What’s up with Austin’s Capital Metro bus system??
Before diving into this paper, I’d like to share a short anecdote about my experience with a near perfect bus system:
I spent a year in Israel before between high school and college. During this time, I was part a program, but still had my own family and friends all over the country. Coming into it, I was nervous about how I would be able to get around all on my own. However, it turns out that in some places, the lack of a car has no impact on independence or ability to get from place to place. No matter where I was in the country, I was always walking distance from a bus stop that could take me to my destination. Even in the middle of the desert, if there’s a community living there, there’s buses to get you out. I can confidently say that I was able to get from any door to any other door anywhere in the country with ease and independence. Having no car in Israel was not a problem; but then I moved to Austin.
Now, Austin is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country. Over the last 5 years, population in the city limits has increased nearly 100,000 people, an almost 11% increase; not including the even greater growth in the larger region of the city (Henry, 2015). The question is, how well is Austin’s public bus system, Capital Metro, keeping up with this growth?
Unfortunately, while population is increasing; transit ridership is not.
We haven’t kept up in terms of providing transit services to people that are moving here.
-Jace Deloney, Chair of Urban Transportation Commission
Traffic in US cities is surpassing road designs maximum population carrying capacities. Alternative bus systems, like Capital Metro, are becoming inadequate in relation to the transportation boom and increasing demand for everyday travel (Jian & Parker & Racehorse & Sussman & Zhang, 2015). In fact, When residents of Austin were asked on Facebook last year to share their opinions on why fewer people were riding Capital Metro, these were among some of the responses
From the comments above, it’s clear that there are many issues. The buses are currently viewed as unreliable, lacking stops, inconvenient, unsafe, and inaccessible. There are a number of factors that go hand in hand with the failing bus system. Some of which include poor infrastructure, lack of bus routes, and bus coverage/ridership. However, there is a silver lining; there are actions that can be taken to promote a better, more successful public transit system in Austin.
Problem/Solution: Infrastructure & Bus Lanes
One of the biggest barriers hindering the success of Capital Metro is Austin’s preexisting infrastructure. The city simply wasn’t built to hold so many residents, and was definitely not built with a solid public transportation system in mind. Many residents are discouraged from riding the bus because it just sits in the same traffic as all the other cars. While there are a few areas with designated bus lanes, majority of the routes bus travel on don’t have any, and so the busses only become a part of the traffic problem.
One solution to consider is the strategy of bus lanes with intermittent priority (BLIP). These are special lanes that are made intermittently available to general traffic. BLIP force traffic out of lanes reserved for busses, so long as there are busses present. They do not require any special changes to street signs or signals; they work by keeping zones clear of non-bus traffic for a fixed distance in front and behind each bus. The main factors to consider for determining whether an intermittent system saves time are traffic saturation levels, bus frequency, improvement in bus travel time achieved by these special lanes, and the ratio of bus and car occupancy flows on the street (Daganzo & Eichler, 2005).
In one study, Lisbon, Portugal applied BLIP into certain blocks in the city, and compared the blocks with BLIP to blocks with no bus priority regarding traffic flow,density, and congestion. Results indicated an overall increase of up to 20% in average bus speed in the blocks applying BLIP. It was also found that there was lower traffic density with the BLIP strategy, but it that unavoidably slows car traffic and capacity. However, because of this the BLIP strategy promotes the use of public transportation because it partially sacrifices the interests of car users in favor of bus riders (Li & Qui & Xie &Zhang & Zhang, 2014).
There are also other solutions to consider: transit signal priority and Dedicated bus lanes.
Transit signal priority allows the green lights phase of traffic signals to extend only to buses, so they have priority at an intersection for a given time. The limitation is that it can cause a decrease in traffic efficiency due to the signals having to accommodate both existing traffic and then buses (Daganzo & Eichler, 2005).
Another popular option is to create dedicated bus lanes. There is currently a high demand for dedicated bus lanes by residents of Austin. They are most efficient for areas of low traffic flows, because they reduce the capacity for cars on the street (Glasshouse Policy, 2016). Residents of the city of Austin, however, have advocated for these bus lanes. The idea is that although it closes a lane of regular traffic, the bus lanes would be bypassing traffic and thus not only makes them faster and more appealing to commuters, but would be causing a reduction in cars on the road because they would theoretically switch to taking the bus.
The drawbacks to both of these are the reason why intermittent bus lanes could be attractive in certain areas in Austin. Due to Austin’s narrow streets and limited lanes per road, it is not always possible to take a lane away from commuters in order to dedicate it to the bus. In a city like Austin, intermittent bus lanes could provide a happy medium.
Problem/Solution: Bus Route & Route Changes
One problem that many Austinites have with Capital Metro is their decision regarding the 1/3 and 801/803 routes. In January 2014, Capital Metro launched the 801/803 metro rapid routes. However, in order to launch them, the two local routes that run along the same corridor (1/3) received major cuts. The 1 bus, even after cuts, is still the most popular route in the city, and also still has the highest ridership of any Capital Metro bus. However, its service was cut in half and now only comes in 30 minute frequencies (Glasshouse Policy, 2016). Many residents believe that those routes should never have been cut. Frequency isn’t the only problem with the change in routes.
The 801/803 busses cost 40% more than the regular local routes, and the stops are much more spread out from each other. Also, Capital Metro moved many of their bus stops off Congress Ave. downtown several blocks over to Lavaca and Guadalupe (Henry, 2015). Now, to get to the bus stops, riders must walk much further than they originally had to, and this also poses a barrier on the elderly and disabled.
“The fact is the 801 and 803 routes do not provide a sufficient increase in service to justify the longer walk for most people, so most people who aren’t directly next to an 801/803 stop actually got a service downgrade with the change. The actual short-term solution would be for Capital Metro to reinstate the original 1 and 3 scheduels and/or just put them in the frequent service network”
Mike Dahmus, District 9
A potential solution is to get funding to either add more buses to the fleet of the 1/3, or create more of a balance between the frequencies of the 1/3 and the 801/803. Many Austin residents prefer the 1/3 buses, and Capital Metro should listen. If the 1 is the bus with the post ridership, then that bus should not have been cut.
Problem/Solution: Coverage vs Ridership:
Traditionally, bus systems have two options: to focus on ridership goals or to focus on coverage goals. In a city with a fleet of a limited number of busses, a decision is typically made whether the bus system will be more focused on expanding the scope of coverage, or by concentrating the service in a denser area with more frequent stops. Both options have some benefits and drawbacks, but the idea is inherently flawed; either option will leave a large portion of the population unhappy, and will not have as high of ridership as a combined system. This combined system has been implemented in the city of Houston, Texas.
In 2015, there was a huge overhaul of Houston’s bus system. Its old frequent service network consisted of only 11 lines, served 25% of ridership base, and was only in service on the weekdays. The frequent service network did not provide any access to the uptown area, which is the city’s second-densest activity, or to the cities densest residential neighborhood, Gulfton. Houston created a new frequent service network passing through these points and others, that not only increased their service to 22 lines, but also runs seven days a week and serves 72% of the ridership base (Riley, 2017). In many cases, the bus systems must be reimagined in order to be successful.
A big problem with Austin’s bus system is the lack of coverage. It must be designed in a way that works optimally for commuters within the downtown area, and those that are traveling from neighboring suburbs into the central city. Much of Austin’s growth in happening in the periphery (Henry, 2015). Creating a hybrid system in Austin that is more frequent, and expands to further regions of the city provides a much greater opportunity for commuters. The option to commute by public transportation can act as a ‘release valve; that would limit roadway congestion (Buyukeren & Hiramatsu, 2016). Capital Metro would be much more utilized if they considered both expanding service coverage, and increasing service access.
With Austin’s steady growth and expansion, a successful and efficient public transportation system is necessary. Austin simply won’t be able to sustain the amount of cars coming into the city, and residents of Austin must take action.
References:
Boldy, D. & Broome, K. & Fleming, J. & Worrall, L. (2012). Evaluation of flexible route bus transport or older people. Transport Policy, 21, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.02.005
Buyukeren, A. C. & Hiramatsu, T. (2016). Anti-congestion policies in cities with public transportation. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(2), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu051
Daganzo, C. F. & Eichler, M. (2005). Bus lanes with intermittent priority: strategy formulae and an evaluation. Transportation Research Par B: Methodological, 40(9), 731–744. Doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2005.10.001
Glasshouse Policy. (2016). MobilityATX findings report. Austin, TX: MobilityATX
Henry, T. (Host). (2015, January 29). Austin’s growing fast, but why isn’t its public transit? [Radio broadcast episode]. Retrieved from: http://kut.org/post/austins-growing-fast-why- isnt-its-public-transit
Hentry, T. (Host). (2015 January 30). After ridership drops, where does Cap Metro go from here? [Radio broadcast episode]. Retrieved from: http://kut.org/post/after-ridership- drops-where-does-cap-metro-go-here
Jian, A. & Parker, T, & Racehorse, V. J. & Sussman, A. & Zhang, G. (2015). Bus rapid transit system deployment for high quality and cost-effective transit service: a comprehensive review and comparative analysis. IET Intelligent Transport System, 9[2], 175–183. Doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2013.0176
Li, W. & Qui, F. & Xie, Q. & Zhang, J. & Zhang, X. (2014). Exploring suitable traffic conditions for intermittent bus lanes. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 49, 309–325. Doi: 10.1002/atr.1265.
(N.D.). System reimagining website archived. RideMetro. Retrieved from: https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/Reimagining.aspx
Murray, A. T. (2003). A coverage model for improving public transit system accessibility and expanding access. Annals of Operations Research, 123[4], 143–156. https://doi- org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.1023/A:10261233294
Odonnel, A. (2016). Why are fewer people in Austin riding the bus? Readers have some ideas [Blog post]. The American Statesman. Retrieved from: http://austin.blog.statesman.com/2016/07/05/why-are-less-people-in-austin-riding-the-bus-readers-have-some-ideas/
Riley, C. (2017). Rethinking transportation [PowerPoint slides].
