News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Want a transportation system that works? Vanpools.


April 20, 2010

By Michael Ennis

TopNavLefter.gif


Read More: http://crosscut.com/2010/04/20/transportation/19745/

##################################

Across the Puget Sound region, traffic congestion is predicted to double, reaching the levels of present day Los Angeles by 2030. Yet, so-called regional transportation solutions will do very little to help and will actually make traffic worse. A more cost-effective solution is staring us right in the face: vanpools. Vanpools are cheaper, more flexible, and more efficient than any other intercity transit mode. King County's public vanpool program alone carries more riders than Sound Transit's entire Sounder Commuter Rail, and for $1 billion less.

When accounting for ridership and distance traveled, vanpools cost between three and five times less to operate than light rail, buses or commuter rail. In the seven years between 2000 and 2007, the six vanpool agencies in the Puget Sound area spent $50 million on capital infrastructure. This is 18 times less than the same six bus agencies, 12 times less than Sound Transit’s Express bus system and 20 times less than the Sounder Commuter Rail. It costs about 20 cents per passenger mile to build and operate the vanpool program in the Puget Sound region. Compare this to other intercity transit modes like express buses or rail. Sound Transit Express buses cost about $1.70 per passenger mile and Sounder Commuter Rail costs a whopping $5.39 per passenger mile.

And vanpool users pay for most of their own service. In 2007, King County Metro had the highest farebox recovery rate in the region, collecting 83 percent of operating expenses from vanpool passengers. This is in stark contrast to what users pay to ride buses, commuter rail, and light rail. Farebox recovery rates for these transit modes are about 20 percent of operating costs, while taxpayers pay the remaining 80 percent. Between 2002 and 2007, the public paid about $1.26 for every vanpool trip made in the Puget Sound region. In comparison, the public paid $5.13 in operating costs for every passenger trip on Sound Transit buses and $10.66 in operating costs for every passenger trip made on the Sounder Commuter Rail.

As the suburbanization of communities in the Puget Sound region developed over the last three decades, many transit agencies recognized the importance of connecting these outlying areas to employment centers with intercity transit systems. In the 1990s, this regional approach gave rise to Sound Transit and its line of express buses, commuter rail, and light rail to connect users in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. This growth pattern also contributed to new funding policies like King County’s 40/40/20 rule, which distributes 40 percent of any new transit service to the Eastside, 40 percent to South King County and only 20 percent to Seattle, to reach the suburbs.

##################################




[video=youtube;Q0xJ6ijP5o0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0xJ6ijP5o0[/video]
 
Gee, what an unbiased video.

Notwithstanding the propoganda, vanpools could be part of the GTA's transport solution. I think only a couple of companies use them (I think Enbridge does), partially because of insuarance issues. They could work well in that they could complement a bunch of other measures that already exist or would be easy to implement (carpool lots in the burbs, HOV lanes, limited parking, etc.). They do need other supporting programs that aren't common yet though, such as guranteed ride home (if you have to leave work early but take a vanpool your company pays for a cab ride).
 
The numbers presented are very misleading. Rail services have to pay for all capital construction costs. Buses services are assoicated with the cost of HOV lanes. Vanpools (short bus) obscure or ignore these facts by lumping operational and capital costs together.

You need to look at operating expense (drivers, fuel) per seat and incremental level of service offered to find the right price point.

I'd throw a few into the mix to improve interroute connections during the day and then reduce vehicle costs at night (less buses more vans). However, you aren't going to get away with replacing any mainline buses with vans. Assuming 300 people per bus and 15 people per van, you need 20 vans to replaces a bus, thereby replacing 30-minute headways with 90-second headways.
 
A.K.A. hotel shuttle bus. That's what I used to get to a hotel from an airport.
 
No, that's something different. A van pool is a group of people who take turns driving a van that they collectively own. There's no professional driver. For a Toronto context picture a bunch of people who live in Newmarket but work for IBM at Steeles / 404. They would gather every morning at a set location (an MTO carpool lot), one would drive to work (using HOV lanes where possible), get a kick-ass parking space, and vice versa. It's not a perfect system, but it has advantages over standard car commuting.
 
Cost recovery ratio isn't the only way to measure the success of a transportation system.
 
Not at all a bad idea, especially given the number of very large employers that have located to the suburbs. No silver bullet, but it would make carpooling a lot more appealing.

I'd be concerned about insurance and trusting my safety to another driver.
 

Back
Top