Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 10


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 9
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.