Bus Stop Consolidation: The Times Have Changed

2574554709_0e34ebe62a.jpgFlickr photo: erik kuo

Does the 14-Mission really need to stop at every block on Mission Street? Does the 21-Hayes? Consolidating bus stops could speed transit vehicles and reduce dwell time, saving service hours that could be used to increase frequencies and add hours of operation. Yet the MTA has avoided the topic for years, not even mentioning stop consolidation as a cost savings measure to mitigate the service cuts and fare increases just approved to bridge part of the agency’s $129 million deficit.

The reason for this reluctance, according to several people within the agency who I spoke with, is that the planners were afraid that the controversy around stop consolidation would jeopardize other equally or more important reforms they were promoting. MTA planners are still stung by the defeat of their modest proposal to consolidate stops on the 38-Geary in the Tenderloin. Tenderloin residents got the Board of Supervisors to reject that proposal by pointing out that only the Tenderloin was targeted, giving the appearance that stop consolidation was more about helping the more well-to-do residents of the Richmond zoom through the Tenderloin more quickly than it was a transit efficiency measure that could benefit everyone.

Times have changed, apparently, with stop consolidation finally making it to the top of TEP Program Manager Julie Kirschbaum’s "to do list." What’s different?

From a political perspective, the supervisors no longer have any authority over stop location. From a policy perspective, by proposing systemwide consolidation (at least on the 15 busiest routes), the MTA is not vulnerable to charges it is pitting one neighborhood against another. And most importantly, the benefits of stop consolidation are beginning to appear greater than the political cost of taking away some bus stops.

Kirschbaum has consistently claimed that stop consolidation was not "the most important" efficiency measure the system could make, but she has recently conceded that of all the possible reforms, it’s in the "top eight to ten."


A very rough estimate of the cost savings equates every 5 percent of stops eliminated with a 1 percent reduction in service hours. In other words, eliminating one in ten stops would save $5 million, or nearly the entire cost of weekday operation of the 71 and 71L lines. This refers just to the savings in stops avoided; it does not take into account the additional revenue from passengers who may be attracted to a faster transit ride.

Muni’s stop spacing standards are pretty typical for the United States, which is to say, out of date with the latest thinking in how to provide efficient, attractive transit service. European transit systems, with higher ridership, typically provide fewer stops: only three to four per mile. Systems in the United States typically provide seven to ten stops per mile. Furthermore, Muni’s stops are actually much closer than its standards should allow. Only 17 percent of Muni’s bus stops fall within the recommended range of 800-1,000 feet (closer on steep grades); 70 percent are closer than that; 13 percent are spaced farther apart than that.

The complaint against stop consolidation is that stop removal is akin to a service reduction. Indeed, the buses would be perfectly efficient, the argument goes, if they never had to stop to pick up passengers! Transit agencies must balance the additional access and egress time they ask their passengers to absorb in walking to the stop with the reduced travel time and operating costs gained. A 2007 empirical study of an implemented stop consolidation on TriMet in Portland found that "reductions in accessibility from stop consolidation were offset by time improvements in the line haul portion of their trips. Thus, the utility of their trip making appears to have been unaffected."

And just like the Bike Plan has social benefits beyond mere safety for riders, so does an efficient transit system. A California health official who asked not to be named noted that "70 percent of people who use public transit get their recommended daily exercise by walking or biking to and from the transit stop. If consolidating bus stops leads more people to take transit due to faster travel, there would be a significant health benefit."

"We do need to be mindful of ensuring that people with mobility challenges are not disproportionally affected," she added. "But given that lack of exercise is a major contributor to the diseases such as diabetes that cause disabilities, and given that people with mobility challenges also need physical activity for their general health, on balance a well-considered stop consolidation program may have significant health benefits across ages and physical limitations."

MTA staff is hoping that at least a fraction of the amount of support that was generated for the bicycle plan can be marshaled to support stop consolidation.

Kirschbaum tried to downplay expectations about the benefits of stop consolidation, but with over 4,000 bus and rail stops, even modest consolidation could save the agency millions of dollars a year. She will present a revised policy to the MTA Board in August, with specific, route-by-route proposals due in October. The MTA is not expected to approve changes until February 2010 after a series of public outreach meetings.

  • marcos

    Last time I checked, the 9 San Bruno line was slated for the most comprehensive coverage with, what 5 different incarnations, running from the full line local, through a short line to SFGH, a limited line and two expresses. Is the suggestion that we now eliminate stops on the short line and the full line local?

    Can we please dispense with the canard that it is somehow the general case that Muni lines stop at the same block twice in more than one handful of blocks? It is absurd and foolish to assert that the end point extrema represent the general case.

    Lines do not stop every block in the Richmond where the blocks are shortest. Lines do not stop every block in the Haight where blocks are mid sized.

    If there are 20 vehicles serving the #9 line, then a 5% cut of the length of a trip would free up one vehicle.

    I argued for a 22L but the MTA balked claiming that Fillmore was too narrow for vehicles to pass. I guess it would be too much for a local to remain pulled into the stop long enough for a limited to pass, similar to how trams in Amsterdam share what is in effect single tracking to cross narrow bridges.

    As far as connections go, the limited lines all make the connections. But how many stops on the local could you cut without moving more than 1/2 of the way to the stop frequency of the limiteds?

    -marc

  • Oh man, a 22L would be amazing. I often ride it from Potrero to Pac Heights/Marina and back. And that’s nearly an hour ride.

    It takes about 10-15 minutes in a car.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

SFMTA Releases Bus Stop Consolidation Plan

|
The SFMTA has released a much-anticipated bus stop consolidation plan [pdf] and while it is only in the planning stages and will take a concerted outreach effort to pass, the agency is finally publicly embracing a measure long pushed by transit advocates as an inexpensive way to speed up the system and make it more […]

For Bus Stop Consolidation, a Good Policy Will Be Good Politics

|
Flickr photo: ehoyer With support for bus stop consolidation building, local leaders are starting to weigh in on political strategies for implementing a new stop spacing policy. For Pi Ra of the Senior Action Network, the best political strategy is to start with a good policy, before recommendations to eliminate specific stops are out. The […]