Fundamentals of Successful Transit

A Slide Lecture Written by Greg Thompson, Jas Kooner, and Rudy Massman

Copyrighted 1976

The following is an historic document written in the early 1970s and which figured importantly in political contests to reshape transit service in San Diego region, the City of San Francisco, and the Portland, Oregon region. I discuss the origins of this document and its subsequent use in a paper, “The Multi-Destination Transit Movement in the Western U.S. and Canada, 1970-2000,” that I presented to the joint meeting of the Business History Conference and the European Business History Association in Le Creusot, France, 19 June 2004.

The following material was written in 1975 and 76.

FOREWARD

This lecture is the product of three people who have had academic and

professional experience in transportation planning and implementation. Through their research and work of the past several years, they have collected and organized a body of knowledge on what makes transit work. They have gradually come to the conclusion that management operating and planning technique is the more important variable for high ridership transit, not so much technology.

One of the authors, Greg Thompson, has been interested in this subject since 1969, when working as a transportation specialist for a community group in Berkeley. At that time, the prevailing notion that all transit routes must converge on the downtown seemed wrong. What appeared to be a mandatory requirement for well-used transit was a network of routes allowing people to travel conveniently to many destinations, of which the downtown was only one.

These theoretical ideas were greatly reinforced by work experience in Edmonton, Ottawa, and Berkeley, punctuated by frequent visits to Toronto. The Toronto visits led to conversations with Toronto Transit Commission planning managers and staff consultants, who offered insight into the underlying philosophy of providing service there. Dialogue continued throughout this period with other transit theoreticians in Edmonton and Vancouver. The result was the gradual formation of a body of theory on what makes transit work.

Jas Kooner added to this theory with observations on the relationship between local and regional rail transit services. These observations were made after rapid transit planning experience in Edmonton, first-hand visits to several European systems, and conversations with officials there. Rudy Massman had considerable experience in roadway planning and understood that travel patterns were so complex that no one part of a region (such as a downtown) could be the center of a transportation investment

program. After Greg and Jas came to work for him, he quickly grasped the importance of their transit development ideas in contrast to the prevailing thought that construction of regional rail transit lines to the downtown would be sufficient to divert considerable travel from automobiles. He then organized and clarified these ideas into a coherent form.

All three authors then reviewed the material and reworked it several times into the form presented here.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, pressure developed to turn again to mass transit.

Many state that use of mass transit will occur only with the invention of innovative new high-speed technology.

But, is the explanation of successful transit operation to be sought

in technology or in understanding of management techniques.

It is the thesis of this presentation that the answer is more in technique and less in technology.

Successful systems do something different. Their managers have learned certain fundamentals, which possibly should be obvious, but obviously are not.

What they do is being done with presently-known technology.

We will try to point out what we see being done where mass transit attracts high ridership.

We feel that the principles can be demonstrated independently from technology.

A11 slides are by Greg Thompson un1ess otherwise noted.

S1ide 1: Fundamenta1s of Successfull Transit.

In many North American metropolitan areas, transit carries a very small part of the total travel, often on1y 2, 3, or 4 percent. However, in a few cities, transit carries many more people than this—as many as 13 to 25 percent of the total trips.

We will visit several of these cities to determine why they succeed where others fail. What we will learn is that it is not new technologies or fancy hardware that set these operations apart, but the fact that they have transit systems designed so that many people can conveniently use them to get where they want to go; and where they want to go is not necessari1y downtown.

We will also look at several European examples, because they reinforce and add information.

S1ide 2 Toronto near City Hal1 Toronto, 6-30-73

Canada, has probably the most well-used transit system on a per capita basis of any North American metropolitan area, except perhaps the New York area. Authorities there have strived since the 1920's to create a "multi-destination” transit network.

Toronto illustrates both the effectiveness of grid route orientation in attracting patronage and the high-density corridors that develop as a consequence of it. In Toronto, rail rapid transit did not create high transit patronage but was put in as a consequence of the high patronage that the grid route orientation had already created. Thus, patronage was created by implementation of planning fundamentals, and technology was used to cope with it.

Toronto transit now carries between 20 and 25 percent of all travel, not just to the downtown, shown here, or not just during rush hours, but in the entire metropolitan area on a 24-hour basis. The metropolitan area is about 20 miles long, 10 miles deep, and

contains about 2.2 million people.

Slide 3 Streetcar on Queen Street in Downtown Auto Traffic 12-4-74

Toronto residents own automobiles and use transit too, because the service is useful to many of them. In Toronto in 1974, the auto ownership rate was about 358 cars per 1,000 popu1ation, which compares to the U.S. average of about 390 in 1970. High ridership cannot be blamed on low automobile ownership.

S1ide 4 Annette Tro11ey Bus on Dupont at Bathurst, 5-12-73

Toronto gets its high transit usage not with new technologies or fancy hardware, but with the usual tried and proven transit vehicles.

Most routes are operated with diesel buses. On routes where patronage is heavier, trolley buses are used, as shown here.

Slide 5 King Streetcar Line, Looking West in Downtown, 12-4-74

On routes where patronage is still heavier, streetcars are used. Some streetcar lines in Toronto carry up to 9,000 passengers per hour (on the Queen Line) in mixed traffic. Streetcars are retained in Toronto because they can accommodate this volume of patronage both more cheaply and faster than diesel buses, according to TTC officials. This is a fact learned the hard way when the Bay Streetcar Line was converted to diesel buses around 1966. Average speed on the line dropped from around 9 to 10 mph to between 6 and 7 mph.

S1ide 6 Rapid Transit Train in Davisvi11e Station, 6-30-73

On routes where patronage is still heavier, rapid transit trains are used. These routes carry between 20 and 40 thousand passengers per hour during peak periods at speeds ranging from 16 to 25 mi1es per hour. These are intra-city rapid transit trains not suburban rapid transit. The slow speeds result from close station spacing. Stations are about a quarter-mile apart in the downtown, and about a half-mi1e apart most other places.

Most recent extensions into the outer suburbs have stations a mile apart. Speeds in the suburbs are higher.

Slide 7 Rail Track Tunnel, North from Finch Station, 12-4-74

Rapid transit trains run over tracks separated from all other traffic. In some places, trains are on the surface, as in the previous slide, but mostly they are in tunnels, as shown here.

Slide 8 GO Transit Train Taken from Spadina Viaduct (looking east) 6-30-73

In addition, the Government of Ontario contracts with private and public bus and rail carriers to provide longer distance, higher speed commuter services. Here we see a GO Transit train leaving Toronto Union Station for Oakville, 20 or 30 miles to the west along the mainline of the Canadian National Railway.

GO Transit was started in the late 1960s when the opening of a Canadian National freight bypass line around Toronto freed up considerable track capacity on the east-west lakeshore mainline running through downtown.

At that time, all-day commuter train service started between Oakville and Pickering, a distance of about 40 miles, with downtown in the middle. Since then, rush-hour-only service has started on a line running to the northwest, and more is planned

to the northeast. In addition, bus services have been added.

GO Transit, evolving into a regional system, now carries about 30,000 passengers per day. In comparison, the local travel-oriented Toronto Transit Commission carries about 1,200,000 passengers per day.

Slide 9 TCC Route Map

The distinguishing feature about transit in Toronto is not what they use, but how they use it. This route map of the Toronto Transit Commission provides the key. Each of the lines on the map is a transit route, not a street. Note how all of the routes do not go downtown (located here), but just run north-south or east-west. This pattern is called a “grid" route structure, and Toronto is one of the few metropolitan areas that uses it so methodically.

The grid route structure offers many travel opportunities. It makes it possible for people to travel from most places in Metropolitan Toronto to most other places by a non-circuitous route, although they must transfer at least once (such as from here to here, transferring here). And, even though the routes are slow—average system speed, including rapid transit, is about 12 miles per hour—the directness of travel makes transit usage in Toronto more convenient for more travel than in most cities, where people can conveniently use transit just to go downtown.

A grid system would not work if the transfer time were so slow that the passenger had unreasonable waits at the transfer point. With waits over ten minutes, what appears to be a grid system deteriorates into a collection of lines developing low patronage.

A grid operation depends both on arrangement and on timing.

Toronto meets the requirements.

And what are the results in Toronto? As we said earlier, between 20 and 25 percent of all travel in Metropolitan Toronto uses transit. Of particular importance is the fact that about 70 percent of this transit travel goes everywhere but downtown. The

system has succeeded in serving many non-downtown oriented people. Its grid route structure runs where the public wants to go. This factor is undoubtedly important for the system's success.

However, the system does well for the downtown as well. Although most people going downtown have to transfer once, and many twice, transit succeeds in attracting 40 percent of all people going downtown in a 24 hour basis, and 83 percent during rush hours.

A not-obvious feature of a grid route structure (because it is oriented to dispersed travel) is its ability to create corridors of travel so dense that rail transit is required. This feature can be easily explained. You can note from the map that only a few routes go downtown. Everybody from the entire metropolitan area going downtown on transit must enter the downtown on one of those few routes, unlike most city systems, where downtown-bound passengers are dispersed over a large number of routes.

The consequence is that even if the downtown attracts a modest amount of travel, the volume of patronage can be immense on those few routes serving the downtown in a grid route structure. Those are the routes converted to rail, and this is how rapid transit came about in Toronto.

After World War II, patronage on the north-south Yonge Street streetcar route running through the downtown became so heavy, that 4.6 mi1es of it were converted to rapid transit. This line carried over 200,000 passengers dai1y from the time it opened

because of its strategic place in the grid route structure.

The next heaviest line was the east-west Bloor streetcar line, which is the first long continuous line north of the downtown. This was also converted to rapid transit in stages during the 1960s.

The remaining east-west lines intersecting the downtown also have unusually heavy patronage, and it is not surprising that these are the lines operated by streetcars in Toronto.

Thus, the grid route structure creates routes with very heavy patronage and is largely responsible for the mix of transit modes in Toronto.

The other important feature to remember about a grid route structure is that just about everybody using it has to transfer. It is very unlikely for a traveler to find his trip both beginning and ending on the same route. Therefore, tremendous emphasis must be p1aced on the task of making the transfer easy.

This means travelers cannot be expected to wait long for a connecting route. Now, there are just too many route intersections in a grid route structure to make it possible for schedulers to time transfer connections between any more than a few routes. Since timed transfer is not feasible, the only other alternative for making wait times short for connecting routes is to run routes frequent1y.

Route frequency of about every 10 minutes is about the limit for a convenient transfer. If headways are much longer than that, many choice riders will no longer tolerate the transfer situation, and patronage will dry up. A grid system can therefore be expensive to operate because of the number of vehicles that must be kept in motion to assure short waits.

In Toronto, most of the routes in suburban areas have longer headways than that, but the average system headway during mid-day is 14 minutes.

The secret to transit success in Toronto is that its grid route structure makes it possible for people to conveniently use transit to travel throughout the 200 square mile metropolitan area—not just to downtown like in most cities.

However, the frequent service required by the grid might make it too expensive for many cities to afford. For these cities, the “timed transfer” concept might be appropriate. The timed transfer concept allows reasonably convenient multi-destination transit travel with headways of 30 minutes.

Slide 10. Downtown Edmonton about 1971 by Jas Kooner

Here we see the downtown of Edmonton, a prairie Canadian city that has grown mostly since the end of World War II—hence, during the automobile era. Edmonton's population is now at about 450,000.

Edmonton illustrates the patronage consequences of the use of the timed transfer concept (first used in Edmonton in the early 1960s although it is just now beginning to be used to its full potential), some land use implications of this concept, the use of bus

lanes, and the possibilities of rail transit evolution as part of the network.

Transit in Edmonton now carries about 13 percent of all travel on a 24-hour basis. This travel is accommodated in buses and trolley buses only. Before 1962, transit usage was steadily declining, although the population of the city was rapidly rising. After 1962, when the timed transfer concept was first introduced, patronage first stabilized, then rose as fast as the population, and finally rose much faster beginning in the early 1970s after large segments of the system were converted.

From a low of 26.9 million passengers per year in 1963, when the city had a population of 305,000, patronage had increased to 38.4 million when the population was 429,000 in 1970, to over 50 million rides in 1975 when the population was 452,000.

Slide 11. Cars and Bus, 109 Street and 87 Avenue, Edmonton, 11-29-74

Patronage has gone high due to management techniques in spite of the fact that auto ownership rates have shot up over the last 20 years, rising from approximately 312 cars per thousand population in 1962, to 425 cars per thousand population in 1974.

Slide 12. Trolley Bus in Edmonton Traffic, 1-6-72

Like Toronto, Edmonton uses only well-known, time-tried transit technology. Buses and trolley buses comprise the transit system.

A short amount of rail transit is now under construction as well, and you will see that, as in Toronto, rail has evolved from the existing surface transit system.

Slide 13. Bus-Only Lane, 109 Street, Edmonton, 11-29-74

Edmonton experiments with ways to maximize the efficiency of its bus system. Here is a sign indicating the beginning of a bus lane through a congested area near the University of Alberta.

Slide 13-2 Bus-Only Lane Through Hospital Grounds, 11-28-74

An exclusive bus lane makes transit service possible in a residential area having a discontinuous street pattern.

In 1974, it was desired to extend trolley bus service through this area in order to reach a new timed transfer center under construction at Westmont Shopping Center. There was no through street, but if a street were extended across the grounds of a hospital, a through route for buses could have been established.

The problem with this potential solution for extending bus service through the area was that the residents did not want their street to become a through route for automobile traffic. The solution was to make the road across the hospital grounds a bus-only lane.

The narrow lane is shown here under construction. Service started in December 1974, and it has been successful. The route is well-patronized, and automobiles do not violate the lane.

S1ide 14 Edmonton Timed Transfer Map. From J. J. Bakker. Transit Trends in Edmonton

However, like Toronto, what distinguishes Edmonton most from other areas is not what it uses for transit, but how it uses it.

Edmonton has structured its bus system so that travelers can use it to travel from many parts of Edmonton to many other parts with a path that is not too circuitous.

It has accomp1ished this task with the use of the timed transfer route concept, primarily using routes with mid-day headways of 30 minutes.

In contrast to a grid route structure, a timed transfer route structure is designed with the objective of creating a manageable number of strategically-placed locations where several routes intersect and where it is possible to schedule, during off-peak times, connections between all transit vehicles going in both directions on those routes. (During peak periods, service is frequent enough on most routes not to require timed connections.)

By properly placing and interconnecting the timed transfer centers, the planner can achieve a high degree of mobility by transit. One route operating with 30-minute headways may pass through several timed transfer centers (three appears to be about the feasible limit), the routing and scheduling task is complicated, but Edmonton shows it can be done.

Most of the routes shown in the map are local bus routes operating every 30 minutes during the mid-day. However, many of the centers are connected to the downtown with local trolley bus routes running more frequent1y. In addition, limited stop express buses running every 30 minutes operate between many of the centers.

Like the grid system, the timed transfer system has an inherent passenger- concentrating characteristic.

In many cities, several routes wou1d operate to the downtown from sections of the city. In Edmonton, only one trunk line will tap the downtown-bound travel from several timed transfer centers. This trunk line becomes the route with enough ridership to be converted to rail.

In Edmonton, the proximity of a heavily-used trunk line to an available railroad right-of-way has led to the construction of rail transit (utilizing a subway into the downtown). It is planned to open in 1978 utilizing DuWag U2 1ight rail cars.

Over the years, this line may be incrementally extended to other parts of the city, replacing other main trunk bus routes.

Slide 15. Jasper P1ace Bus Center, 11-30-74

A typical timed transfer bus center consists of an off-street island platform, which can be circled by buses.

For 15 or 20 minutes, it will be deserted. Then, people will begin arriving, and suddenly buses will appear from all directions. There will be two or three minutes of transfer activity between buses, and then they will all depart.

The platform wil1 then be deserted until the next cycle begins. Here, we see the first timed transfer platform built in Edmonton. It is quite plain, but it has all of the essential features to make convenient transferring possib1e.

S1ide 16. Westmont Bus Center, 11-28-74

For a long time in Edmonton, timed transfer centers were located where convenient from a scheduling point of view. It was hoped by transit planners that the

high transit accessibility afforded by the centers would cause higher density development to grow up around them, thereby increasing transit usage with travel to and from that development.

This type of development did not occur, and the transit system general manager, Mr. D. L. MacDonald, concluded that the attractiveness of buses was not sufficient to sway the market forces determining the location of land use.

So, a new philosophy developed of locating the timed transfer centers where higher activity development already occurred, or where it was planned. Shopping centers became particularly attractive sites for these terminals, and the amount of local

transit riding greatly increased.

Here, we see a timed transfer center under construction between Westmont Shopping Center and High School in Edmonton in late 1974. Residents of this part of Edmonton can now use the bus for local travel as well as for longer-distance trips.

S1ide 17. Rai1 Transit Under Construction in Edmonton - 95 Street, 12-1-74

The first line of rail transit in Edmonton is now under construction. About 5 miles long, it will have a one-mile long subway in the downtown (with three stations), and the balance will be along a railroad right-of-way. Here we are looking toward the subway portal section.

S1ide 18. Rai1 Transit Construction at 118 Avenue, 12-1-74

At 118 Avenue, the rail line will intersect several bus routes at a timed transfer center and also serve a sports stadium. Here, we see preliminary construction at 118 Avenue as we look along the Canadian National Railway during a cold dusk in December.

Slide 19. Transit Plan for Vancouver, from Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Livable Region.

Beginning in 1973, Vancouver, British Columbia introduced several operating and planning fundamentals in order to raise ridership and increase the importance of transit. Vancouver has used the timed transfer concept in the great program of transit service expansion in the region. It has formally tied this concept into the regional and local land use planning procedure. In addition, it has introduced a regional, interconnected network of Fastbus routes, some to be converted to regional light rail at a later date. It has also implemented bus and pedestrian-only malls in high-density corridors where rail transit will later operate.

Historically, transit was confined to the older, built-up part of the region, but in 1973, the Province began to expand service into low-density suburban areas. Service expansions were according to the timed transfer principle. Many of the timed transfer centers upon which local buses focus are also intersecting points for regional semi-express bus (Fastbus) routes shown by the light brown lines on the map.

Many of these routes have been implemented, and those shown by the heavy brown lines are slated to be converted to light rail as patronage builds up and funds become available. The timed transfer bus stations on those lines would then become bus/rail transfer stations.

Slide 20. Artist's View of Vancouver. From Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Livab1e Region.

In Vancouver, the timed transfer transit planning is closely tied in to land use planning. Timed transfer centers are points of high transit accessibility, and they are located at existing or proposed town community or shopping centers. High trip attraction activities will be encouraged at these points, and parking and roadway capacity may be restricted to some extent. This artist's sketch indicates the relation of land use to transit centers.

Slide 21. Overview of Lougheed Mall Transit Center, 11-23-74

One of the new timed transfer centers is located at Lougheed Mall, a regional shopping center about 15 miles east of downtown Vancouver. Before 1973, there was no transit service here. The Province, wishing to make transit useful for local trips as well as for longer-distance trips, planned the major timed transfer center for this part of the new service area at Lougheed Mall.

Many people said this was a foolish idea because nobody would ride a bus to a shopping center. Look at all the parking! Furthermore, the shopping center owners did not want it because its installation would require the removal of a couple of hundred parking spaces.

So, the Province looked at lesser shopping centers in the area. However, they didn't want the bus center either.

The Province then condemned its way into Lougheed Mall on a trial basis. People flocked to the center on buses and retail sales rose by 30 percent. Although severe operating problems result from auto interference as buses try to enter the center through the parking lot, the patronage response has been successful and the terminal has remained (the lesser shopping center owners now claim discrimination). This center is one of those slated to become a light rail station.

S1ide 22. Crowded Platforms at Lougheed Mall, 11-23-74

This picture, taken at Lougheed Mall on a Saturday afternoon, shows many more people will use transit than just those going to work in the downtown. They just have to be provided with the right service. Remember, no transit service existed in this area a year and a half before this picture was taken in November 1974. Transit riding in this suburban area is now up to about 50 rides per capita, a higher rate than central city transit riding for many North American cities.

Slide 23. Empty Platforms at Lougheed Mall, 11-23-74

The buses all depart at once, and the platforms are deserted until the process repeats itself 30 minutes later.

Slide 24. Overview of Phibb's Exchange, 8-22-74. Photo by Chris Hoskins

Here is another timed transfer center in Vancouver. This one is not located at an important traffic generator. The buses are ready to depart. Note the semi-sawtooth platform design. This design allows buses on each route to stop at the same point along the platform all of the time. It can get into its allotted space without disturbing other buses. It can leave without having to back up (unlike for a full sawtooth design, such as found at many Greyhound stations). Note also the two temporary shelters (a permanent structure will be built when funds are available). One is for passengers. The closer one is a restroom for drivers and also houses a supervisor. Timed transfer center systems are difficult to operate, and to be really successful, require supervisors at the centers to ensure that the buses leave at the proper time and to decide what to do when delays occur.

Slide 25. Buses Leaving Phibb's Exchange, 8-22-74. Photo by Chris Hoskins

At timed transfer centers, the buses leave at the same time, or nearly so.

Slide 26. Granville Mall, 11-22-74

Vancouver also has an exclusive bus lane opened through the downtown in 1974. The main downtown street, Granville, was closed to automobile traffic and reconstructed to accommodate trolley buses and pedestrians. This is also the future route of a light rail line, which could either be in this surface mall or in a subway.

The use of trolley buses on this mall with their quiet operation and lack of fumes makes it possible to harmoniously operate high volume transit in such close proximity to pedestrians.

Slide 27. Granville Mall, with Inlet in Distance, 11-22-74.

The Granville Mall is approximately 10 blocks long. It ends at the inlet in the distance, where the existing railway station will be rebuilt into an intermodal terminal containing ferry boats, local buses, intercity buses, light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail.

Slide 28. Network Design Comparison.

This slide summarizes what we have been saying. Transit systems that successfully attract passengers make it possible for people to travel from “here to there” that is from many points of origin to many points of destination throughout the metropolitan area. Once into the system, the passenger can relatively easily and conveniently continue directly to his or her objective.

Both the grid and timed transfer concepts accomplish this multi-destination objective, and they have both demonstrated success in attracting passengers. The grid has high area coverage with criss-crossing routes offering frequent service. It relies on random transfers between routes. It also has high density corridors which may become rapid transit.

The timed transfer system has timed connections at off-street bus centers. These may be tied into land use planning, and some may be slated as future rail stations.

In contrast, most cities have systems that "grew" into "downtown radial” patterns. Most routes run downtown directly. Riders can conveniently use transit to get downtown, but they can't easily get to other places.

You can appreciate the limited passenger appeal of a downtown radial system by considering the distribution of travel in a typical metropolitan area. In most metropolitan areas, the downtown is doing well if 10 percent of regional trips go there.

Several transit routes competing for only 5 to 10 percent of the total trips are assured of low patronage. They probably will not have enough ridership per line to warrant conversion to rail transit. In areas with weak downtowns, the percentage might be less.

Downtown radial systems will, of course, pick up some additional travel consisting of people transferring from one route to another, but this potential is rather limited because of the circuitous routes involved.

In contrast to the grid or timed transfer systems, a downtown radial system cannot hope to attract a large percentage of metropolitan travel.

Slide 29. Transit Vehicle Comparisons.

The success of the grid and timed transfer systems is their ability to accommodate multi-destination travel throughout the metropolitan area. This is accomplished by route designs and operating strategies making convenient transfers possible.

The only way multi-destination travel can be efficiently achieved on transit is through transferring. It, therefore, follows that successful transit systems will have a large proportion of their riders transferring from route to route. Transfer volumes should be immense.

With large transfer volumes being the case, transit vehicles should be designed to load and unload passengers rapidly. But American vehicles are not designed to make transfer convenient.

Here we see a comparison of transit vehicles. Note the door widths. You can see that the standard American bus has narrow doors allowing only one flow of people into and out of the bus.

This situation is worse than it looks because the side door has seats intruding into its step-well, making it even narrower. Furthermore, passengers have to awkwardly push it open in order to get out. The result is that most older people, people with packages,

and many others as well will only get out the front door.

People cannot then get on the bus until everybody gets off. This bus is not suitable for handling large passenger volumes because it is too slow loading and unloading.

In contrast, note the standard German bus or the light rail car or any rapid transit train (not shown). There are many doors and each can handle two flows of people at once.

People use the rear doors to leave, and people can board at the front door while other people are getting off at the front door.

Service can be much improved if fare policies are implemented allowing passengers to board or leave the vehicle at any door. I will talk about fares shortly.

Slide 30. Boarding Toronto Bus, 12-5-74

Buses with single width doors cause delays in loading, even if both front and rear doors are used as at this scene in Toronto’s Warden Station.

Slide 31. Edmonton Bus with Double Rear Door, 11-29-74

Buses with double width rear doors are available in North America at a higher price. With these buses, passengers are more likely to use the rear door to leave.

Slide 32. Edmonton Bus with Double Rear Door, 12-4-74

Such buses are used extensively in Toronto where passengers are often loaded through rear doors as well as front doors at transit stations.

However, unless fare policies are changed, what is really needed in North America is a bus with a double width front door so passengers can board while others leave.

No manufacturer will build one because the strength of a North American bus is in its skin (like an airplane) and the large opening of a double width front door would make the bus structurally weak.

Slide 33. M.A.N. Bus in Berkeley. 9-10-74

However, the situation is different in Europe. Here is a German M.A.N. articulated bus on trial in Berkeley. Note the three wide doors, each over 4 feet wide. This type of bus functions well in heavy volume city transit service and should be used in multi-destination transit networks.

Slide 34. Unloading Two at a Time in Berkeley, 9-10-74 (slide unavailable)

Shows unloading passengers two at a time with the double width doors.

Slide 35. Volvo Bus in Berkeley, 9-13-74

Volvo also builds buses with double width doors, but this suburban design example with single width doors was tried in Berkeley. It ran on the same schedule as the other bus, but three days later. By the end of the day, it was an hour behind schedule whereas the other bus had stayed on time. Part of the delay was due to the doors.

However, Volvo urban buses with double width doors would undoubtedly have matched the performance of the M.A.N. city bus.

Slide 36. Bern Trolley Bus in Vancouver, 11-25-74

Here is an example of an articulated trolley bus from Bern on trial in Vancouver. The many wide doors make this vehicle ideal for heavy passenger volume lines. The front door is single width, but in Bern that doesn't matter because the fare policy allows passengers to board through any door.

Slide 37. Door of Bern Trolley Bus, 11-25-74

One of the doors on the Bern trolley bus has an offset stanchion so that passengers can pull baby buggies or grocery carts into the vehicle. If the passenger pushes the yellow button to the left of the door, the door stays open longer. Note that there are no seats opposite the door so that the person with the baby buggy or grocery cart can stand there.

Slide 38 Frankfurt U 2 Car. 9-8-68

Light rail and rapid transit cars are also designed to contain many wide doors so that passenger movement can occur conveniently and rapidly. Here is an example of a DuWag U2 car in Frankfurt with four double width doors on each side. This is the type of rail car being purchased by Edmonton.

Slide 39 Swiss Ticket Vending, Machine in July 1972. Photo by Rudy Massman.

Efficient vehicle design is closely tied to fare policies. In many German, Swiss and Dutch cities, a fare system cal1ed the "Honor Fare" system is used. It is similar to our parking meter system in that parkers are on their honor to place money in the parking meters. They can cheat, but if they are caught, they pay a fine.

With the honor fare system, passengers buy paste-board ticket blanks in vending machines at stops. These machines are like stamp machines, as shown here. The ticket buys passengers not a ride, but an hour's worth of travel time.

When the passenger boards a transit vehicle, he validates his paste-board blank in a small canceling machine resembling a time clock. The validator stamps the date and time on the ticket. The passenger may then ride the system for an hour, using as many routes, or even returning on the same route, as he wants.

If he doesn't have a ticket, if he hasn't validated it, or if it has expired and he is caught by roving inspectors, he must pay not a fine but an expensive ticket price on the spot. Lost revenue on European systems is reported to be less than 2% to3%.

The chief advantages of the honor fare system are that passengers may board quickly through any door making it advantageous for operators to run vehicles with many wide doors, and making special doors for baby buggies (as shown earlier) possible.

Furthermore, wherever high-level platforms could be built for light rail cars, handicapped people could use the system because they could enter the car from the side doors flush with the platform (the doors by the driver cannot be used in high-level platform loading).

Finally, second and third cars of light rail trains could operate without attendants. This reduces operating costs which are over 75% labor.

Traditionally, rapid loading and unloading through many wide doors has been possible only on rapid transit trains. On rapid transit lines, passengers buy their tickets in stations and then encounter no restrictions to their entry and departure of trains. They have unlimited access to numerous doors.

The honor fare system extends this very desirable feature to all routes in a system—not just those relatively few miles that are rapid transit.

Slide 39b Typical Honor Fare Tickets from Frankfurt. 1968

These are typical examples of the paste board tickets that buy an hour’s worth of time. The bottom example has not been cancelled.

The top example is a 5-hour (5-ride) ticket. It has five places to be cancelled, each giving the holder an hour’s worth of travel time. Two are on one side and three on the other. The three on the side facing the camera have been cancelled, as can be seen by the inked markings showing date and time of cancellation.

In both examples, the holder cancels the ticket by inserting it into a canceling machine with the arrowhead going in first.

S1ide 40 Honor Fare Canceling Machine on Light Rail Car in Amsterdam, 1975. Photo by Rick Thorpe

Here is a typical example of an honor fare validating machine found on European buses and light rail cars. One machine is located at every door. This example is on a light rail car in Amsterdam.

Slide 41. Ticket Vending Machine on Light Rail Car in Amsterdam 1975.

Photo by Rick Thorpe

In some cities having the honor fare system, passengers can also buy their ticket blanks on board the vehicle as in this Amsterdam example.

Slide 42 Bus/Streetcar Transfer, Long Branch (Toronto), 5-12-73

In multi-destination transit systems, the vehicles are not the only physical facilities suggesting special attention.

The transfer points themselves must be carefully designed. They do not have to be elaborate, but they have to allow the passenger easy access from the vehicle of one route to that of another. Passengers cannot be expected to cross major obstacles like multi-laned arterial roads in order to transfer or have great distances to walk, or have long waits and still utilize the system in large numbers.

We have already shown you examples of functional timed transfer centers. We will now show you examples of transfer stations in Toronto to emphasize the importance of this facet of transit planning.

The Toronto system is a grid system. If people did not transfer from route to route in large numbers, few would use the system. The physical design of transfer points and stop locations is therefore important.

A planning officer for the Toronto Transit Commission has said that the number one planning consideration for the TTC is design of transfer facilities and stop locations. They have three full-time people engaged in this facet of their operation alone.

This concern is not a result of the opening of the first rapid transit line in 1954. It dates from the 1920's.

Here is an example of an early transfer station, located at the western terminus of the longest streetcar line in Toronto.

Here, passengers transfer to north-south TTC buses, as well as to independent buses coming from beyond the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

Slide 43 Bus/Streetcar Transfer, Kingston Road Terminus, 12-5-74

Here is another early example where streetcars and buses loop through an alley a half block from a major road. Note that they loop in opposite directions, leaving a narrow passenger platform between them.

This concept is very simple and is used in many of the large subway/bus transfer stations.

Slide 44 Humber Loop, Toronto. 10-24-71

Another example, where two streetcar lines and a bus line all intersect in vacant land between a highway and a railroad. Again, the transit vehicles circulate in such a way to create a triangular platform, across which passengers can freely pass between all vehicles.

Slide 45 Bathurst Station. 10-24-71

The same principle is used for many of the subway stations, particularly those that are not at the termini of the subway lines. Here, streetcars circulate in one direction; buses in the other, with a common off-street platform between them. Leading from this platform are stairs to the subway platform below.

Slide 46 Dundas West Station, 3-10-73

Dundas West Station offers another example of this station type.

Slide 47 Main Street Station, 10-24-71

Main Street Station is still another. Buses wait along the other side of the building out of the picture to the left.

If these pictures seem repetitive, they are meant to be. They illustrate that proper transferring can be accommodated only if transfer stations are replicated many times throughout the metropolitan area. One or two transfer facilities will not suffice.

Slide 48 York Mills Station, 6-30-73

York Mills Station is a new station located on its own land at the intersection of two arterial roads in northern Toronto. The station building is completely surrounded by bus lanes.

Slide 49 York Mills Station, 6-30-73

Buses stop on every side of the station building. The grey bus is an express to the airport. However, intercity buses also call at some of these stations on their way to and from downtown, thus providing intercity bus travelers convenient transit access throughout Toronto.

Slide 50 York Mills Station Interior, 6-30-73

Inside the station, passengers can easily transfer from bus to bus, or from bus to subway, located down the stairs.

Slide 51 Finch Station Bus Area, 12-4-74

Finch Station, the current northern terminus of the subway and about 10 miles north of downtown Toronto, is a larger example of the same type of station. This bus area stretches a full block between two parallel streets.

Buses unload passengers at the right, swing around the station and stop at appropriate loading stalls on the left to receive passengers. Subway trains are below.

Slide 52 Finch Station Subway Platforms, 12-4-74

The rapid transit platforms at Finch Station are typical of those at most underground Toronto stations. Note the two types of rapid transit cars. The red cars are older and are 57 feet long. The TTC discovered that longer cars, providing greater capacity, did not cost any more to buy or to operate, so the newer silver cars are 72 feet long.

Slide 53 Eglinton Station Bus Mezzanine, 12-4-74

Transfer stations at the termini of the rapid transit lines are usually larger, because they accommodate more bus routes, and park and ride lots as well.

The original northern terminus of the subway was Eglinton Station, shown here. A large number of bus routes converged on this station, and a multi-stall bus area was provided to accommodate them.

Passengers approach the buses from the train platforms by walking underneath them, as shown here. They then find the stall for their route and walk up to their bus.

Slide 54 Warden Station from Outside, 10-23-71

Warden Station, the current eastern terminus of the rapid transit, follows the same concept, only here, the trains are elevated (in the box at the left), and passengers walk through a long mezzanine (long horizontal box across center of picture), before descending stairs to their particular bus route located in the ground level stalls in the center.

In addition, large park and ride lots serve this station. One is behind the photographer and out of the picture. It is connected to the station by a grade-separate walkway. Another is behind the bus stalls.

Finally, the wide stall nearest the train part of the station is a lane for passenger drop-off and pick-up from automobiles.

Slide 55 Warden Station Mezzanine, 12-5-74

This is how the interior of the mezzanine looks. Stairs to the bus stalls are on the right. Stairs from the bus stalls are on the left. In this way, arriving and departing passengers are kept from interfering with each other.

Slide 56 Shops in Warden Station Mezzanine, 12-5-74

Shops for the convenience of transferring passengers are also located in the mezzanine.

S1ide 57 Warden Station Kiss and Ride Lane, 10-23-71.

This slide shows the interior of the kiss and ride lane at Warden Station.

These transfer station examples are only a few of those existing in Toronto. They illustrate the importance that the TTC management places in accommodating the transferring passenger, which, when combined with the grid route structure, is the key

to the TTC's success of attracting a larger percentage of travelers than any other North American metropolitan wide transit system, except for perhaps that in New York.

S1ide 58 Munich Map of S-Bahn and U-Bahn Lines. Photo by Jas Kooner.

We now go to Europe to learn why it is important not to try accommodating short distance and long distance transit passengers on the same transit systems. Separate local and regional systems are used.

First, we will look at Munich. Notice that two types of rail transit services are shown on the map. The colored lines form what is called the U-Bahn (or Untergrundbahn) and are local rapid transit subway lines, such as those used in Toronto. These lines are designed to accommodate inner area trips, and to distribute trips from the other system. The characteristics of travel vary from inner to outer suburban areas. In the inner areas, trips are comparatively short with emphasis more on accessibility and distribution rather than high speeds.

The emphasis of this system is in connecting together many different origins and destinations throughout central Munich, with the lines covering a circular area of about a five mile radius from the center. They provide this ability by interconnecting with each other at several points and by intersecting a large number of surface light rail lines (not shown).

They also have close station spacing (about every half mile) so that destinations are easily reachable. The resulting average speed on the system is about 20 miles per hour because of the close station spacing.

In contrast, the black lines are designed to carry passengers comparatively long distances from outer suburban areas. The emphasis here is on fast average speeds rather than accessibility and distribution. Extensions of the U-Bahn into the outer suburbs would not have been suitable for this purpose for two reasons.

First, passengers riding such long distances would not tolerate traveling through many stops, and they would not ride the system. Second, if stops were eliminated to make the long distance passengers happy, the more numerous short distance passengers would not be able to use the system.

So, a second system with long station spacing for higher speed, but interconnected with the U-Bahn for distribution was called for. This system with station spacing of one to three miles out of the center city is called the S-Bahn or Schnellbahn, and has an average speed of about 35 miles per hour.

It uses self-powered electric railcar trains operating over tracks of the German Federal Railways (Deutsche Bundesbahn). Tracks coming into opposite sides of the central city were connected together with a subway through the downtown so the S-Bahn

trains operate from one side of the city to the other. They interconnect with the U-Bahn in the central downtown station and at several other points.

Slide 59 Marienplatz. Photo by Jas Kooner.

Here is the main downtown station for both the U-Bahn and S-Bahn. It is located at Marienplatz, a delightful plaza.

The U-Bahn trains (which may be thought of as Urban system) operate at one level underground, while the S-Bahn trains (which may be thought of as Suburban service) operate at another level. A common station permits convenient passenger transfer between the two systems.

Slide 60 Marienplatz U-Bahn Level. Photo by Jas Kooner.

This is the U-Bahn level at the Marienplatz station, showing typical U-Bahn rolling stock. Electrically powered with third rail power pick up, the trains are manually controlled.

The Germans knew they would have to have an operator in the front cab anyway, so they decided he should operate the train. At each stop where there is a high level platform, he steps out of the cab to watch the doors. When passengers have finished loading and unloading, he steps back inside, closes the doors and starts the train.

Slide 61 Marienplatz S-Bahn Level. Photo by Jas Kooner.

Electrically-powered trains with overhead wire power pick up operate in the S-Bahn level of the Marienplatz station. Upon leaving the subway a short distance later, they operate over regular federal German railroad tracks.

Slide 62 Suburban S-Bahn Station. Photo by Jas Kooner.

In suburban areas, the S-Bahn trains make use of the investment that already exists in railroad tracks designed to accommodate intercity passenger trains and freight trains.

The stations are also very simple, but functional, for the passengers' needs. Investment costs are thus much less than for the U-Bahn, which is entirely in its own subway. But this is reasonable because passenger demand for long distance urban trips is also less in magnitude and more peaked in distribution, and it could be accommodated by the existing railroad plant with minor modifications.

Slide 63 Munich Light Rail Train. Photo by Jas Kooner.

The map did not show light rail lines, but there is an extensive network in Munich which complements the U-Bahn to create a total local system providing multi-destination travel. In fact, the U-Bahn was created by replacing with subways the most heavily traveled light rail lines. This train is a typical Munich light rail train. Notice the emphasis on many wide doors and honor fare system.

Slide 64 Map of Paris Metro.

Paris also has two types of rail systems. One is designed to accommodate local travel with its main objective to provide for multi-destination travel. This system (colored lines) has a grid route pattern, although this is not immediately obvious from the map.

A traveler can get from most any point in Paris to most any other point by riding two lines with one transfer. Look at all the multi-colored stations which are transfer points! It is obvious from the map that convenient transferring is an important objective of the system.

Similar to the local system in Munich, Toronto, London, New York and most other cities with subways in the world, the Paris metro has average station spacing of a half mile, and average system speeds of about 20 miles per hour.

However, for longer distance travel to the suburbs, a separate higher speed system, “RER” is used. This system is shown by the black lines and interconnects with the Paris metro in order to distribute its passengers. Station spacing is one to three miles, and average speeds are 35 to 45 miles per hour. As in Munich, these lines will be connected across the center city with subways so that regional trains can operate from one side of the metropolitan area to the other. They also use existing tracks of the French National Railways.

S1ide 65 Paris Metro Train. Photo by Jas Kooner.

This is typical Paris metro rolling stock of the rubber-tire variety. The close station spacing and consequent low speeds make rubber tires possible, although its desirability is debatable. Some of the Paris metro lines have traditional steel wheels on steel rails.

Slide 66 Paris Regional Train. Photo by Jas Kooner.

The regional RER trains are electrically powered with overhead wire power pick up and are very attractive. Their higher speeds make steel wheels on steel rails mandatory.

Slide 67 London Map

London presents a similar picture. The colored lines are routes of London Transport, which, like Paris, has a dense network of local rapid transit lines with numerous transfer points so that passengers can easily travel from most parts of London

to most other parts. Accessibility rather than high average speed is the criterion.

Station spacing is about half a mile, and speeds are about 20 miles per hour. Trains are electrically powered with third rail power pick up and fourth rail power return. In most of the city, routes are in shallow subways or deep tubes, but in outer areas, these often run beside railway lines.

The higher speed commuter trains of British Rail accommodate longer distance trips with less frequent station stops. British Rail commuter trains are well connected with London Transport local rapid transit trains. Every red circle on the map is a point of interchange between the two systems.

In two instances, London Transport has extended local rapid transit lines 25 or so miles out into territory normally served by British Rail. It has found this to be a mistake. Except during rush hours, patronage is not heavy enough to justify the investment in a rail plant used exclusively by rail transit trains. More infrequent commuter trains mixed with intercity passenger and freight trains would be more appropriate for this type of service.

Fundamentals of Successful Transit (Summary)

We have shown several fundamental ideas about moving people that are almost independent from technology.

Routes go where the travel desires are—which is almost everywhere in the service area, not just downtown. By requiring passengers to transfer, they make direct travel possible.

Successful management techniques make it possible to transfer from route to route, quickly, easily, safely, while continuing to move to the desired trip end. Once a passenger has entered the system, delays are minimized.

All parts of a system must be designed together. No one route can be designed and implemented independently because so relatively few trips both begin and end on the same route. Anyone route must depend on transfers with others in order to allow most people to complete their trips. However, it is possible to re-do the system serving a city one section at a time.

Different routes in a system can be operated with different modes. Some could be bus; some trolley bus; some light rail; some rapid transit. The only requirement is that they all be designed to operate together.

Grid and timed transfer systems have travel concentration characteristics because they eliminate route competition. They may create some corridors with patronage so high that rail transit is required in them. In these cases, it is important to remember that rail transit did not cause the high patronage, but that the high patronage caused rail transit. (Host transit plans propose rail transit to create transit patronage where it did not exist before).

The design of transfer stations is very important. They should emphasize easy passenger movement from route to route.

Transfer stations can be integrated with land use. Stations at major trip attractors like shopping centers develop almost instant patronage.

Vehicles do not demand new innovative technology. On the shelf equipment has the speed and capacity to carry most of the volumes that an American city could anticipate. The equipment has been debugged.

Speed on high passenger volume routes partly depends on vehicles and fare systems designed for rapid mass loading and unloading of vehicles. Trains and buses with many wide doors are required for successful transit systems.

To make full use of those doors, management should implement the honor fare system or any other practical fare collection system which frees the driver from handling money or tickets. The honor fare system brings faster speed to all routes in the system—not just those relatively few miles of routes that are rapid transit.

Speed is also closely related to station spacing. The more frequent the stops, the slower the system speed.

Local and regional systems should be operated together. The regional systems accommodating long trips, should have wide stop spacing and high speeds. For distribution, they should tie into local systems having short station spacing and slow speeds; and many transfer possibilities.

These management and planning fundamentals, when applied together, result in transit systems very useful to much of the populace and having very high ridership. Nowhere in the world does there exist a transit system that has demonstrated success by

the use of new and innovative technology. However, many have demonstrated success by using old technologies in accordance with the fundamentals we have shown you here.