Transportation I. Transit B. Non-rail public transit; primer on concepts

The higher the initial cost of a given public transit technology, the less likely a system using it will be built. From the outset, this tough reality must be recognized. The last Technical Page considered the higher levels of technology and infrastructure investment: in descending order heavy rail, light rail, streetcars, and trolleys. All require fixed rail, a layer of supporting infrastructure, and, in most cases, dedicated rights of way. Consequently many communities will be either unable or unwilling to build them. The lower orders of transit require less of almost everything, which is both their virtue and their problem. Various kinds of bus and assorted species of taxi systems are consequently more common, in both senses of the term. Planning for less expensive systems must therefore be no less thorough than for rail systems, but different in its considerations. Bus-based systems require purchase of heavy rolling stock. With a maintenance facility and bus shelters, that is most of the infrastructure cost. But the theoretical minimum investment is the cost of one bus, and additional vehicles can be added as finances permit. A bus system has the advantage of relatively large startup flexibility, assuming a tolerant ridership. the glory of dedicated lanes The highest level of bus service has come to be called “bus rapid transit” or BRT. At its full glory on dedicated highway lanes, it can gain riders time over drivers stuck in traffic — and do so visibly to both, which is psychologically important to its success. It has a tactical advantage over heavy and light rail: it can get off the highway periodically and execute precise but flexible pickup routes on the regular street network. Below BRT is the regular bus system that most know and many avoid. Its notorious lack of popularity, not only relative to private cars but to other forms of transit, has prompted many theories but few genuine solutions. The most obvious theory is very blunt; as a large, loud, uncomfortable machine, a bus is noxious to use, see, hear, and smell. The usual bus design has been the result of engineers seeking economies in durability and operation, and perhaps getting them but certainly not much else. People do not like being nearby, let alone riding. But there are newer vehicles which, even short of being electric powered, are more acceptable to the senses and society; they are as quiet, at least, as a Humvee (which they do not outrank by size). The notoriously jerky ride of buses, too, has been improved. Interior design is often still a challenge; it is demeaning to be in them. Public bus fitouts should meet higher standards than merely exceeding the durability of prison furnishings. Recent European buses and older American railway cars offer better models. There are also the related problems of bus system trajectory and itinerary. Trajectories, not surprisingly, must be conceptually clear for rider credibility. Bus routes often chase erratically across the map in pursuit of passengers, like small animals on a feeding frenzy. Clear itinerary is as important as predictable schedule without too long a “headway” (wait between buses). It is perhaps best to combine simple long-range routes with feeder “circulators” that do complex, looping pickups. This tactic improves the itinerary because it shortens both the headway and the perceived time of the trip. Yet the greatest problem of all is the experience of simply waiting for a bus. Studies reveal that persons who wait – even in good weather — in the humiliating circumstance of what passes for a bus stop (usually a decrepit bench by the side of a brutal highway) remember the wait to be twice as long as it actually was. At a minimum, bus stops must be equipped with seating, wind protection, and a roof of excellent design. An even better option would include a commercial eatery, as will be discussed in the next installment. The other great disadvantage of the bus is that, while cheap up front, it is much less durable than rail. A ten year useful life for a bus in constant motion is all that can be asked of it, while Berlin, for example, is only now replacing its 1930s-era rail cars. Taxi fleets are the lowest level of investment and technology — and the most likely to be used. There are three intensity levels of taxi service. Permeating taxi fleets in constant circulation are a dense metropolitan condition, as in New York and a few other cities. The taxi queue waiting at specific stands, as in most other large cities, is the middle tier. Taxis that can be summoned by phone in smaller cities and towns are the basic service level. One of the great conveniences, indeed luxuries, of very high densities is that a taxi fleet in movement allows one to live without the inconveniences of automobile ownership. u