Transport Azumah to inaugurate New Haven-Boston service with unboxed bikes

Last month I discussed strategic problems with New Haven transit advocates' campaign to convince Greyhound to run BoltBus service to New York, and the possibility that Transport Azumah might enter the market. I also described how the infrastructure built by the New York City and State governments favors private driving over bus service.

In the comments for the SeeClickFix issue regarding BoltBus service between New York and New Haven, some argued that service to Boston was a higher priority, since there is no Metro-North service and the Greyhound/Peter Pan consortium has a monopoly on bus service. Transport Azumah apparently concurs: Joel Azumah writes that he will be starting weekend service between Boston and New Haven beginning on Thanksgiving. A tentative schedule is posted on his website.

Many New Haven residents said that they wanted BoltBus because of specific features that they couldn't get on Greyhound, like dynamic online ticket pricing, leather seats, and onboard wifi and power outlets. The dynamic ticket pricing is in place. Azumah tells me that wifi and outlets won't be available right away, but he hopes to be able to offer them soon. No word on leather seats.

The other key feature that many potential riders wanted is a convenient bicycle policy. This is a big deal because it allows true multimodal travel. Amtrak requires all bicycles on Northeast Corridor trains to be partially disassembled, boxed and checked as baggage; Greyhound has a similar policy. Peter Pan allows bicycles "in an empty cargo bin," but if all the bins have at least one bag in them, the cyclist is SOL. In contrast, BoltBus says, "We do allow them and consider them to be oversize items as long as space is available in the baggage area."

TransportAzumah's policy will be similar to Bolt's. Azumah writes, "We will be able to take unboxed bicycles as long as they are tagged with the owner's name and contact phone." That is a huge improvement over the current options for travel in this area.

Here's wishing Azumah success in this venture. He's listened to what people want, and is trying to provide it at an affordable price. Let's hope that by this time next year he's able to provide daily service between these two cities.

Does anyone know of competing road projects along these possible routes that could draw riders away and sabotage Azumah's chances of success?

What downtowns are supposed to look like

This morning I woke up to Liane Hansen talking about small business survival in downtown Marquette, Michigan.



She observes that the success of these businesses is a surprising contrast to what you find in many other small towns around the country. "In so many cities where the commerce has moved out to the highway and the big box stores, it's rare to see a department store in business in a small town," she remarks about Getz's Department Store downtown.

Getz's marketing manager John Spigarelli attributes this to "a lot of loyalty," but I honestly have difficulty believing that there's something exceptional about the amount of loyalty that Yoopers show their local downtowns. I suspected that there was a more basic explanation.

It turns out that this loyalty is pretty fickle. Marquette has big box stores out by the highway: Google Maps shows that there's a Target, a Kohl's, a Wal-Mart Supercenter and a J.C. Penney's on Route 41 west of town, and even a Marquette Bypass, built in the 1960s, that allows people to drive around the downtown. In fact, one local observer tells us that there is a "trend" for Yoopers to drive three hours to Wisconsin for shopping.

But clearly, enough people are shopping in downtown Marquette to enable these businesses to thrive. For at least some of their errands, they don't drive right by the downtown stores on their way to the Target and Green Bay. Why not? My guess is that the bypass doesn't actually save them that much time: it starts just five blocks south of Getz's. So if you're driving from the south or east, or even the rural areas to the north, downtown is still closer than any of the big-box stores. If you're coming from the west, Getz's is only eight minutes further than Target. It's still more or less on the way.

Everything I've ever heard about the UP has involved driving, driving, driving and maybe a long-distance bike tour or two. I wouldn't be surprised if transit's mode share were minuscule here, but I think this story shows that it's possible to have walkable, small-business-friendly "transit-oriented development," even in an area where almost everyone drives. There are two criteria: streets that were built before widespread car ownership, and not a lot of bypasses.

There are many cities around the country that are concerned about their failed downtowns. Most of them have plenty of pedestrian-friendly streets, but some, like poor downtown Belvidere, Illinois with its triple bypass, would require a gargantuan political effort to be on the way to anywhere again.

Sabotaging the Tribororx

In my last post, I observed that the main reason transit projects tend to require hefty subsidies from the government is that they are competing with heavily-subsidized roads. Because of this, it is the right and duty of transit advocates not just to promote the construction and subsidy of transit lines that they feel are worthy, but to oppose subsidies to roads that parallel those transit lines and could poach riders from them. I asked my readers to think about their favorite, favorite transit projects:

Now think about the potential riders who are driving right now. What roads parallel that project? Are they being widened? Bridges replaced? New roads or bridges being built? Do the drivers pay anything to use those roads? Do they pay to park, at one end or both? Have the tolls or parking fees kept pace with inflation? Did they once pay, but no longer?

From time to time, I will dedicate a post to this theme. I will examine a transit project and look at subsidies to the competing roads. Some of them will be defunct transit lines put out of business by roads, others will be lines that are currently struggling with low ridership, and finally there will be lines proposed or under construction, whose successes are being undermined by subsidies to parallel roads.

In the comments to my post, Alon Levy said that his favorite, favorite projects were the Second Avenue Subway (currently moving very slowly), the Tribororx circumferential line (only in proposal), and a rail tunnel from Staten Island to Manhattan (only in proposal). The Second Avenue Subway and the Staten Island rail tunnel are special cases, because of the extreme density of Manhattan and the degree to which roads there are under-subsidized relative to their use. When the Second Avenue Subway is opened, and if the Staten Island tunnel is ever built, they will fill such a deep need that they will instantly have very high ridership, enough to run an operational profit. (As Alon pointed out, whether they will ever make enough to pay back the money borrowed to build them is another story).

The Tribororx line is quite a different story. You may remember that in 1996 the Regional Plan Association proposed linking the Bay Ridge Branch, New York Connecting Railroad, Hell Gate Bridge and Port Morris Branch to run commuter rail from Yankee Stadium to the Brooklyn Army Terminal, passing through several underserved neighborhoods and connecting with twenty other transit lines along the way. As I discussed last June, it might be easier to implement the Tribororx as a series of connecting extensions of existing subway and commuter rail lines.

Working for the RPA, in 2007 Michael Frumin modeled potential ridership on the line and estimated that it would draw 76,000 riders a day, including 32,000 new riders from "other modes of transportation." This calculation is based on the fact that many trips would require a smaller number of transfers, which is more attractive to travelers. Frumin hoped that this prediction would generate interest in the line, although sadly that does not seem to have occurred.

Unlike Alon's other two choices, the Tribororx route is paralleled by one major highway in particular: the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. It is also paralleled for part of its length by the Belt Parkway. Frumin assumes that these highways would continue to be just as unappealing as they are now - to everyone, including drivers. Taking the BQE from Brooklyn to Queens during rush hour is guaranteed frustration, especially on the Kosciuszko Bridge across the Newtown Creek. The Belt is also not a happy place to be.

As I've discussed in the past, the Shore Parkway is currently being reconstructed. We could save money by bringing the "parkway" back to true parkway standards, but that's on nobody's radar right now. The State DOT is also planning to reconstruct the BQE in Cobble Hill, at a cost of more millions of dollars. Finally, over the next few years the State DOT will spend $700 million to replace the Kosciuszko Bridge, expanding its capacity from six narrow lanes to nine wide ones and reducing the height of the bridge so that drivers can go faster.

So, if we're spending serious millions to make it easier for people to use the parallel roads, what do you think that will do to the ridership numbers for the Tribororx line(s)?

A transit advocate's right and duty

Recently I've been writing about the competitive relationship between transit ridership and private car use, and particularly how increases in highway capacity probably led to decreases in transit ridership, and vice versa.

This has some pretty big implications for transit advocates. I've already made the point that we can help our undersubsidized transit systems by lobbying for decreased capacity or increased fees on parallel roads. The other big one is that increased capacity or decreased user fees on roads draws ridership away from parallel transit lines. When ridership declines, revenues decline, and the line will require increased subsidies or be forced to cut service.

Because of this, it is the right and duty of every transit advocate to do what they can to prevent subsidies from going to roads that parallel their transit lines. What good does it do to get a train service started, if the parallel highway widening will make that train service useless by comparison? Why fight to keep fares low, if other people get tolls removed?

Here's a challenge to all transit advocates out there: think about your favorite, favorite project. How much do you love that project and want it to succeed at all costs? How hard are you fighting to save that service? To keep the fares affordable for those who really need it?

Now think about the potential riders who are driving right now. What roads parallel that project? Are they being widened? Bridges replaced? New roads or bridges being built? Do the drivers pay anything to use those roads? Do they pay to park, at one end or both? Have the tolls or parking fees kept pace with inflation? Did they once pay, but no longer?

Now, are you sure you're doing everything you can to help that project succeed? If this doesn't apply to your favorite, favorite project, I bet you can think of one where it does. I hope you'll blog about it.

Faster, more reliable buses to Connecticut and beyond

In the comments to the original Design New Haven post about wanting better bus service, some folks mentioned that the New York-Hartford Megabus run was unreliable and took a long time. This was also mentioned by several commenters on the corresponding SeeClickFix issue, and there seems to be a consensus that buses from New York to Connecticut and points beyond (a) take longer than they should and (b) can sometimes take a lot longer. Everyone knows why: they get stuck in traffic on New York City streets.

As I've written before, the enduring profitability of the west-of-Hudson routes is due in large part to the Lincoln Tunnel Exclusive Bus Lane, which has been making bus commuting competitive with cars since 1970. Although the Port Authority has dragged their heels on the long-overdue expansion of the XBL, which has been at capacity since the late 1980s, they have continued to operate the lane.

Another factor is the huge number of general-purpose lanes feeding into the tunnel approach, which allow the buses to move relatively smoothly even where they don't have a dedicated facility.

If you go to the Port Authority and get on a bus to Montclair or Newburgh, your bus will go right out of the terminal and into the tunnel, with at most two blocks of street shared with private cars. By the time you're on the Turnpike or Route 3, traffic is usually flowing pretty smoothly for everyone. Relatively little of the route is on the general-purpose streets with frequent bus stops that put buses at such a disadvantage.

Now if you get on a bus to Hartford or Providence, your bus might go right out of the terminal and onto Tenth Avenue. There's no bus lane on Tenth Avenue, so you're mixed right in with the cars and trucks, and if traffic is bad, you're stuck in it too. If a light turns red, you sit there, and if someone blocks the box, you could be sitting there for a long time. So it goes up Tenth Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue. At some point the bus crosses to the East Side and gets on the Bruckner Expressway. There are no traffic lights on the Bruckner or the New England Thruway, but sometimes car traffic can get congested. The Bruckner has no bus lane, not even an HOV lane, which means that any bus is going to be slower than a corresponding car trip. Getting back is similar, except you're going down Ninth instead of up Tenth.

Because of this, some bus operators will actually use the XBL even for trips to Connecticut. That's right, they will go west, through New Jersey, up the New Jersey Turnpike and across the George Washington Bridge to the Major Deegan Expressway, and from there to the relatively less-congested Interstate 287 to 684 to 84. According to Google Maps, that adds about fifteen miles to the trip, but you know they've figured out that it's a more reliable - and often faster - route.

So why do we care if the buses are slow and unreliable? There's train service; shouldn't we put our government dollars into making that better? Well, maybe not; the old New Haven mainline is pretty much at capacity right now, and it's clearly not serving all the people who currently drive on these highways. Many people want a one-seat ride to a place that's not on the train, like Stockbridge or Northampton. Others want a level of comfort that they can't get on Metro-North, but maybe aren't willing to pay Acela rates. Some, as has been said before, want wifi, power outlets and a place to stow their bicycles.

We want to decrease the demand for building and rebuilding the highways of New England. We want to decrease the pollution and carnage along I-95 and US 1. We want these drivers to shift to the bus, and to do that the bus has to be at least as fast and reliable as the car.

That's why buses heading to the north and east need their own XBL, where they can be free from intersections and car traffic until they get to less congested highways. Ideally, this would be highway all the way. Why don't these buses take the LIE to the Whitestone Bridge? Well, thinking back to the few times I've attempted to drive the LIE at any time near rush hour, it was a lot slower than the Turnpike. The short morning rush HOV lane doesn't seem to be enough. If we had a bi-directional, 24/7 dedicated busway from the Midtown Tunnel to the Van Wyck Expressway, you know those buses would be flying out to Connecticut.

The LIE is a touchy subject with some people, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were difficult to get that bus lane approved. A less ambitious plan would put bus lanes on Ninth and Tenth Avenues (and Amsterdam and Columbus), similar to the ones on Fifth and Madison for the East Side. Don't West Siders - and Riverdale residents - deserve as much?

New Haven bike-n-wifi bus update

Following the comments on SeeClickFix is a little difficult because of all the repetitive "Another person wants this fixed!" auto-comments. But in among those on the New Haven BoltBus issue (discussed here previously) are a few interesting news items. User Mark points to a Yale Daily News squib that reports that TransportAzumah CEO Joel Azumah has taken interest in the market. "Azumah said he is currently drafting a tentative schedule for the service to show the New Haven community, adding that if feedback is good, the line should run in time for Thanksgiving break."

Some readers will remember TransportAzumah as one of the more entrepreneurial bus operators in the New York area. It was Azumah who stepped in when Coachusa dropped the 144 route from Staten Island to Jersey City in 2007. He was rewarded for this by seeing the MTA run competing service; watch this video for Azumah's take on the events, plus a jaw-dropping quote from now-Congressman McMahon.

If the New Haven riders are looking for Boltbus comforts on the cheap, they probably won't get leather seats from Azumah. On the Staten Island run, customers complained that the buses were old and not very well-maintained - particularly regarding the bathroom plumbing. Azumah also has a relatively small fleet and contracts out with other operators for any additional buses he needs; consequently he has less control over the amenities on the ride. But it's clear that if he had had more than six months before he had to compete against subsidized service, he would probably have been able to take care of some of those issues.

Azumah is young, techno-savvy, and a regular contributor to various online transit forums around the New York area (like BusChat). I'm sure he understands the value - and potential draw - of onboard wifi. I'm guessing by his name that he has probably also been to Ghana and seen how for-profit transit operators act in a true free market. He has released a detailed proposal for express bus service from Long Island, and I think he may also be the author of this one for restoring competition to NYC buses. He might be able to set up the Boltbus-style dynamic ticketing scheme that the New Haven residents like so much. His entry into the New Haven discussion - and his potential entry into the market - could really bring a lot.

Does the transition movement have the answer?

I'm not sure where I first heard about the transition movement, but it must have been before last May. I find it intriguing because it seems to be catching on fairly fast. The Transition Towns Wiki lists 204 towns that have some "official" participation in the movement. It started in England, but is now gaining popularity here in the US. There's a "mullers' map" listing groups that are considering drawing up some kind of transition plan. Here in the greater New York area, there's an informal organization.

On an Amtrak train this summer, my family and I happened to be sitting next to a young man who had a book sticking out of his bag, the Transition Handbook. I asked him about it, and he let me flip through it. What particularly struck me was a chart adapted from one by Bryn Davidson. Go look at it now. Seriously; I'll wait.

What Davidson's chart says is that there are a bunch of responses to peak oil that essentially defend the status quo or trust to "technology" to save us. There are a bunch of similar responses to global warming. But if you take peak oil and global warming together, every one of those status-quo or technocentric solutions is a no-go. We can't combat peak oil with dirty fuels, because that would release megatons of CO₂, and we can't combat climate change with energy-intensive projects because we don't have the energy. In the Transition Handbook, Rob Hopkins gives persuasive arguments against the other "solutions" like nuclear, solar, biofuels and wind, and makes a pretty good case that in the not-too-distant future we'll have to make do with much less energy.

A pretty scary thought, right? But the transition movement is much more positive than you might think, and that's intentional. Hopkins spends a fair amount of time arguing that the gloom-and-doom put forth by environmental advocates has alienated more than it has inspired. He says that the meetings for transition towns have attracted large numbers of enthusiastic people who put hours and hours into projects. There's even a chirpy fashion article about it (offline, but still in the Google Cache, and here's an excerpt.

I was intrigued, and a few days later I bought a copy of the book. It (and the movement) hasn't quite lived up to my expectations. But I think there are a number of insights and ideas that we can borrow from it. I'll get into all that soon.