economic benefits would be for NJ and not necessarily NYC.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

LOL! Heavily armed guards.... You're thinking far too hard!!

Hey, Israel has armored buses (on certain routes from Jerusalem), so nothing is impossible at this point. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Hey, Israel has armored buses (on certain routes from Jerusalem), so nothing is impossible at this point. 

They also have suicide bombers... Your point is?

[7LineFan]

LOL! Heavily armed guards.... You're thinking far too hard!!

If you watch the very end of the Top Gear Patagonia special you'll see where he's coming from.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

They also have suicide bombers... Your point is?

Evem though I thought I implied it in my original post, my point is, if there are bus routes that utilize armored vehicles (to protect against the biggest threats), nothing is short of impossible. Furthermore, I don't think EricB was "thinking far too hard", there are some parts in South America and Africa which are pretty badly inundoated with violence. Granted we may not meed heavily armed guards here, but we can definently start the process of having police members onboard buses as a safety measure (besides the cameras).

 

Double decker buses only really work for routes where a lot of people are riding to the end and not many people get on in intermediary stops; so basically, feeder routes to the outskirts like the Q43.

Didnt they mentiomed how the trial run on double decker buses in the city worked out. I know they placed them some on the express bus routes (although I think regular express bus routes should only use the standard coach.

[Eric B]

If you watch the very end of the Top Gear Patagonia special you'll see where he's coming from.

That's talking about some area between Argentina and Chile. That's not what I was even thinking about. I'm thinking more about Colombia, even parts of Mexico, etc. (like where all the drug cartel violence is).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Evem though I thought I implied it in my original post, my point is, if there are bus routes that utilize armored vehicles (to protect against the biggest threats), nothing is short of impossible. Furthermore, I don't think EricB was "thinking far too hard", there are some parts in South America and Africa which are pretty badly inundoated with violence. Granted we may not meed heavily armed guards here, but we can definently start the process of having police members onboard buses as a safety measure (besides the cameras).

 

Yes and they already do that where necessary, but it's expensive to have policemen riding buses on a regular basis, and thus if it isn't necessary, resources should be used elsewhere.  Our police force is always on high alert anyway since NYC is always the #1 target, so if they had intelligence that dictated such a need, I'm sure they would do whatever it took to protect the public.

[Fresh Pond]

Didnt they mentiomed how the trial run on double decker buses in the city worked out. I know they placed them some on the express bus routes (although I think regular express bus routes should only use the standard coach.

It didn't work out. Aside from being too tall for most bus stops with low hanging branches, poles, and the like, but they would also be too tall for many, if not all depots.

 

...that, and Van Hool took the bus back but that's another story.