The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is planning to revolutionize its bus network next year. While transit systems are due for a revolution, the agency’s plan isn’t revolutionary enough.
Click image to go to a map comparing SEPTA’s current dense bus routes (left) with the proposed sparser bus network (right).
The problem with most bus systems is that they focus on downtowns to the exclusion of the rest of the region. Before the pandemic, half of all workers in downtown Philadelphia took transit to work, but only 8 percent of the region’s workers worked downtown. The bus system did such a poor job of serving the rest of the region that less than 6 percent of workers who didn’t work downtown commuted by transit.
Philadelphia’s proposed bus revolution fails to address this problem. Instead, it focuses on the idea that riders will respond to increased frequencies. Some routes that were running every 30 minutes are increased to every 15 minutes. Other routes that were running every 60 minutes are increased to every 30 minutes. To pay for the increased frequencies, many other routes are deleted. In short, the bus revolution trades frequency for network comprehensiveness.
This is a bad trade off. For every ten riders gained from the increased frequencies, SEPTA will lose several riders from the deleted routes. The result may be a small net gain in ridership, but people going to places other than downtown Philadelphia will still not be served by the system.
The Antiplanner’s proposals to revolutionize bus networks in Portland, St. Louis, Silicon Valley, and Calgary take a polycentric approach. This locates primary transit centers near freeway ramps that are close to major job and other economic centers. Non-stop buses would operate from each transit center to all other transit centers. Some secondary transit centers may have non-stop buses to only two or three other transit centers. Local buses would radiate away from each center. Without significantly increasing operating costs, this system would serve every major economic center as well as current bus systems serve downtowns.
I’m not familiar enough with the Philadelphia urban area to know what economic centers may house a significant share of the 92 percent of jobs that aren’t located downtown. Some of them may include Upper Merion (which had 53,000 jobs before the pandemic), Lower Merion (45,000 jobs), King of Prussia (41,000 jobs), Tredyffrin (37,000 jobs), Reading (33,000 jobs), Bensalem (32,000 jobs), Horsham (29,000 jobs), and Abington (23,000 jobs).
The intersections of major freeways usually are major economic centers. In Philadelphia’s case, I-76, I-95, I-276, I-295, I-476, and I-676 all intersect with each other at several points. SEPTA also provides some service to Camden, New Jersey, which is another economic center served by I-76, I-295, and I-676.
In any case, SEPTA should try to develop a plan that serves people who work in places throughout the region, and not just those who work downtown. This would be a truly revolutionary plan.
AP admits SEPTA’s plan will increase ridership, but he’s still against it because it emphasizes serving dense areas over his preferred coverage of highway intersections. Probably a reason why SEPTA hires competent experts like Jarrett Walker rather than anti-transit hacks that were fired by CATO.
https://wwww.septa.org/news/new-study-examines-choices-for-improving-septa-bus-service/
We should all expect more effective use of public dollars on public projects and when somebody points out a way to get more bang for the buck, the rest of us should pay attention. If we want to debate it, we should debate it with facts and equally well-reasoned opinions, rather than personal attacks. Cato sacrificed a little integrity when it fired O’Toole. janehavisham needs more fiber in her diet.
Where did we see this before?
Los ANgeles, where they gutted bus service at expense of light rail.
“Mini buses” are far more practical, because they’re based on automobile chassis and tech that’s easier to service. Engine technology with far greater circulation is easier and cheaper to maintain than engines built for large commercial vehicles. A cummins or caterpillar, detroit diesel engine is far more problematic than say a ford duratec engine which any mechanic can look at.
– Ford Transit
– Buses based on SuperDuty chassis
– Large capcity vans.
These vehicles are not as attractive or sexy as buses as modern looking buses, but they work. Because they’re small they are nimble, fit on city streets better, have better turning radius, better stopping distances.
“Not as sexy as buses” .. something you’ll only find on ti.org.
I said so before, decorate buses look like trains.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/2d/f6/f42df6547088d30a5f22f6366ffcff2d.jpg
I don’t really follow the logic behind your polycentric bus plans. Yes most employment is in suburban job centres, but these are relatively easily accessible by car. Even a great bus service to these places is never going to beat car for the vast majority of people wanting to access these places. (Acknowledging there may be exceptions to this in some places).
@duke the lost engine
AP’s polycentric bus plan reinforces low density and makes it easier to shut down the buses altogether in the future, which was AP’s plan all along.
Tough schit.
If transit does not want to adapt to changes in lifestyle and transportation patterns but continues to use taxmoney to perpetuate its status quo. Thanks for admitting that.
At its peak Fords Chariot van service carried 7000 people with fleet 100 vans thru both city if San Francisco and suburban job centers til SFMATA and government shut it down.
Meanwhile let’s do a check see on US public transportation, where ever growing sum of socitial resources dedicated to babysitting grown adults continues to grow.
https://x.com/MuhSociofactor/status/1791163794619613364?mx=2
AP tolerates racists for the same reason that he tolerates trolls like me; he’s too lazy or cheap to figure out how to implement comment moderation or banning.
From Alabama to Wyoming, IN 2018, USA Today published an Article “Best & Worst Things of Living in every US State”
When they got to Maine… the best thing about Maine, was it’s very low violent crime rate.
Worst thing, it was “Least Diverse”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/09/26/best-worst-thing-every-state/37857241/
Lazyreader you can say “shit” if you want to, just like you can be a racist. No one’s gonna stop you.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNgBKsFaoAAdEZZ?format=jpg&name=small
Someone published a zoning map and tweeted where it’s legal open 24 hour coffee shop/bookstore. Then remarked “Not everything good can make money. Very few good things, in fact, can show an infinitely increasing profit every quarter or year. In order to do that, you either make shitty products or you do shitty things to make em cheaper and sell em higher. And some things should be free.”
Thanks to urban population density and artificially inflated land prices…an Acre of land San Francisco costs 65 million dollars, meaning opening a 1,500 square foot coffee shop costs an entrepreneur 688,000 worth of land plus fees, licensing, utility and upkeeping California 20/hour minimum wage. But you want someone to run a business at a loss for your convenience?
Problem with transit isn’t that it doesn’t make money, it DOESN’T EARN A MONEY. Since it doesn’t earn money via its outputs they have no incentive to keep it clean, keep it safe, keep it nice, keep it efficient. Their incentive is to keep it up, keep it active, keep it funded. Like cable companies in 90s 2000s… who are ya gonna switch to? Rare exceptions of IBM, status quo businesses never change.
“Problem with transit isn’t that it doesn’t make money, it DOESN’T EARN A MONEY.”
Sort of like highways – they don’t earn a money either but we keep wasting tax dollars into maintaining them.
4 MILLION miles of roads in USA, 48,000 Interstate highway and we put down 5 TRILLION passenger miles on it. Hardly…wasted
“we put down 5 TRILLION passenger miles on it.”
And no one paid to use it, except for a few tollways. Complete freeloading by entitled drivers who expect everything for free.
“Complete freeloading by entitled drivers”
You are either ignorant or you are lying.
freeloading by entitled drivers”
If the benefits of Urban population density were so advantageous…New York wouldn’t need a 15 dollar surchage (ON DRIVERS) to pay to bailout the structurally and financially decrepit MTA’ Subway.
Urbanists: You auto users don’t pay your fair share for infrastructure you use……
Also Urbanists: PAY for ours.