Bus bunching on major routes calls for new approach from TransLink

Comments

By Michael Henricksen, Sarah Glover, Jason Shi, and Nick Zhu

With the announcement of further price increases across the board for transportation in Vancouver, it is time for the cash-strapped TransLink to improve its operating efficiency rather than throwing money at a problem that is suffering from a severe case of diminishing returns.

One issue that often irritates passengers in Vancouver is a phenomenon known academically as bus bunching. It describes a situation where one bus is delayed to the point where the next bus of the same route catches up to it. This results in the delayed bus picking up the bulk of the passengers at each stop, passengers who have been expecting to catch that bus at its earlier scheduled time, while the second bus behind it runs the rest of the route under-capacity with almost non-existent headway (distance to the bus in front).

There are many different ways to improve headway and TransLink’s current solution, slacking, attempts to achieve this by forcing bus drivers to stick to a strict schedule so that they leave and hopefully arrive on time. Because there are outside factors such as traffic conditions and varying passenger loads, bus companies will actually reduce service (slack) in their schedules. This means that buses running ahead of time wait at control points—usually on major intersections—until their scheduled departure time. Not only is this evidently not working, some studies have shown that this approach can actually be worse than having irregular headways between buses as it slows down the speed of how fast passengers move.

We prefer a more dynamic, common-sense approach. On high-frequency routes, such as the 99 B-Line and those that feed into Southwest Marine Drive on their way to UBC, we advocate for the abolishment of the bus schedule. Instead, buses should wait until the distance between buses has been shortened. Further, the driver of the delayed bus should advise boarding passengers that the next bus is near and to take that instead, allowing it to catch up to where it should be and also making peoples experience on the bus more comfortable since they are not packed with passengers. This may sound crazy but studies have shown that this approach to transit gets more people moving faster, despite seemingly having to wait more.

Passengers will need to be notified of this new approach and drivers will need to make fair judgments and work collectively, but with both the required communication and GPS equipment already available on buses and real-time scheduling available through the website and the SMS system (as well as electronic signs at some stops), TransLink is all but ready to be an innovator in transit.

Michael Henricksen, Sarah Glover, Jason Shi, and Nick Zhu are University of British Columbia students who are studying economics. They live in Vancouver.

Comments (11) Add New Comment
Wai Lin
This are excellent suggestions that would greatly improve the transit system.

Unfortunately any improvement of the system is obviously not within the mandate of Translink. The system is engineered by design to be slow, overcrowded, unreliable and generally crappy.

According to Elections BC, The New Car Dealers Association of BC generously contributed $822,314.00 to the BC Liberals between 2007/02/20 and 2010/02/05 alone.
We are looking at millions of dollars overall. That would explain for example, why the GRVD has by far, the most expensive fares in Canada with the ripoff 90 minute fare zone system.

Bad transit however, is the most wonderful incentive to sell cars. If you have a job, you have access to credit. You can buy a car and go deeper into debt.

Yet another reason not to vote for the BC Liberals...

http://lailayuile.com/100-reasons-the-bc-liberals-must-go/

Heck, interest rate are low so come on down to XYZ Auto Mall and the good folks there can put you into something that will depreciate 20% the first minute you drive off the lot and eighty percent after five years.
4
5
Rating: -1
Suek
Most naive economic students ever. Hope they don't go into planning, or worse, politics.
2
5
Rating: -3
Aashif Khan
"TransLink is all but ready to be an innovator in transit."

Looks like Translink is anything but ready to be an innovator in transit.

Here's what happen to transit in LA. Ever wondered why it sucks?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/551/did-general-motors-destroy-...
5
4
Rating: +1
lone voice of dissent...
Items you mentioned already happen to an extent. When I lived in North Van the last few years, the 240 would bunch up all the time in the morning and what happens is the bus behind overtakes the bus that stops to pick up passengers and they continue this appoarch as they make their way to the Lion's Gate. It doesn't matter because there are tons of people in the morning anyways. You're right, the schedule doesn't matter in peak times: there are tons of people wanting whatever bus is availble. And you're also right, I absolutely HATE the 240 waiting at Capilano Rd for 5 minutes during the afternoon rush. WHY???
5
6
Rating: -1
Morty
Suek: Care to justify your name-calling? Because that's all you've done. You've offered no constructive criticism of their proposal.
8
6
Rating: +2
edoherty
I think perhaps the authors want 'headway based operations', something that TransLink and the City of Vancouver got federal funding to study as part of the Main Street Showcase Project. Unfortunately the Olympics sucked up all the staff time that could have been used for this, and the initiative has seemingly been forgotten.
5
3
Rating: +2
Glenn Scott
A common problem through out public transport. This article could just as easily be about streetcars in Toronto.
5
2
Rating: +3
david24
Are they seriously suggesting that drivers of delayed buses tell the cold, wet people on the curb to wait for the next bus? Unless the next bus is in view expect a very unpleasant reaction. A week ago a driver pulled that stunt on about 10 of us. He stopped to let passengers off, but told us not to board and that there was another bus "right behind me". Not only was there no bus on his tail, there was no bus within 1km of his tail because we could see that far up the street. We ended up waiting another 6 minutes until the "right behind me" bus actually showed up.

The leapfrogging that sometimes happens, where a mostly empty bus passes the full one and absorbs the load, can't occur on trolley routes. In that case multiple routes can be delayed by one bus. I happen to like trolley buses, but they aren't as flexible as the diesel ones.

Regarding buses waiting at timing points I really don't mind. I'm going to get to my destination when I planned to get there so why worry? I'd rather spend an extra 3 minutes sitting on the bus than 3 minutes waiting in the rain.
6
4
Rating: +2
iSheep
While these and other common sense suggestions are helpful.

They do not address the many real major issues with Translink.

Like gross mismanagement and mismanagement of the budget.

For example overpaying for Buses, if you pay a competitive rate to buy Buses you can have more Buses & Drivers thus reducing the congestion significantly.

Translink by best estimate I can see from their Financial Statements pay about $540,000++ to about $1 Million per Bus (depending on the type).

A competitive bid process could easily reduce this cost by at least 50%.

Spending...

* $171++ Million on unnecessary Fare Gates with an R.O.I (Return On Investment) of 10+ Years is ridiculous.

Than right after that expenditure to claim that your out of money and need to raise Fares by 10% is a RIPOFF of the BC Public.

With Tolls + Highway per KM charges like California to "raise revenues" aka another user (everyone) Tax whether you use Transit or not on top of your...

+ Hydro Bill for Translink Revenues
+ Increased Fares
+ Tolls & per KM Charges

This simply is giving a blank check to Translink to waste even more money without much accountability.

We need to change the model & management of Translinkto see real results instead of band aid solutions.
4
1
Rating: +3
greensea
Part of the solution to Metro Vancouver's transit problem is to admit that public transit needs an ongoing subsidy, split between all four levels of government, to maintain a level of service sufficient to keep people from being crammed in like a school of sardines, or rushing the rear doors of a crowded bus because the driver can't/won't open the front doors to let passengers on - on a route with 15 minute service - where the last two buses have both broken down.

The same thing that happened in LA happened in Vancouver and all over North America. GM handed out free buses (once) and Firestone put free tires (once) on them for any city that ripped up the streetcar tracks and converted to diesel buses. It was supposedly the patriotic thing to do, putting the returning veterans of WW2 to work in the auto and tire factories, while providing a guaranteed long term income stream for the auto, tire, and oil companies.

0
8
Rating: -8
miguel
It's a factor of being tied to an overhead power source. Diesels can play leapfrog far more easily, but we don't want the exhaust.
Miguel
0
2
Rating: -2
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.