Texas A&M University Has Been Providing On-Campus Bus Service Since 1984. Transportation

Improvements for the Texas A&M On-Campus Bus System

Prepared by: Geoffrey Chum Texas A&M University

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Mark Burris Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University

Prepared for: Pat Hernandez Transportation Services Texas A&M University

May 6, 2004

1 Introduction

Texas A&M University has been providing on-campus bus service since 1984. Transportation Services, the part of the university which operates the transit system, has added new buses over the past three years. However, the existing on-campus bus routes have changed little since 2001. Many buses are completely full during peak periods. Most on-campus buses also have problems adhering to the schedule because of narrow, congested corridors and trains which pass through campus.

Over the past semester, I have investigated potential options to improve the overall level of service. The goals of my project were as follows:

 increase frequency of service  equalize headway  improve passenger load level of service (LOS)

I pursued my evaluation of on-campus bus routes by suggesting adjustments of current routes or introducing new routes with the appropriate number of buses, within the limits of Transportation Services’ bus fleet and budget.

I studied the six bus routes in depth. The number of buses (during regular weekday operation), headway, and ridership (from February 2, 2004) for each route is shown below.

Table 1 On-campus bus routes Route # of Buses Headway Daily Ridership 01 (Bonfire) 4 7 min 2413 02 (Replant) 2 15 min 683 03 (Yell Practice) 5 6 min 3690 05 (Bush School) 4 7 min 3249 06 (12th Man) 2 10 min 1356 07 (Wehner Express) 2 6 min 3646

In 1998, researchers at TTI produced the report Planning Enhancements for the Texas A&M University Transit Service (1). That publication used student movements between classes to estimate ridership. In this study, actual ridership counts (both from field observations and daily counts by bus drivers) for all passengers—students, faculty, and staff alike—were used. Also, the bus routes and existing campus infrastructure were different six years ago. The continuing changes on the Texas A&M campus necessitates the reevaluation of the bus system every year or even every semester to provide the most efficient service for passengers. This report is just a part of this ongoing evaluation.

2 Method of Field Research

1. Obtain passenger counts.

Transportation Services provided boarding counts for the Spring 2004 semester. All data is based on the counts from Monday, February 2, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

2. Process data.

I divided the campus into 12 zones. Each zone consisted of adjacent bus stops which were geographically related and close enough that passengers would be unlikely to board and alight within the same zone. The 12 zones, from west to east and north to south, and the bus stops contained within are shown below (and on a map in Appendix C).

Table 2 Campus zones and bus stops 1 Bush 2 Agronomy Rd. 3 Wehner (Weh) 4 Kleberg (Kle) - TTI (both directions) (Agro) - Wehner - Kleberg (both) - PA 111 (both) - PA 71 (both) - Med School (PA 72) - UPD - Transit (both) - Centeq/HP - Physical Plant - PA 43 5 Reed 6 Rec Center (Rec) 7 Olsen (Ols) 8 Fish Pond (FP) - Reed Arena (both) - Rec Center (both) - Olsen (both) - Fish Pond - Penberthy - WCPG (both) - Water Tower - Tom Chandler 9 MSC 10 Hagler (Hag) 11 Ross St. 12 Southside (SS) - MSC - Hagler Center (both) - Ross @ Ireland - Commons (both) - Rudder - Ross @ Spence - SSPG (both) - G. Rollie White - Langford - Duncan (both) - UCPG - WERC - Koldus

After establishing the 12 zones, I determined the bus routes that served each zonal pair, the number of stops between the origin zone and destination zone, and the headway of each route. Only direct routes were included—those routes which connect the origin and destination over half the bus route or less (typically six or fewer intermediate stops). This information is in an origin-destination (O-D) matrix (see Appendix C).

Using the passenger counts from the six on-campus bus routes (01, 02, 03, 05, 06, and 07), I calculated the number of passengers boarding in 15-minute increments. Times were based on the leave time from the primary stop. Adding totals from two consecutive 15-minute increments, I derived 30-minute counts for each route and for the total on-campus system. Passenger counts for the six routes and the overall on-campus system are shown in Appendix D.

3 I chose to examine the second highest 30-minute period, between 12:15 and 12:44 PM, rather than the highest period (see Figure 1 below).

30 Min Totals

1600 1400 1200 s r

e 1000 g

n 800 e s

s 600 a P 400 200 0 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 Time

Figure 1 Thirty minute totals for all on-campus buses

If the peak 30-minute period is used to allocate buses based on a passenger load LOS C, it would not be cost effective for Transportation Services because many buses would run at LOS A, where the bus would be almost empty for the majority of the day. However, if a 30-minute period with lower passenger counts is used, then there would be less contingency for unexpected high passenger counts, such as on a rainy day.

3. Determine origin-destination ridership.

Although Transportation Services has boarding counts, they do not have any data for alightings or origin-destination pairs. Between March 22 and April 13, I rode the six on-campus buses for a total of approximately eighteen hours. For each route, an origin zone was chosen and the number of passengers boarding the bus from that zone counted. Along the route, I counted the number of passengers that alighted at each of the following destination zones. The Hagler zone was not included because the low ridership counts would be difficult to observe on a short-term basis.

For each origin zone, I divided the boarding count by the destination zones’ alighting counts. I subsequently applied these percentages to the boarding counts from the 2nd peak period, 12:15- 12:44, to estimate origin-destination counts for each bus route. For example, on route 07, I counted 28 passengers boarding at MSC. One (4%) alighted at Fish Pond, and the other 27 (96%) alighted at Wehner. During the 2nd peak period, 210 passengers boarded at MSC. Therefore, I estimate that 8 people (4%) went to Fish Pond and the 203 people (96%) went to Wehner (numbers are rounded to the nearest integer).

An origin-destination chart for the whole on-campus system bus combines the counts from the six routes. These charts are included in Appendix E.

4 Evaluation of Current Bus System

Passenger load LOS is a way to measure how crowded the bus feels. The ratio of passengers per seat is graded on a scale of A-F. Table 3, below, is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (4).

Table 3 Passenger Load LOS LOS Passengers/Seat Passengers on 35-Seat Bus A 0.00-0.50 0-18 B 0.51-0.75 18-26 C 0.76-1.00 27-35 D 1.01-1.25 35-44 E 1.26-1.50 44-53 F >1.50 >53

To determine LOS between zones at the second peak period, I divided the number of passengers by the number of buses traveling directly between the zones (Appendix C) and the number of seats per bus. Because the number of buses needed on a route is determined by the link with the most passengers, the LOS for the links with the highest passenger counts were evaluated and shown below in Table 4.

Table 4 Highest Passenger Load LOS Origin - Buses/30 Destination Passengers Routes Min Pass/seat* LOS Individual Links MSC - Weh 219 # 06, 07 8 0.78 C Weh - MSC 205 # 06, 07 8 0.73 C FP - Weh 137 # 06, 07** 8 0.49 A Weh - FP 86 # 01, 06, 07 12.3 0.20 A Ross - Weh 56 # 03 5 0.32 A Ross - Reed 51 # 03 5 0.29 A Bush - MSC 43 # 05 4.3 0.29 A Weh - Ross 41 # 01 4.3 0.27 A MSC - Olsen 41 # 01 4.3 0.27 A MSC - Bush 40 # 05 4.3 0.27 A MSC - Kleberg 40 # 05 4.3 0.27 A Combined Links MSC & FP - Weh 356 # 06, 07** 8 1.27 E Weh - MSC & FP 291 # 01, 06, 07 12.3 0.68 B *Assume 36 seats per bus **Does not include # 02 due to low ridership during 2nd peak 30 min

5 The links from MSC to Wehner and Wehner to MSC were the only two with over 200 passengers and passenger load LOS C. The next two links with the most passengers were Fish Pond to Wehner and Wehner to Fish Pond, and these two links were at LOS A. The rest of the individual links were at LOS A.

The top four individual links were between MSC, Fish Pond, and Wehner. These three zones are connected by routes 06 and 07. Passengers traveling from MSC to Wehner must pass through Fish Pond first, and passengers traveling from Wehner to Fish Pond must stop at MSC first (except those traveling on route 01). Therefore, MSC and FP should be evaluated together. As a combined link, MSC and Fish Pond to Wehner reaches LOS E, and Wehner to MSC & Fish Pond reaches LOS B.

However, the passenger load LOS averaged over a 30 minute period is not the same as the LOS for an individual bus from the same period. For example, the second peak period is 12:15-12:44, and the class break is 12:20-12:40. That means a bus at 12:23, just after class ends, most likely has more passengers than a bus at 12:43, just after the next class begins. The LOS of the 12:23 bus may be E or F, while the LOS of the 12:43 bus may be just A or B. Therefore, LOS E for the MSC and Fish Pond to Wehner link does not necessarily mean that all buses are at LOS E or better.

Another factor to consider is that these LOS grades for passengers/seat are based on passengers without backpacks. Since almost all the passengers on the Texas A&M buses are students and have backpacks, the passengers/seat value increases because a person takes up more area. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual states that, “A passenger wearing a daypack takes up about twice as much space as a passenger without one” (2). This only applies to the passengers who are standing. Therefore, the adjusted passengers/seat value for the MSC and Fish Pond to Wehner link would be 1.54 (LOS F) rather than 1.27. The suggested maximum loading standard for a bus with a 6-9 minute headway during the peak 20-30 minutes is 1.40 (3), so the passenger loads between MSC, Fish Pond, and Wehner are too large.

Another interesting observation is that the 11 links with the highest passenger loads all cross the railroad tracks (either at grade or below grade), shown below. This is probably due to the fact that pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles must cross at one of the four intersections at George Bush, Joe Routt/John Kimbrough, Old Main, and University. Therefore, the shortest distance between a building on west campus and a building on main campus is probably not a straight line, and it would be faster in most cases to wait for a bus and ride across the tracks than to walk a circuitous route. Also, distances between two buildings on opposite sides of the tracks are usually longer than those between two buildings on the same side.

6 Weh Ross

MSC Bush

Ols Railroad

Figure 2 Layout of top eleven passenger load links

The existing on-campus bus system adequately serves most passengers if they allow themselves enough time. Passengers can get from almost any origin to almost any destination without having to transfer buses. Routes 01 and 02 serve 9 of the 12 zones (all except Bush, Agronomy, and Reed). Bus 03 serves 8 zones (all except Bush, Agronomy, Hagler, and Southside). The other 3 buses serve special destinations from MSC and Fish Pond. Bus 05 serves Bush, Reed, and Kleberg from MSC and Fish Pond. Bus 06 serves Agronomy and Wehner from MSC and Fish Pond. Bus 07 makes a loop connecting MSC, Fish Pond, and Wehner.

Proposed Adjustments

Improving LOS and Frequency

Eliminate route 06 and reallocate buses to routes 07 and 14. Transportation Services established route 07 in 2002 and route 14 in 2003. However, both routes 06 and 14 serve Agronomy Road, which has a very low ridership. Also, routes 06 and 07 both go from Wehner to MSC to Fish Pond and back to Wehner. Almost 60% of route 06’s ridership originates from Wehner and goes to either MSC or Fish Pond. Passengers will board a 06 bus at Wehner if a 07 bus is not at the bus stop when they arrive because the 06 bus is the first available bus. However, route 07 has much higher ridership numbers than route 06 because route 07 is more frequent (every 6 minutes compared to every 10 minutes) and 06 usually idles at Wehner because it has arrived a few minutes before its next leave time. Even if both buses are at Wehner at the same time passengers will take the 07 bus because it is closer and will probably leave sooner. This results in the 07 bus leaving with a full load and the 06 bus leaving almost empty.

7 Figure 3 Buses 07 (left) and 06 at Wehner

Because of the overlap by route 14 along Agronomy and route 07 between Wehner, MSC, and Fish Pond, I recommend eliminating the 06 route and moving one bus to 07 and one bus to 14. The 07 route will now have 3 buses running once every 4 minutes. Route 14 will now have 4 buses and run every 15 minutes (assuming the route stays the same). Although the headway is decreased along Agronomy, the overall headway along the route is increased.

One measurement of improvement of service of a bus system is a reduction in passenger waiting time. Assume a person, on average, waits half a headway period for a bus. If that time is multiplied by the total number of people waiting for the bus, then that is the total wait time for the ridership population.

In this case, route #7 has a new headway of 4 minutes, a decrease of 2 minutes. Therefore, passengers will wait 1 minute (half the difference) less on average. Route #14, which now serves the passengers from route #6 on Agronomy Road, has a headway of 15 minutes, an increase of 5 minutes. Passengers along this part of the route now have to wait 2.5 minutes more. As shown below, the proposed changes would result in a reduction in waiting time (during the second peak period) of 879 minutes.

Table 5 Waiting time savings for 2nd peak period Location Old New Passengers Change in Total Change Route Route Waiting in Waiting Time Time Between MSC, FP, & Weh 07 07 492 -1 min/pass -492 min Between MSC, FP, & Weh 06 07 154 -3 min/pass -462 min To/from Agronomy Rd. 06 14 30 +2.5 min/pass +75 min Grand Total -879 min

Reduce layover times on route #5 to reduce headway. Route #5 has high passenger counts because it serves the Bush School, which is too far to walk to from main campus and even some parts of west campus. Based on personal observations as well as comments from speaking to bus drivers, buses on route #5 often arrive at its main stop at MSC before the previous #5 bus has left. That means that the layover time is longer than the headway time.

8 If additional studies by Transportation Services find that layover time is significantly longer than the headway, I would recommend that the cycle time for route #5 be reduced from 28 minutes to 24 minutes. This would change the headway from 7 minutes to 6 minutes and increase capacity by approximately 1.5 buses per hour while maintaining the same number of buses allocated to this route.

Equalizing Headway

During the course of the day, the headway between buses becomes irregular. Sometimes buses are delayed by traffic or by trains. Bunching for on-campus buses is primarily caused by delays at the railroad tracks and at Ross Street.

The railroad is a part of Texas A&M’s history but causes mobility problems because it cuts the campus in two. The top 11 links in passenger counts all cross the railroad tracks, so adding buses on these routes to reduce passenger load LOS would create more bunching problems. More buses crossing the tracks means more chances for a bus to arrive at an intersection when a train is crossing. In the short term, bunching because of the railroad crossing cannot be avoided.

Ross Street has been a problem for many years. Because it is close to most of the academic buildings, it is the busiest corridor, especially between classes. However, it is also the narrowest corridor and in need of reconstruction.

Reducing dwell time is one simple solution to the bunching problem. Dwell time is the amount of time required for a bus to open its doors, allow passengers to alight and board, and close its doors. Because Ross Street is only one lane in each direction, traffic cannot pass a bus while it is stopped at a bus stop. Therefore, vehicles start to back up. The shorter a bus is stopped, the less traffic will build up behind it. According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, two ways of reducing dwell time are using low-floor vehicles and having passengers board from one door and alight from the other (4).

Since Transportation Services is planning to purchase new buses so that the old Thomas buses may be retired, I strongly recommend investigating the purchase of low-floor buses rather than high-floor buses similar to the current Nova buses. Based on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, boarding and alighting times could be reduced by 15%-25% (2). These buses should be used on routes 01 and 03 because these routes travel on Ross Street, which is more prone to delays than the other corridors. Further analysis of capital costs, fuel, maintenance, etc., would also need to be done before purchasing new buses.

Transportation Services should also encourage passengers to board at the front door and alight at the back door. The following are some reasons why passengers alight through the front door of a two-door bus:

 It is the closest door  They want to thank the driver  They have ridden on an older bus with one door and are used to exiting through the front  Their final destination is closer to the front than the back of the bus

9 However, for passengers waiting to board, there is a few seconds of delay because they must see if any passengers are alighting and wait for them to get off the bus before they themselves get on. Encouraging one-way door flow can reduce the time a bus is stopped.

Conclusion

The Texas A&M on-campus bus system is moving passengers reasonably well. However, there are some areas which could be improved. In order to improve passenger load LOS and headway, route 06 should be eliminated and its two buses reassigned to route 07 and route 14 (one each). Headway between MSC, Fish Pond, and Wehner will decrease to 4 minutes, and headway on Agronomy Road will increase to 15 minutes. Route 05 should be further investigated to determine if the layover time can be reduced so that the headway is reduced to 6 minutes. To equalize headway, the new buses that Transportation Services will be purchasing should be low- floor buses to reduce dwell time. These buses should be used especially on routes 01 and 03 which travel down Ross Street. Passengers should also be encouraged to board at the front door and alight at the back door. Reducing the dwell time at bus stops will decrease delays and minimize bunching.

10 References

1. Farnsworth, S.P., D. Schrank, and P. Bass-Ellis. Planning Enhancements for the Texas A&M University Transit Service. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 1998.

2. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual—2nd Edition. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003.

3. Bus Route and Schedule Planning Guidelines. In NHRCP Synthesis of Highway Practice 69, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980.

4. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.

11 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Pat Hernandez at Transportation Services for providing the data and information necessary for completing this report. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Burris for guiding and assisting me throughout the project.