More Space(s)

I have been following with great interest the responses on some of the local blogs that are responding to Metro's latest idea. This one involves spacing out the bus stops on certain routes so that the buses aren't forced to stop every block. This will, Metro officials tell the Examiner, speed up service and reduce congestion. It sounds like a good plan and it makes one wonder why it hasn't been proposed before.  Maybe it's because nobody is going to jump up and down about having the bus stop right outside their building taken away. These are the people who are going to complain. These are the ones who will get every person within two blocks who must use a wheelchair to show up at the public hearings which are required before Metro can do anything. For the large majority of bus riders the walk of an extra block or two or even three is not going to make that big of a difference in their daily commute. In fact, they might find that the walk actually makes them feel better and that they even get down the road faster than the bus which is fighting with all the cars.

From the car driver's perspective it might also be advantageous if the buses aren't stopping and starting as frequently. One of the biggest slowdowns on corridors like 16th Street and Connecticut Avenue is the buses that seem to always be blocking the right lane as they pick up passengers from yet another bus stop.

It seems to me that a reduced number of bus stops might also save Metro money in terms of maintaining those facilities or those areas depending on how elaborate they are. Someone has to empty the trash cans there and scrub the graffiti off the walls or the glass. If there aren't as many bus stops to maintain it seems logical that money might be saved.

Even still, I think the main argument is the efficiency and speed at which the buses could operate if they didn't have to stop every block. To Metro's credit, they have set up a system that super serves the public when it comes to bus service. They have done this in an effort to increase the ridership. The downside to this has been that it costs everyone in terms of time. Here's some math: if a Metro bus takes 90 seconds to stop and load/unload passengers every block for six blocks that equals 540 seconds. If that same bus stops for 120 seconds and picks up a larger number of passengers, but only two times in that same six-block segment, the time saved is 300 seconds or five minutes. Imagine saving five minutes for every six blocks of a city commute; that, combined with the health advantages of walking a couple extra blocks could make this concept a real winner.

Two things related to this topic: For those physically unable to walk the extra distance to a bus stop, there is always the option of the MetroAccess service that offers door-to-door pick-ups and deliveries.  Also, Metro officials say that the NextBus service should be back up within a year. This is the GPS tracking system that results in arrival times for buses heading to a particular bus stop. For some reason it's worked elsewhere but the D.C. has had troubles with it in terms of accuracy.

---

Steve Eldridge is a long-time reporter, observer and commentator on the Washington region's transportation issues. You can contact him directly by writing to: Steve@SprawlandCrawl.com. Unless otherwise requested, letters or portions of letters can be used within future columns. Letter writers will be identified by their first name and city/neighborhood.

Comments

[BeyondDC]

I could be wrong, but I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. Few if any local stops are *going away*, it's just that only some buses will stop at them.

Sort of like how MARC trains skip stops.

[David Alpert]

Where are these local blog discussions you speak of? I'd love to find more interesting commentary on this point - please include links in your posts!

[Kathi]

You say:
For those physically unable to walk the extra distance to a bus stop, there is always the option of the MetroAccess service that offers door-to-door pick-ups and deliveries.

Unfortunately, that's somewhat incomplete.

MetroAccess isn't a "same day" service. If the rider knows by 4:30 the day before that they need to travel the next day, and know the times they'll be travelling to book MetroAccess for, then yes it *might* be viable.

But that doesn't come comparably close to the flexibility (and reliability) of fixed-route transport.

It's easy to *say* MetroAccess is an "alternative", but given the current state of the service, it would be a dimunition of transit capability to a disabled rider who is currently able to use fixed-route options to have them removed - MetroAccess simply isn't currently capable of being considered a truly comparable alternative.

And, it might be that any savings produced by extending the spacing between stops would be lost through the additional cost of providing MetroAccess to affected riders.

Remember, any changes to fixed-route transportation options risks increasing the ridership numbers of MetroAccess.

MV Transit quoted for the contract based on certain ridership expectations, going above those expectations *will* result in arguments of "We didn't bid based on these numbers, we need to renegotiate".

Trying to cut down on the operating costs of Metro in the current climate (rising fuel costs, planned expansion, budgetary issues) is a good idea.

But it may be a mistake to blithely state MetroAccess can take up the slack in its current incarnation for people with disabilities who would be affected by this particular option.