Buses' mediocrity dilemma: why buses can't compete with cars

I spoke earlier of how important speed is in determining what mode of transport is dominant and how it will shape the developments that will grow in an area. But in determining the ability of a transit line to attract users, there are actually two main factors:

1. The average speed of the line (commercial speed)
2. The frequency of the line

If we suppose that people randomly need to go to certain places, meaning they do not choose the moment of their departure, the time to reach the destination is not only the time required while in the vehicle, but the time to get to the stop and spent waiting at it. That waiting time can be estimated at half the frequency of the line, so if there is one vehicle per 10 minutes on a line, the average waiting time should be 5 minutes. This would include the waiting time at home if the schedule of the line is known for the user.

The frequency of a transit line is primarily the result of the capacity per vehicle and the ridership of the line. The more riders a line has, the more it justifies putting an higher number of vehicles running on the route, increasing frequency.

For example, if a transit agency has a standard of offering one bus per 40 passengers in the hour on a line, then we can draw a graph illustrating how the frequency of the line will vary depending on the number of passengers on the line per hour. It would look like this:

Graph illustrating the relation between frequency and ridership

So considering that the waiting time is half the interval between vehicles, it looks like a virtuous circle. The more riders there are, the higher the frequency. The higher the frequency, the shorter the waiting time. The shorter the waiting time, the faster the trip will be. Great, right?

Unfortunately, that is not quite accurate, at least, not with regular local bus service (streetcars have the same issue most of the time).

The problem is that these lines are characterized by a great number of closely spaced stops, around 200-250 meters between each (1/8 of a mile). The stop spacing has a great influence on the speed of the vehicle while it is in movement. By supposing an acceleration and deceleration of 1 meter per second squared (a decent estimate to insure comfortable accelerations and decelerations for users) and a certain time stopped at each stop (including stops due to stop signs and traffic lights), we get the following curves representing the average speed of vehicles depending on how far they can go without stopping on average. Each curve represents a different maximum speed.

Average speed of a transit line versus the average distance between stops

For miles per hour, divide by 1,6.

OK, a bus can still get a decent speed despite a great number of bus stops if most of these are unused, as it doesn't need to stop at each bus stop, only at those where people get in or get out. That means that the less people per kilometer board or get off the bus, the faster the bus will go.

Oops. This is no longer a virtuous circle here! The higher the ridership, the slower the bus will go. If I model this dynamic, supposing a bus route on urban streets where normal vehicles go at an average of 23 km/h (15 mph), this is what I get.

Average speed of urban buses versus the number of boarding per km, supposing bus stop spacing of 200 meters

Now, this was in a rather urban area with a lot of stops and traffic lights will slow down all vehicles, but even then, with even just 3 boardings per km, the bus will move around 40% slower than cars. This is also true for suburban buses on roads with few stops and lights.

Average speed of suburban buses versus the number of boarding per km, supposing bus stop spacing of 200 meters

So that creates a big problem for local transit lines, a dilemma if you will:

1. If ridership is high, then the waiting time will be short, but it will take more time getting anywhere on the bus as it will be slower

2. If ridership is low, then the waiting time will be high, but once on the bus, the speed will be similar to that of cars taking the same route

So in either cases, this is an inescapable pit of mediocrity compared to cars' speed. Either frequent and slow or infrequent and fast, but never frequent and fast. That's why these local transit lines traveling next to cars can never really contest the domination of cars. And in urban settings, often biking will be faster than buses, so in a walkable, bikable dense city, buses are virtually useless for most people.

Note that the reality is even worse than that, as bus drivers are on a schedule, and the only way to maintain that schedule is to build in excess time so that buses can catch up to the schedule if there are more passengers than expected. What this means is that if there are less passengers than expected, bus drivers will slow down not to arrive too quickly to the next stop, since being late is one thing, but being too quick is more than just a little annoying to transit users who see the bus passing before them as they're walking to the stop.

What this underlines is the importance of rapid transit investment with grade separation so that transit can be at the same time high-capacity and high-speed, which is necessary to compete effectively with cars. To satisfy oneself with simple buses running on shared streets is to be satisfied with transit remaining a marginal mode of transport which will take 2 to 3 times more time to get anywhere, in the best case scenario.

Mitigating measure

This problem can be somewhat mitigated, but never eliminated, by eliminating bus stops and thus having a greater stop spacing. This way, you can cap the amount of time buses will have to stop to pick up or let off passengers even if ridership increases. As the buses stop less often, they can maintain their speed better.

Average speed of an urban bus line depending on boardings and stop spacing

This way, by eliminating half the stops, we can save a transit rider making a 8-kilometer trip 5 minutes in the bus. This can even reach 7 minutes if we eliminate 2 stops out of every 3. However, the gains of this method are insignificant for poorly used bus lines, like most suburban bus lines. Ironically, this means that stop spacing in urban neighborhoods, where more people are likely to use transit, should be greater than in suburbs where transit is only rarely used.

Greater stop spacing does mean that people will have to walk greater distances, but it's a trade that's worth it if the goal is to make transit a competitive way of getting around and to increase ridership rather than to perpetuate the conception of transit as a form of welfare program made exclusively for those too young, too poor, too old or too sick to drive.

As an added bonus, if buses are faster, as most of the cost of running them is in the form of wages, it means that their costs tend to be proportional to their time running rather than distance traveled. So if you speed up buses, that means that you can increase the frequency of lines for a negligible increase in costs as the buses finish their routes faster and thus can be sent back to do another route quicker. If you can afford 4 separate buses on a route and this route takes 40 minutes to run, then that means each bus can only do 1,5 time the route each hour, for a frequency of one bus every 10 minutes, 6 buses in an hour. But if you speed up the buses by 30%, then the route takes only 30 minutes to do, the same 4 buses can do the route twice every hour, for an interval of 7,5 minutes between buses, with 8 buses an hour from the point of view of riders. This increases frequency and capacity of the line, all for a minimal additional cost (mostly gas).

Biking in Japan: mamachari and bicycle parking

On my previous article, Jeffrey Jakucyk made some comments about Japan and Danish/Dutch approaches to biking in cities that have led me to write this follow-up on what biking in Japan looks like... as seen from a tourist's eyes. For residents and Japanese nationals 間違いしたら、教えてください。

First of all, he noted I didn't mention the sophisticated Dutch and Danish approach to providing complete cycle tracks in their cities, a glaring omission since they have the most complete and best system of segregated cycling facilities in the world. That is a correct criticism. To be honest, I mainly wanted to introduce the third path of bicycle integration, the one the Japanese seem to prefer. In most circles, the debate is between the vehicular cycling and segregated facilities sides. The idea of incorporating bicycles on sidewalks is very rarely considered or mentioned in urbanist debates, from what I have seen at least, and many others know and have described Dutch and Danish practices about cycling much better than I do and could.

So I admit omitting them when they deserve mention, but do not feel all that apt at talking at length about them.

Now, let me quote his latest comment:

I suspect that the walkability of Japan coupled with its crushingly overcrowded train systems actually hurts their bike mode share. Bikes don't lend themselves well to busy pedestrian-dominated streets, and if it's easy enough to walk then why bother? In many European countries they go to great lengths to provide bike parking and to allow room for bikes on trains. That's much more difficult in a place like Japan where there's so much less room. 

He mentioned bike parking facilities, which I've actually noted in my recent trip to Japan, so I'll describe my observations, but first, a bit about the bikes themselves.

The mamachari

Mamachari is the term used by the Japanese to describe utility bikes associated with mothers, but that we might extend to all common Japanese city bikes. Mamachari is a contraction of "mama" and "charinko", an informal name for bicycles, referring to the sound of the bell used to warn pedestrians you're coming up behind them (CHA-riiiin). The basic principle is that the bike is cheap, often made from steel or aluminum frames, with 1- to 7-speeds, and pretty crappy brakes, but which has a lot of built-in accessories and a comfortable riding position. A bike coming from a conception of the bike as an utility vehicle rather than merely a sport.

Here is what a regular Japanese city bike looks like, a model I've rented for 500 yen for a day in Sapporo. Click on pictures for bigger versions of them.

Note the step-through frame, made to facilitate getting on and off the bike, especially for women with dresses. These are often considered only good for women's bikes in North America, but men and women have them in Japan. I personally don't see why we insist on having high straight bars for men's bikes here, it seems stupid to me, it may be supposedly to offer a stronger frame, but doubt it makes much difference for city bikes. Note also the handles, built high and curved towards the rider to offer a comfortable straight position, the seat is padded and has springs to smooth out the ride. There is a rear rack behind and a stand.

Just a quick look at the stand, which is a common stand on Japanese bikes but one I haven't seen much in North America. Looks quite sturdy to me, but you need to pick up your bike to put it in place.

Another important point: a chain guard to prevent clothes from getting chain grease on them, which is essential to allow bikes to be easily used by people going to work in regular attire without worrying about getting hard to remove stains on their clothes, including their business suits. Because, yes, business men and men in formal work suits do ride bikes. In Japan, people would likely look at you bizarrely if you wore lycra on a mamachari, just like we tend to look bizarrely at people in suits riding bikes here. Note also the mud guard on the wheel, also on the front one, to limit mud and/or water being thrown on the rider.

A basket in front, a bell to warn pedestrians you're coming up behind and no speed selector. This particular bike had only one speed, though some similar bikes have a few speeds, like 3-, 5- and 7-speed transmissions. Rarely do they have more. These are intended to be left out in the rain, you don't want anything too complex that might give you a hard time, the simpler, the better. When you are riding on sidewalks, you can't go too fast anyway as you are around pedestrians, so that doesn't change things much.

This is one type of wheel lock that Japanese bikes use. This used some kind of a bolt that would lock into position to stop the wheel from turning if the key wasn't inserted into the lock. It doesn't prevent someone picking up a bike and going away with it, but it does prevent people from getting on the bike and riding away on it.

However, the most common type of wheel lock was a circular one bolted or soldered on the frame, like these ones:

This one is actually a battery-assisted bike, note the place for the battery

 

The Japanese rarely lock their bikes to anything, they use wheel locks exclusively most of the time. Supporting this is that:

1- Every bike in Japan MUST be registered with the police. Store owners will help you do it when you buy a new one, and you must fill in papers to transfer property of the bike on the registry if you sell your bike to someone else or if you buy an used bike.

2- These bikes are mostly viewed as disposable. They are sold at affordable prices and come fully-equipped, so they don't need to be modified and customized to be used.

If you can't read Japanese numerals, these are 155$, 155$, 155$, 155$, 190$ and 195$, from left to right

Divide by 100 to convert yen to dollars, the cheapest one here is 92,50$ (generally tax included in prices)

There are also foldable bikes, but have no pictures of them, and they are a minority of bikes. Battery-assisted bikes on the other hand are more and more frequent.

Bike parking in Japan

As mentioned in passing, the Japanese largely do not use racks to park their bikes. They park them with wheel locks only most of the time, on their stands. They generally leave them on sidewalks or on the side of the street.

Click for bigger pictures.

I've also seen over-under racks for bicycles around tall residential blocks:

That being said, the haphazardly parked bikes in Japan have become a bit of an annoyance, so there are attempts at providing spaces where bikes can be parked. Sometimes, it's just an area where it's indicated that bike parking is provided, but they have started providing certain bike parking facilities.

The first one is in front of a supermarket in Tokyo, there are secure, self-locking bike racks there, that are free for up to 2 hours, then costing 100 yen (1$) for every 2 hours above that. The second one is also in Tokyo, has surveillance cameras and costs 100 yen (1$) per 5 hours, I think.

I've also seen sometimes outright massive parking facilities around train stations... park-and-rides that even urbanists can love. Like this one in Sapporo, which also included a section for rental bikes:

I also snapped this one while on a train on the Tokaido line:

But this one in Chigasaki was the most amazing by far, it made my jaw drop when I saw it.

3 stories (4 including the ground floor) of bike parking, at 2 minutes walking distance from the station, with a security guard in a booth.

Okay, so these are just my quick observations. I personally like the Japanese city bikes a lot and wish I could get them here. Most cheap bikes in Canada are pre-assembled mountain bikes rather than utility bikes, which require add-ons like stands and racks that significantly increase the cost and are often assembled by semi-competent Canadian Tire staff. And most bikes in independent bike stores start at 300$, if you're lucky. I'd also be all for wheel locks and a mandatory registry system to deter crime and would like these secure self-locking racks.

Where should bikes go?

First of all, I've been on a trip to Japan for the past two weeks, expect even more observations on Japan than usual.

Now, let's talk about bikes. A beloved mode of transport for a lot of urbanists, as they constitute a much needed middle ground between pedestrians and cars. Like pedestrians, cyclists require no fuel other than muscle power, have no emissions and require very little infrastructure. They are however quite a bit faster, 2 to 4 times faster than a walk, depending on circumstances, making them sometimes nearly as fast as cars on certain city streets, and often faster than buses. They share some of the disadvantages of cars, but in more moderate forms, they do take quite a bit more space than pedestrians, especially in movement, and they need parking of some kind at their destination, just like cars.

Now, the average urban street in North America has two separate parts: the street, intended for motorized vehicles, and the sidewalk, intended for pedestrians. Where do cyclists fit in all this? There are three schools of thought I know of.

Vehicular cycling: the bike as a car

Vehicular cycling is basically exactly what it says on the box. It is about treating cyclists like another vehicle on the street, albeit a slow vehicle (like those tractors in rural areas) which are demanded to stick to the shoulder. So a cyclist's place is among the cars on the street, sharing the same surface. This is essentially what the laws say about cyclists, who are excluded from using sidewalks and told to stay on the street, at the extremity of the rightmost moving lane. Cyclists must be ready to impose their presence on cars, notably by moving to the center of moving lanes if needed for safety and by doing left turns in intersections.

Taking the lane: a cyclist approaches a zone with parked cars, note how he keeps to the right to let cars pass him

If the cyclist tries to leave enough space to the car to pass him, he will be squeezed between moving and parked cars, in the door zone, a dangerous place indeed

"Taking the lane" means moving to the center of the lane, not giving space to the car behind to pass, avoiding being squeezed out but forcing cars to slow down

The logic for this is that cyclists benefit from the same smooth pavement as cars and streets represent by far the greatest amount of the public right-of-way currently available. Vehicular cycling also maximizes speed, by acting like cars, cyclists end up benefiting from the smooth movements they are allowed on the street, for instance left turns instead of doing two street crossings.

Vehicular cycling may be safe for cyclists who are willing to stare down cars and who are able to maintain a fast speed, but it is well-known that many cyclists shirk away from it. Going in the path of a car to prevent it from passing you may be logical, but it assumes the driver will act responsibly, and if he doesn't, there is no denying the unique vulnerability of cyclists on the street, surrounded by moving tons of steel. Safety on streets also tend to depend on the speed differential between users, the greater it is, the more likely accidents will occur. So, to be safe, the ideal would be for cyclists and cars to go at the same speed, of course, this is ludicrous in most instances, but professional and sporting cyclists can achieve something close to it on urban streets.

So risk-adverse cyclists and cyclists who can't maintain high speeds tend to opt out of biking when vehicular cycling is the norm.

In terms of infrastructure, vehicular cycling requires little to none. All it requires is that lanes be made wide enough to allow cars to pass cyclists safely or to have shoulders, even on urban streets without parking. Since cars can be 2,1 meter wide (7 feet), assuming a safe passing margin of 1 meter (3 feet, more or less, which is regulatory in some places) and a cyclist's width of about 0,6 meter (2 feet), that means that the rightmost lane ought to be at least 3,7 meter wide (12 feet)... Which is a standard highway lane, exactly the kind of wide lanes we do not want in urban areas as they incite speeding, and that's assuming both cyclist and car are as far as possible from one another, with no margin between the lane's ends and the car and cyclist. If you consider trucks and buses, which can be 2,5 meter wide (a bit over 8 feet), you're up to 4,1 meters (nearly 14 feet). That's even worse.

You can provide a shoulder of 2 meters instead (a bit under 7 feet), but such shoulders do nothing to stop the problems of large lanes. They also incite cars to use them as parking, and once a car is parked in the shoulder, you have the same space problem as before, if not worse because then cyclists are cycling next to a steel wall.

So vehicular cycling actually requires wide lanes, which goes in contradiction to everything else we want in cities. They make crossing streets longer for pedestrians, incite speeding, reduce density, create large gaps between buildings, etc...

Bike segregation: creating a third part of the street

This is the approach most popular in urbanist circles in Europe and North America from what I see. The idea is that cyclists are not cars for obvious reasons: they are much more vulnerable and cannot go as fast as cars, so they need their own path separate from other users. This path should ideally be physically separated, but not necessarily, simple marking can suffice, especially on streets with less traffic.

Physically separated bike path in Montréal

Bike lanes in Montréal

By providing cyclists with space that is reserved to them, the goal is not only to allow them to travel around more safely by keeping cars away from them, but also to encourage more people to bike by providing a feeling of safety, a message that they belong there. All of this while maintaining a high speed. In fact, to provide high-speed, high-capacity bike links, segregated facilities are best.

The main issues with separated facilities is that they require quite a bit of space, especially if they are to be done well, and doing them well seems to be very hard to do. For example, take a look at this bike lane, from Montréal:

Do you see the problem? The bike lane encourages cyclists to travel pretty close to the parked cars, in or near the dooring zone. Ideally, there should be a buffer between the bike lane and the parked cars, to provide a buffer, either like this:

or like this:

Not only is this quite wide, but this doesn't eliminate all the problems. In the first case, cars that are parking will block the bike lane, in the second, bikes are only poorly visible from the street, which can cause problem at intersections.

So though separated facilities can be great, they can also create certain problems and require a lot of space to do well. If a street is wide enough to accommodate physically segregated bike lanes in a safe manner, that's good, otherwise, it's not always possible to get a great bike lane. This results in many cities, even pro-cycling ones like Vancouver and Montréal, to have big gaps in the bike lane network, with one kilometer and more between bike lanes and many commercial arterials lacking facilities as the streets are considered too narrow and/or the parking on them is judged as essential to the vitality of the street.

The pedestrian cyclist

The third approach is one that considers cyclists as pedestrians rather than as cars, telling them to ride on the sidewalk. This is quite rare in North America, but it is the rule, in practice if not under the law, in Japan.

Crosswalk including a section for bikes in Tokyo

Of course, the sidewalk as conceived in North America, made up of narrow segmented concrete blocks that are often not level with each other and with frequent curb cuts, is not appropriate at all for biking on. The cracks between the concrete blocks will provide quite a rough ride to any cyclist riding on them, the frequent ups and downs of curb cuts will challenge their ability to maintain a straight path and the narrowness of the sidewalk means there is little margin for error and it is quite impossible for two cyclists to pass each other safely.

Typical North American sidewalk, not somewhere you can comfortably bike

On the other hand, Japan has very different sidewalks. First, in most residential areas, there is just no sidewalk, every road user is equal. But on large arterial roads, there are sidewalks, and here is what they look like:

Sidewalk in Fujisawa, Tokyo suburb

Sidewalk in Ginza, Tokyo

Sidewalk in Shibuya/Harajuku

Sidewalk in Sapporo

Asphalt sidewalk in Sapporo

Another sidewalk in Sapporo

First, sidewalks in Japan eschew the whole concrete block thing, they go for two kinds: some sort of very level cobblestone and asphalt. Both of which offer a smooth riding surface to cyclists. Also, they don't depend too much on curb height to protect pedestrians from cars, they use trees, fences and the like, even in the absence of such features, the sidewalk is often almost the same level as the street. Sometimes, the curb is very narrow, with sidewalk and street being at the same level, separated by an elevated curb a few inches wide. This means that curb cut are much less disturbing to people walking or biking on the sidewalk.

Typical sidewalk in North America, narrow and with a curb cut and ramp affecting almost the entire sidewalk

One example of sidewalk in Japan, narrow elevated curb with a fence on it

Other type of sidewalk in Japan, curb less elevated, the curb ramp is much less felt

Another important thing to note: the sidewalks are much, much wider, 2,5 to 3 meters on average on arterials (8 to 10 feet). I think this may be due to the assumption that cyclists will use these, so the sidewalks have to be made much wider in order to allow two cyclists to pass each other.

(BTW, the yellow lines in the examples posted above are not separations between cyclists and pedestrians, but guide lines for the blind.)

Remember in the case of vehicular cycling that this justified making wider lanes for cars and/or adding shoulders on urban streets devoid of the need for them otherwise? This is the same thing, the presence of cyclists forces planners to arrange for wider sidewalks to be able to have cyclists passing pedestrians or other cyclists.

The result of this is not only that cyclists are protected from cars by benefiting from segregated paths, but as these paths are the sidewalks, it means the safe cycling network is extremely complete in Japan, as every street with sidewalks tend to allow bikes on sidewalks.

This isn't perfect though, there is some degree of friction between cyclists and pedestrians, but this results mainly in lower speeds for cyclists who bike at 10-15 km/h from what I've seen rather than 15-25 km/h in North America. The reason is that cyclists are just as vulnerable in a crash as pedestrians, if not more so, so they tend to be more careful. It seems to work well at inciting people to bike though:

In front of a suburban mall in Sapporo

A sarariman biking in a business suit, where is the lycra?!

After getting rid of my prejudice against biking on sidewalks, I must admit liking the simplicity of the Japanese system, in which cyclists add space to sidewalks rather than roads. This contributes to wide, comfortable sidewalks where curb ramps aren't felt much, if at all. It does mean that biking is slower and every sidewalk has less capacity than segregated bike paths or lanes, yet the high number of streets with sidewalks mean that high capacity isn't required, cyclists will distribute themselves amongst many possible routes and avoid congestion. However, this would require a complete redesign of sidewalks in North America to apply, biking on sidewalks as it is is not recommended at all.

If speed and high capacity are sought, segregated bike lanes are still unbeatable. However, vehicular cycling, though it may work well for individuals, should not be where we place our bets on how to develop cycling.