WMATA Gave Back all of the LFAs

[79MetroExtraMD]

Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense.  Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.

Getting extra artics for routes where funding increases is rare is a good idea. Though I wouldn't do this with secondhand artics, getting artics purpose-built for 5A/B30 service also is good as those routes often leave terminals crowded. In regards to the J2, that route is usually full between Bethesda and Silver Spring at all hours and if service isn't going to be boosted outside rush hour I think the current headways could easily support an artic. What I wonder is once the new garages start to be built if it'll increase the number of artics in the system.

I think a lot of the "replacing normal buses" debate comes from how you utilize such a switch. With some agencies replacing 40' high floor buses with 60' low-floor artics, the old fashioned "3 40' buses = 2 60' buses, let's cut service to fit" mantra seems to be going out of the window. I know Boston didn't slice service for artics and I don't think Baltimore is going to cut service on the 8 with the CTA rejects coming.

Actually, MTA did reduce the headways on the 8 and probably cut out a couple trips to pave way for the 48. Headways were every 10 but were scaled back to every 15 minutes. Also, the 12 artics coming in to Baltimore might not just go on the 8. Secondly, Boston moved their newest artics to be used on the 28 and the SL1. You still don't present any relevant proof that adding more artics makes a line any better.

[Scrabbleship]

Getting extra artics for a route like the R2 where funding isn't likely to come through to increase service on the route, if demand actually warrants such a move, might make sense.  Artics on the J2 aren't so necessary and are more likely to be used as a mechanism for cutting service.

Getting extra artics for routes where funding increases is rare is a good idea. Though I wouldn't do this with secondhand artics, getting artics purpose-built for 5A/B30 service also is good as those routes often leave terminals crowded. In regards to the J2, that route is usually full between Bethesda and Silver Spring at all hours and if service isn't going to be boosted outside rush hour I think the current headways could easily support an artic. What I wonder is once the new garages start to be built if it'll increase the number of artics in the system.

I think a lot of the "replacing normal buses" debate comes from how you utilize such a switch. With some agencies replacing 40' high floor buses with 60' low-floor artics, the old fashioned "3 40' buses = 2 60' buses, let's cut service to fit" mantra seems to be going out of the window. I know Boston didn't slice service for artics and I don't think Baltimore is going to cut service on the 8 with the CTA rejects coming.

Actually, MTA did reduce the headways on the 8 and probably cut out a couple trips to pave way for the 48. Headways were every 10 but were scaled back to every 15 minutes. Also, the 12 artics coming in to Baltimore might not just go on the 8. Secondly, Boston moved their newest artics to be used on the 28 and the SL1.

Unlike most other cities, Boston never reduced headways on the 49/SL4 and the 39 when artics came in and to date has not reduced them on the 28. In the first two cases, the net capacity gain wasn't that high (40' high floor replaced by a 60' low floor) so it made little slice to slice that much really.

You still don't present any relevant proof that adding more artics makes a line any better.

They add capacity in cases where it is needed and constraints may exist. Between funding and all, a lot of cases of the latter exist (PG and Airport routes) and the former has some routes that can use more capacity in their current setup (J's, 3's, 38B).

[79MetroExtraMD]

Another question, do you actually know the full reason why OC Transpo sold their 2004 artics? I found out why they did.

[Scrabbleship]

Another question, do you actually know the full reason why OC Transpo sold their 2004 artics? I found out why they did.

If New Flyer did the fixes to prevent any more fires and are confident to resell them to some agency, I have faith in those buses, even if they're around for only a few years.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

The Board just approved an increase in service on the J2 starting in December...

[Annex4421]

Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.

[Scrabbleship]

Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.

Three door artics add capacity and improve passenger flow. Besides, they could work in even the roughest areas of DC as they work in the rough areas of LA, Boston, and San Francisco to name three (though the last one, of course, had had fare evasion issues with the middle door).

Bladensburg's in a bit of an artic crisis with the whole H St NE being torn up deal and not wanting to run up mileage on the 60BRT's.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.

Artics are rarely used to actually increase service, but rather to operate the same amount of capacity with fewer buses, often resulting in longer waits for passengers and more delays.  Generally, this is how WMATA employs its artics, take a look at the Y routes in Montgomery County and the 70 in DC.  The 70 is a busier route than the Ss and 50s, but operates fewer trips because it is an articulated route. 

The two door models exacerbate these issues on account of having a longer vehicle but the same amount of space for ingress and egress.  If you want to see how artics can deteriorate service on a bus route, just take a look at the M79 in New York City.  Under the right conditions, it can be faster to WALK across Central Park than it is to take the bus.  I have yet to ride Jerusalem's new 4 door articulated bus but I am pretty sure the loss of seats for the 4th door is minimal.

[WayneNYC]

Ken why are so against WMATA getting more tics? If anything they should've gotten more tics we had this talk before about how Landover could use some tics and how the service increase isn't in mind anymore. As for the 3 door tic thing No wont happen WMATA isnt that bright of a TA but they're not stupid either why would you waste seats just to add another door? plus wouldn't that door cost extra? But Ken seriously nobody is saying "Lets get 500 tics and throw them everywhere" we're just saying give them to those bases that needs them in reality ALL bases need tics in a way but of course some can't fit them. But come on Bladensburg barely uses the tics even now that the BRTs on the X2...Only on weekdays what about Saturday? even Northern isn't using their tics on Saturdays either.

In theory, having more doors reduces dwell times.  IMO, If a decision-maker considers a third door to be a waste of seats... they need to be replaced.  While it's nice to have a seat... your fare does not guarantee a seat.  IMO, it's more important to have the added capacity of an artic (where needed) and ability that a thrid door offers over being able to seat more passengers.  That said, in regards to WMATA needing more artics... I totally agree.  Many of us has long thought that WMATA should've had about 80-100 active artics years ago.

[WMATAGMOAGH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those of us who have said WMATA should have had more artics active years ago also said that those artics should (generally) not be brought online in order to reduce service by running fewer, larger buses.

[WES]

I have only heard this when artics are involved that having longer times between buses when switching from a 40 footer to a 60 footer.  I have rarely heard routes that have switched from a 30 foot bus or 35 foot bus see their wait times increase, I don't see the difference in switching from a 40 footer to a 60 footer all it's gonna be is just increasing capacity while creating more space for potential passengers.  I understand that going from a 40 footer to an artic is a 10 seat + increase but still that shouldn't be any different than from switching from a 30-35 footer to a 40 footer.

[aznboy4305]

Artics are a two way tool; they can be used to maintain a route's current capacity while reducing operating cost. Or they can be used to increase capacity while maintaining current operating cost. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

[WayneNYC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those of us who have said WMATA should have had more artics active years ago also said that those artics should (generally) not be brought online in order to reduce service by running fewer, larger buses.

Oren,

Yes, you're correct in that we were all on the page.

[Tristan]

Artics are a two way tool; they can be used to maintain a route's current capacity while reducing operating cost. Or they can be used to increase capacity while maintaining current operating cost. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

THANK YOU!  This argument that an artic immediately, automatically, and by default means LESS SERVICE has got to go -- like WES said, agencies wouldn't reduce service by replacing 30-footers with 40-footers, such a move usually comes with a commensurate INCREASE in service because the demand is there.

The decision has been made at times in history to reduce service and deploy artics instead, but that is not their root purpose.

[mrpete]

The two for three argument of bus replacement (Artics for  standards) is not necessarily valid as what an artic really gives you is the  capacity that was lost with the advent of low floor buses. Some TA's have  deployed them to control labor costs by widening headways but most have done so  to add capacity with the same labor input. Regarding the third door, IMO the  trade off is losing two seats to improve passenger flow vs. the expense of the  third door. Rarely are operators able to pull the entire bus flush to the curb  thus leaving the door in the trailer far from the curb or right next to a parked vehicle and blocking egress forcing riders to walk to the front to exit. The middle door reduces that problem.

For you operations and scheduling pros, regarding what  routes "need" artics all day. That may be more perception than reality. It's  highly possible that certain blocks on some routes experience "Mumbai"-like  overcrowding at certain times on certain days outside the peaks. While it may  appear that routinely assigning artics to those blocks is the solution that may  not be the best use of that expensive resource (an artic). In some of those  instances, would it be more appropriate to plug in a tripper to lead or follow  that block through that segment of the route at those times, especially if that  block interlines with a more lightly travelled route?