Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
10
TABLE 4
USES OF HC BUSES--PERCENTAGE OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY CATEGORY OF USE
Percentage of Respondents Citing a Specific Application
(for all, and for individual types of HC buses)*
Types of Service Where HC Buses Are Used All Articulated Double-Deck 45-ft
Trunk Service Routes--All Day 56% 83% 67% 7%
Trunk Service Routes--Only in Peak Service 24% 38% 7%
Bus Rapid Transit Routes 22% 29% 14%
Express/Long Distance Commuter Routes 56% 38% 67% 86%
Special Services (e.g., sports event specials) 27% 33% 21%
Other (e.g., special Saturday-only service, 10% 17%
supplemental services, emergency service
when the rail service goes down)
No. of Higher Capacity Bus Fleets 41 24 3 14
Source: Transit agency survey responses.
*Respondents could cite more than one application/use for HC buses; therefore, the totals do not add up to 100%.
Table reports the percentage of all respondents in each category that cited a given type of use. This provides a
relative weighting of each category of use, first for all HC buses as a whole, then broken down according to each
type of HC bus operated by respondents.
REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING needs." Another respondent commented "Reduced vehicles
HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES also reduces operator needs." A few respondents were more
focused on the savings in labor than the increase in seat ca-
Survey respondents were asked the primary reasons HC
pacity per se.
buses were used and the results are given in Table 5. The fol-
lowing three tables provide the specific responses by type of Although the survey wording referred to "increased seat
HC fleet: articulated buses (Table 6), double-deck fleets capacity," for some systems with high-demand routes in
(Table 7), and 45-ft fleets (Table 8). The most frequently downtown or campus areas, respondents mentioned that in-
cited reason for deploying HC buses (94%) was to increase creased "total" capacity was the driving motivation.
seating capacity, often to alleviate excessive standing on spe-
cific routes. This is particularly true for the articulated and Other specific operational objectives were also men-
double-deck fleets. Marketing image and passenger comfort tioned, including:
were cited more often as the primary reason for implementa-
tion of the 45-ft fleets. · Reducing downtown street congestion caused by large
numbers of buses, and
The distinctions reflected in some of the comments be- · Building ridership along a future rail corridor.
tween "increasing seat capacity," "increasing bus operator
productivity," and "reducing peak vehicle requirements" are With respect to this last point, one respondent provided
subtle and reflect more a distinction in emphasis than funda- the following comment:
mental differences in the reasons driving the deployment of
HC buses. For example, one respondent mentioned that the Both articulated and 45-ft intercity coaches have been a vital part
of our fleet. Their use will likely be reduced somewhat in the
goal was to "address overloads on the system's busiest route, next 10 years as selected major bus corridors are converted to
while not increasing peak vehicle requirement or operator light rail or commuter rail.
TABLE 5
PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING HIGHER CAPACITY BUSES
FOR ALL RESPONDENTS
Frequency of
"Most Important" Ranking* No. of Respondents Citing
Reasons for Implementing HC Buses (% of respondents who "Important" for Each Reason
provided ranking) (% of all survey respondents )
Provide Increased Seating Capacity 15 (60%) 30 (94%)
Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 2 (8%) 23 (72%)
Increase Bus Operator Productivity 2 (8%) 22 (69%)
Bus Rapid Transit Service 1 (4%) 9 (28%)
Marketing Image 0 19 (59%)
Passenger Comfort 3 (12%) 19 (59%)
Other (e.g., build ridership along future 2 (8%) 3 (9%)
rail corridor, reduce downtown bus
congestion, serve major employer
destination)
Source: Transit agency survey responses.
*Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings.
OCR for page 10
11
TABLE 6
SURVEY RESPONDENTS' PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING ARTICULATED BUSES
Frequency of No. of Respondents
Reasons for Implementing "Most Important" Ranking* Citing "Important"
Articulated Buses (% of respondents who provided (% of all respondents with
ranking) articulated buses)
Provide Increased Seating Capacity 13 (69%) 23 (96%)
Increase Bus Operator Productivity 2 (11%) 17 (71%)
Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 1 (5%) 18 (75%)
Bus Rapid Transit Service 1 (5%) 8 (33%)
Marketing Image 1 (5%) 13 (54%)
Passenger Comfort 1 (5%) 14 (58%)
Other 0 2 (8%)
Source: Transit agency survey responses.
*Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings.
TABLE 7
SURVEY RESPONDENTS' PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING HIGHER CAPACITY
DOUBLE-DECK BUSES
Frequency of No. of Respondents
Reasons for Implementing Double- "Most Important" Ranking* Citing "Important"
Deck Buses (% of respondents who provided (% of all respondents with
ranking) double-deck buses)
Provide Increased Seating Capacity 1 (50%) 3 (100%)
Increase Bus Operator Productivity 0 2 (67%)
Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 1 (50%) 2 (67%)
Bus Rapid Transit Service 0 1 (33%)
Marketing Image 0 2 (67%)
Passenger Comfort 0 1 (33%)
Other 0 0
Source: Transit agency survey responses.
*Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings.
TABLE 8
SURVEY RESPONDENTS' PRIMARY REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 45-FT BUSES
Frequency of No. of Respondents
"Most Important" Ranking* Citing "Important"
Reasons for Implementing 45-ft Buses (% of respondents who provided (% of all respondents with 45-ft
ranking) buses)
Provide Increased Seating Capacity 6 (55%) 12 (86%)
Increase Bus Operator Productivity 0 8 (57%)
Reduce Peak Vehicle Requirements 0 8 (57%)
Bus Rapid Transit Service 0 1 (7%)
Marketing Image 0 10 (71%)
Passenger Comfort 3 (27%) 9 (64%)
Other: 2 (18%) 2 (14%)
Source: Transit agency survey responses.
*Not all respondents provided rankings. Percentages are calculated based on responses that provided rankings.
