The state of public transit in Richmond may not be strong, but we are more fortunate than many US cities of our size to be served by the Greater Richmond Transit Company, or GRTC. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, GRTC has outperformed many other systems, in part because of the “Zero Fare” policy instituted during the pandemic, and in part because of a clever and successful redesign of the bus routes in the years before it. The centerpiece of the redesigned system is the Pulse, a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) line that runs down Broad Street. The Pulse has exceeded ridership expectations and changed the way many people view the system. (As a regular rider myself, I am grateful for this transformative change.)
More recently, as ridership has grown and buses have become crowded at peak times, GRTC announced their intention to add articulated buses to their fleet. Articulated buses are longer than typical buses, and therefore hold more passengers. If demand is high, increase supply: it’s an intuitive idea. But is it the best solution to this very real problem? No.
There are two principal ways to increase the number of riders on a transit route. The first is to increase the capacity of the vehicle – the number of people that can ride on each bus, train, or boat. This can be done by increasing the size of the vehicle, or by changing the interior organization of the vehicle. In subways, for example, there are a mixture of seated and standing areas. Standing areas can contain a larger density of people than seated areas. GRTC is seeking to increase the capacity on the Pulse by increasing the size of their buses.
The second way of increasing the number of riders is to increase the frequency of service. For example, to carry 100 people in an hour, you could have one bus that carries 100 people once an hour, or four buses that carry 25 people once every 15 minutes.
Which is better? Generally, and in the case of the Pulse, its increased frequency. That’s because increased frequency improves the experience of riders every day – it makes transit better. The more frequent the bus service, the less planning riders have to do to catch a bus, and less time they waste waiting for buses to arrive. Increased frequency makes the experience of catching a bus more pleasant and convenient. Everyday, thousands of people think to themselves “I wish the bus was coming sooner.” No one has ever thought “I wish this bus was longer.”
On top of that, articulated buses have a number of well-known problems. Although they have three doors as opposed to two for a typical 40-foot bus, boarding can take longer. Due to their size, they don’t make sharp turns as well, and they cannot fit on as many streets as shorter buses, making them less flexible and harder to re-deploy as transit needs change. Longer buses also require longer stations, and the cost of upgrading the existing Pulse stations on Broad Street is considerable.
Articulated buses are also more accident prone. In London, articulated buses were found to be five times more likely to be involved in an accident than other buses in their fleet. The large buses are more difficult to control, causing stress for the drivers and putting pedestrians in danger. In addition to these safety issues, many riders simply displiked the experience of riding these buses. Articulated buses were ultimately eliminated from London’s fleet, and replaced entirely with conventional buses. Articulated buses may be the best solution in highly crowded routes where frequency is already very high – every 5 minutes or better, for example – but the Pulse isn’t even near that mark yet.
GRTC is making a mistake in transitioning the Pulse to articulated buses while frequency remains low, by the standards of rapid transit systems. For inspiration, we need only look back to GRTC’s 2018 system redesign, which has been successful precisely because it prioritized frequency above all. Admittedly, hiring new drivers has been difficult given the nation-wide labor crunch. But will making the job of drivers harder by giving them a bulkier and more dangerous vehicle to operate make it any easier to find new recruits?
Clearly, crowding on the Pulse is a problem, but it is also an opportunity. Let’s solve it in a way that improves the experience of transit riders every day, rather than investing millions in a technology that brings with it a whole new set of problems. Let’s increase frequency.
Don O’Keefe
Photograph courtesy of Echo • Inshade Media, provided under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 2.0.
4 Comments
Dear Mr. O’keefe,
I read your article and have to disagree with your assumptions. did you ask GRTC where they plan to use articulated buses, and at what times during the day? My guess, (and I state guess) is they will be used on the Pulse corridor, which is by and large a straight line, so no tight turns. If GRTC just throws them into the program willy-nilly then there is a problem, but given the cost of these buses, I have to assume that GRTC people know when and how to use the buses.
While I agree there will be a learning curve, and perhaps damage done to property especially changing lanes or making a turn, this will quickly be resolved. I live in Europe and the vast majority of accidents between buses and cars, pick-ups, whatever are not the fault of the bus driver. People are in a hurry and they do not calculate with the size of the bus.
I do not think the Pulse stops have to be lengthened, people can walk an extra 10 feet with little or no problem. Not every single thing in life is 100 covered.
Kind regards, John
I appreciate the comment Mr. Gerencser. Please allow me to address each of your concerns in order:
1. The articulated buses will be used on the Pulse Corridor. The route may appear largely straight, but aside from the major turns at the eastern end of the route there are many lane changes throughout as the bus must navigate between stations between lanes and stations at the street edge.
2. It is true that drivers are responsible for most collisions involving public transit in both the US and globally, however articulated buses are involved in more such accidents and also more accidents involving pedestrians.
3. GRTC has stated that the introduction of articulated buses will require the lengthening of platforms which will cost millions of dollars by their own estimation.
And, finally, I would redirect your attention to the main point of the article, which is that increased frequency dramatically improves the experience of riders, while longer buses does nothing to improve this experience, even if we set aside the other concerns.
Your comments about london ignore the very different realities of London’s, and more widely European, streets to Richmonds, or more widely American, streets.
It also ignores that for London, the articulated busses were eliminated in favor of double decker busses. While double decker busses aren’t a fundamentally a bad idea especially on express routes where stops are infrequent, when stops are rapid enough, the increase in time from those boarding and de-boarding from the second layer becomes a problem. Even if that weren’t true, the railroad bridges by main street station and main street and dock street put an end to the idea of any double decker busses on the pulse.
That is to say, london didn’t abandon articulated busses because they weren’t worth it ever (they weren’t for london but I argue are for american cities) but weren’t worth it in comparison to their widely used alternative option of double decker busses.
Now I get that doesn’t nullify your arguments still. But what does is, where do these resources come from? GRTC has a limited number of drivers, and busses showing up at a peak of every 10 minutes is still Richmond’s most frequent line. Endless city council or henricho hands over some money, and keeps handing over that money, that’s a whole nother salary to the roster
Lastly, i’m not 100% convinced that increased frequency will help ridership here. Like I said above, 10 minutes is the most frequent bus in richmond. I’m sure there are *some* people it might convince who are on the fence, but overall I would rather any spare drivers be put to more frequent local routes, and longer routes into the counties.
And none of this even covers the fact that we have a pulse expansion project underway, and a second BRT line too
Dear Mr. Cordova, thank you for your comment and for reading ArchitectureRichmond. It’s always great to generate informed debate about topics of civic interest. I will respond briefly. Regarding the conditions of London and Richmond, its true that they are quite different. It is not true that all articulated bus routes were replaced with double decker buses; some routes were replaced with single level buses. Double decker buses are an interesting solution to creating increased capacity transit along routes with constrained turn radii. It could be a solution in Richmond, but I am not proposing that. As you acknowledge in your comments, the argument stands that increased frequency serves riders better than increased capacity. This is the crucial point — it is as close to an universal law in transit planning as anything ever will be. That higher frequency improves convenience is an unassailable proposition. Even in systems that already operate at high frequencies, the goal is always to do better. Every 10 minutes — and even then only at at peak times — is not the goal we should set, its a stepping stone to something better.
With that established, if the argument that GRTC wants to put forward is that the increased labor costs from hiring more drivers is significantly more expensive than buying new buses and lengthening platforms, then I wish they would just say that. If the argument is that lengthening platforms will set the system up for an eventual transition to light rail, then I wish they would say that. But to say that the number of buses and/or drivers is fixed is clearly incorrect, as they are buying more buses and plan to create a new line that will require more drivers. Likewise, to claim that an every 10 min. peak frequency is good enough simply because it is already the most frequent bus in a very infrequent system is nonsense.
To anyone who would disagree, I would refer them not only to the vast and unanimous corpus of transit planning literature on the subject, but also to personal experience. The next time you are dashing to a meeting and miss a bus by one minute, ask yourself this question: would you rather the next bus come in 10 minutes, or in five? Alternatively, have you ever sat on a bus and said to yourself “I wish this bus was longer and articulated.” ? Of course not.
Write a Comment
Posted
Share
Category
CurrentTags
BRT • Bus • Current • GRTC • opinion • planning • Public • public transit • Public Transport • Pulse • Station • The Pulse • transit • urban design • Urban Planning