Expresses Buses Need to Pass Local Buses
It’s fun to talk about building new subways and light rail lines. But for cities that already have some substantial walkable neighborhoods and basic mass transit infrastructure, probably the most cost-effective thing they can do to improve urban mobility is to invest in improved bus service. One big win along these lines in recent Washington, DC history has been the rise of the S9 express bus. It runs basically along the north-south 16th street route that before its inception was already served by the S1/S2/S4 lines. Those were some of the most popular buses in the city, and what WMATA did was add a new line, the S9, that runs the same route but with fewer stops. Fewer stops mean faster service and it’s all good.
But now comes the word that bus drivers are engaged in some kind of protest against recent concerns about the safety of their driving methods that involves S9 drivers refusing to pass S1/S2/S4 buses as the local buses make their stops. Obviously stopping and waiting at all the local stops completely defeats the purpose of creating an express bus alternative.
Assuming this dispute can get resolved, the next step for the S-buses should be to find portions of 16th Street where it makes sense to create well-enforced bus only lanes by taking lanes away from private automobiles or parking.
31 Responses to “Expresses Buses Need to Pass Local Buses”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 15th, 2009 at 11:21 am
This is full on Russian gulag, Soviet-style gulag transportation policy!!!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
They started something like this recently in Omaha, which is not a city known for popular public transportation. A good portion of the workforce work downtown (the east side of the city) and live in the suburbs or suburby areas out west, so they started a bus line that goes down the most popular east/west running street and skips directly from something like 144th St to 16th St. My dad has been riding it for the last few months and said it seems really popular. Sounds like a good way to get typically bus-resistant suburbans out of their cars!
October 15th, 2009 at 11:32 am
While we’re griping about inefficient bus technique, I should add that it really can’t be expensive at all to have a mechanism in place where if buses get bunched, which they inevitably do (physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists have studied this problem and it’s simply a natural phenomenon of unmanipulated traffic), then the leading bus becomes an express bus and those who want to make local stops get out and then immediately reboard the trailing bus. This would be easier if covered bus shelters were more common for cold or rainy days. This really just seems like a no-brainer but I’ve never witnessed it in any of the cities I’ve ridden buses in.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am
this strikes me as a pretty good summation of matt’s approach to most policy issues. have the planners take more from individuals and put it in the hands of public concerns.
of course, that first sentence belies the problem with that approach. a problem that matt glosses over as a minor speedbump on the road to his perfect society. if only we could get the bus drivers to stop hitting, punching and kidnapping people, and then stop them from protesting their resulting punishments through what is essentially a work slowdown, then we’d have the perfect system.
matt, if you’re going to seriously advocate on behalf of things like this, you need to at least make an attempt to account for this fact: when things move under government control, it becomes very easy for a relatively small special interest (eg bus drivers and their union) to exert an undue measure of influence by the fact that you’ve decreased the amount of competition in any given marketplace.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
This is just nuts. Who decided that it was unsafe for a bus to pass another bus? That’s just crazy talk, and a sure way to drive the bus system into the ground.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:49 am
this strikes me as a pretty good summation of matt’s approach to most policy issues. have the planners take more from individuals and put it in the hands of public concerns.
Parking lanes and traffic lanes are already public concerns. Perhaps you also think government should stay the hell out of Medicare?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:52 am
bus drivers are engaged in some kind of protest against recent concerns about the safety of their driving methods that involves S9 drivers refusing to pass S1/S2/S4 buses as the local buses make their stops
Matt, while you were touring the socialist strongholds, there was an unfortunate incident here where a woman in Trinidad, I believe, had just gotten off of a bus at a bus stop on a street with no marked crosswalks, and had darted out in front of her bus to cross the street, and was hit and killed by another bus that was passing the bus that she had just disembarked. This was only the latest in a string of recent incidents involving Metro – even though nobody has really demonstrated that it was the Metrobus operator’s fault.
Apparently, the refusal of the express bus drivers to pass offloading local busses stems from this.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@ matt b
October 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Now where did the strange notion arise that public rights of way should be designed for the convenience of private automobile operators, and no one else?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
But all the ads on the radio are stressing Metro’s “new corporate culture which emphasizes responsibility” ! How could something like this happen??? They have a new corporate culture against that, darn it!
In any case, north of U Street or so, 16th St. does not have enough lanes to reserve one for bus traffic.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Er, @ J R, those public buses are actually filled with individuals. And moving at a greater frequency and throughput than that one lane can move motor vehicles. This isn’t some evil socialist plot, it’s simple mathematics. Dedicate some space (we’re not talking about all lanes here) to move more individuals faster. I’m not sure how a person becomes less “individual” or important by riding in a bus versus riding in a car.
And for the record, the lanes don’t belong to any “individuals.” They belong to the collective public. You sound like you’re looking for fire where there is no smoke.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“… find portions of 16th Street where it makes sense to create well-enforced bus only lanes by taking lanes away from private automobiles or parking.”
If the area where you propose on-street removing parking is a walkable one, then removing such parking will destroy that aspect and make the street feel like an urban freeway.
On-street parking is essential to a walkable street.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
While it certainly may be cheaper in the immediate-term to forego light rail in favour of bus lanes, it isn’t cheaper in the long run. Buses break down much faster, and a system requires *a lot* more of them (with the attendant personnel costs) than light rail cars.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I’m not sure how a person becomes less “individual” or important by riding in a bus versus riding in a car.
There are plenty of people for whom “individual’s value to society” = “individual’s economic productivity” = “individual’s net worth,” and who therefore take it as a given that it is not only efficient but morally just to favor someone who can afford a car over someone who can’t. They may not be in the majority here, but at McArdle’s place, for example, they predominate.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Nice post Matt. The 16th street bus line is one of the most traveled bus line in the city. If I’m correct, it serves around 16,000 people per day. To really improve this bus route, its totally worth taking away a line of car traffic and having bus exclusive lanes. That would make the bus route much more efficient and it would also make 16th street, which feels like a giant gutter to move cars in and out of the city, a nicer street for people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods, like Columbia Heights, Mt Pleasant, Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, etc.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Dedicating a rush-hour bus lane on 16th Street will not improve the neighborhood. 16th St. will still be a “giant gutter”; it will just be a gutter that carries more human traffic faster than it does now.
The best way to stop 16th St. from being a “giant gutter” would be to allow street parking during rush hour and to extend 395 up to the northern half of the beltway. Somehow I don’t think you would consider that a viable alternative. Because that’s never going to happen, 16th Street and Connecticut Avenue will retain their status as “giant gutters” for automobile and bus traffic.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
While it certainly may be cheaper in the immediate-term to forego light rail in favour of bus lanes, it isn’t cheaper in the long run. Buses break down much faster, and a system requires *a lot* more of them (with the attendant personnel costs) than light rail cars.
This depends on what you are talking about. If you are just talking about a fleet of buses going back and forth on a single high-volume route, then you are right. If instead you are talking about a multitude of bus routes that only share the dedicated bus lane for a portion of their individual routes, then the bus lane approach may be the most economic.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
that’s a straw man of the libertarian position. although, i’m sure you could find a few people willing to take that position, it’s not my position. i choose to make no moral judgments in regards to the mode of transportaion one uses or that one can afford to use. when you undertake policy aimed at forcing people out of cars and into buses, however, that is exactly what you are doing.
and, yes, i am fully aware that roads are public entities. they are at present, though, open to any private citizen operating a private automobile just as public buses are open to any private citizen willing to cough up the $1.35. the difference is that there is generally only one bus operator, while an individual can buy a car from any number of auto companies, used car salesmen, or other private citizens.
when you force people out of cars and on to buses you are effectively decreasing individuals’ choices and increasing the power of a government-run monopoly. is that in itself a bad thing? maybe not, but it certainly increases the ability of government-sector unions, and any number of other special interest groups, to seek their ends through any number of spurious means. my initial point was simply that matt treats this as a minor side issue to the real issue of better transportation policy. and that is a big mistake.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
the difference is that there is generally only one bus operator, while an individual can buy a car from any number of auto companies, used car salesmen, or other private citizens.
You can also buy the shoes you use to walk to the bus from any number of vendors. Problem solved.
In other words, protecting particular ancillary lines of business is generally not a reasonable grounds for making policy with respect to publicly-provided goods–in fact that is usually just a form of central-planning overreach.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
protecting particular ancillary lines of business is generally not a reasonable grounds for making policy with respect to publicly-provided goods–in fact that is usually just a form of central-planning overreach.
so, my arguing that increasing bus lines at the expense of car lanes is in fact my attempt to play central planner?
yeah, and up is down.
and again, the point of what i said was simple. if you push more people on to buses and trains, you’re going to have to deal with more hijinks from the transit unions. and that tends to increase the cost and decrease the effectiventess of whatever “optimal” solution you’ve formulated in the first place.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
At least your actual intent is clear: you don’t like public transit. Fine, then, but it the prerogative for the public to decide what to do with public streets and rights of way, and if that decision is to favor fast mass transit into the center of the city, then so be it– that actually sounds like a good use of public streets.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
so, my arguing that increasing bus lines at the expense of car lanes is in fact my attempt to play central planner?
If your argument was based in part on wanting to protect the car industry–as it was–then the answer to this question is “yes”.
if you push more people on to buses and trains, you’re going to have to deal with more hijinks from the transit unions.
But by your own logic, you also will be sticking it to the UAW. Hmm, what is a union-buster to do in such a situation?
Or maybe, once again, these ancillary considerations (which use of our public roads will be worst for unions?) are no way to make public policy.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Gotta love it- j r actually seems to think that the road madness around us “just grew, like Topsey”, and was not the result of special interest groups pushing their spurious agendas.
That’s right- GM, Standard Oil, Caterpillar- they had nothing to do with our building an economy so car-dependent that a few months of $5 gas tips us into a major recession. And hey, what’s not to like about spending $500 billion a year to rule the world and keep the oil flowing?
But when a public employee union does something, OMG! it’s an affront to common decency that anyone who doesn’t own a corporation should have an opinion.
This is the ignorant and subservient side of the automobile driver I will be most happy to see riding off into the sunset. Enjoy it while it lasts, j r, ’cause it’s almost over.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
By the way, a genuinely libertarian-minded person who wasn’t just anti-transit for cultural-tribalism reasons might consider that you could accept that buses are the higher-value users of these lanes, but then advocate for opening up the relevant bus services to competing private operators.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
you guys are so used to fighting straw men, that you are incapable of dealing with real arguments. i self-identify as a libertarian and that’s about the only thing you’ve gotten right.
At least your actual intent is clear: you don’t like public transit.
i live in DC. i’m from new york city. i owned a car once for about eighteen months when i lived somewhere it was necessary. i don’t own a car now and i plan to live in urban areas for the foreseable future. my mom lives in an area of highways and strip malls where you need a car to go anywhere. i hate it there.
But by your own logic, you also will be sticking it to the UAW. Hmm, what is a union-buster to do in such a situation?
i am a federal employee working at the Department of Labor, so no, not exaclty a “union-buster.”
Gotta love it- j r actually seems to think that the road madness around us “just grew, like Topsey”, and was not the result of special interest groups pushing their spurious agendas.
that’s my point. ultimately, i don’t care whether there or more buses or more cars on the road. what i care about is how we get there. as long as those decisions are made by individuals, whether through working market mechanisms or through a valid democratic process, and not simply dictated by well-meaning planners who sit around and try to conjure up optimal policy in a vaccum. the other thing is that matt takes a rather important political economy consideration – the involvement of public sector workers – and treats it as a footnote.
this stuff registering with any of you guys or you just want to keep pretending that that i’m some car-crazed corporate lackey hired by GM and Exxon to through sour grapes at all you enlightened new urbanists?
October 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Matt wants to grow up to be the Robert Moses of stuff white people like.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Ummmm…This is completely f^%$ing clueless.
What is going on here is a labor action: The drivers feel that they are getting crapped on by management, and in response, they will work to rule.
It’s a work slowdown, dude.
Whether you approve of the action or not, and I’m inclined to support it on reflex, it’s not a safety action, it’s a labor action.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
ultimately, i don’t care whether there or more buses or more cars on the road. what i care about is how we get there. as long as those decisions are made by individuals, whether through working market mechanisms or through a valid democratic process, and not simply dictated by well-meaning planners who sit around and try to conjure up optimal policy in a vaccum.
That is all well and good, but a “valid democratic process” still requires there to be democratically-elected representatives making well-informed and thoughtful policy decisions and an electorate deciding whether their representatives are doing a good job of making policy decisions–unless you are proposing direct democracy, which then requires the citizens themselves to be well-informed and thoughtful on every issue.
In any case, what Matt is doing is participating in a public discussion of transit policy which plausibly furthers those ends. So what exactly are you complaining about?
or you just want to keep pretending that that i’m some car-crazed corporate lackey
It is not my fault that you made the rather silly ancillary-effect arguments that you did. But if you would like, in the future perhaps you can attach a disclaimer to such arguments that we are not supposed to take them seriously or judge you in any way for making such arguments.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Removing parking from 16th St. alone would do WONDERS for the utility of that street. I have no idea why a city as big and important as Washington, D.C. allows one of its major north-south thoroughfares to narrow into one lane over substantial sections, particularly at points north of U St. There’s nothing more frustrating — for either a car or bus — than to encounter a horrific traffic snarl all for the benefit of a single parked car.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:50 am
[...] drivers mount a safety-centric rebellion of sorts, declining to let express buses pass local buses (Yglesias, [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’m with NS and others – and I think 14th St might need a dedicated bus lane even more – the traffic snarls on that street from K all the way up to Monroe are insane.