SMART's new articulated buses

[bc_n_dtown]

From the Crain's Detroit article:

The hybrid diesel and electric battery buses will operate on the following SMART routes, sometimes based on demand:
• 560 Gratiot
• 415 Greenfield
• 465 Auburn Hills Limited
• 495 John R
About 10,000 riders use those routes, SMART said in a statement.

"Sometimes based on demand" and presumably the rest of the time based on their original stated intent, which was "for testing prior to a fleet-wide replacement of fixed route coaches..... beginning in 2014".

Actually, "sometimes based on demand" is not how the "official" SMART press release reads.
http://www.smartbus.org/smart/NewsIn...10%20final.PDF

It says that the buses will operate "...during the times and along the segments where the ridership demand is extremely heavy." In that PR, SMART general manager John Hertel is quoted as saying, “The articulated buses offer us the extra space on routes where people are jammed onto a bus and in some instances drivers cannot pick up additional riders."

It means that from the routes listed, the buses will be utilized where SMART determines where there is the "heaviest" ridership demand. The coaches would be assigned to work runs that operate trips during those periods and along those routes.


ALSO: To reaffirm what others have posted here, SMART will get full use out of its articulated buses. Their route #560 Gratiot is their heaviest line, and I've been told by SMART employees that often times during the day SMART doesn't have the equipment to handle the loads. I've been told that if you travel along Gratiot north of 8 Mile during peak hours you might be surprised at what you see. Actually, both buses should remain only on the #560, but politics can bread interesting results.

[bc_n_dtown]

Additionally, SMART's acknowledgement that they spent ARRA "stimulus" funds to purchase Canadian transit vehicles is a hanging fastball just waiting to be either knocked out of the park or explained away using bureaucratic technospeak.

Maybe this might be considered "bureaucratic technospeak", but if you follow the FTA guidelines set by the feds, then the new buses do qualify as being "American made." Although it is true that New Flyer Industries is headquartered out of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the company also has two plants in Minnesota. Since the place of final assembly for the buses are in the United States, and they're comprised of at least 60% U.S. made components, the buses meet the FTA's Buy America requirements.

When it comes to purchasing 100% American made buses the pickings are few. After GMC left the transit bus manufacturing business in 1987, the major producers of heavy-duty transit buses have been Canadian or foreign manufacturers. Actually, when it comes to "buy American" SMART should be commended. Since 1992, and exclusively since 2001, SMART has purchased its heavy-duty transit buses from Gillig Corp. out of Hayward, CA. But actually, Gillig specializes more in serving smaller transit agencies and airport rental car companies, making SMART one of the few large-city bus operators to purchase Gillig coaches. Aside from Gillig and NABI, most of the few remaining American bus manufacturers produce small-size transit buses.

Now whether one feels that SMART was justified in purchasing articulated buses is another subject. But since Gillig does not manufacture an "artic" coach, SMART had no choice but to go elsewhere. Now where they go in the future is anyone's guess. Although NABI produces an artic bus, theirs are the BRT design. DDOT has used New Flyer exclusively since 2003 and NovaBUS prior to then, both of which are Canadian based companies.

[bc_n_dtown]

I can also explain "sometimes based on demand". To understand this you have to understand one of the essential difference between how SMART operates its bus fleet and how DDOT operates its.

On DDOT, with very few exceptions, if you are driving a bus on the Gratiot line [[say), you and the bus will be going up and down Gratiot all day. Same for Tireman, Schaefer, Dexter, all of them. In fact, the buses are assigned a four-digit ID for the day based on the route, so the 15th bus starting on Woodward [[route 53) for the day will display 5315 in the front of the bus, on the dashboard facing out. This display is primarily so a route supervisor [[if there still are any) knows which bus is going by at any one time.

Now, on SMART, you're the driver and you get on the bus to start your day, you might be driving the Gratiot route for some trips, and some trips on Harper, and maybe a trip on Schoenherr or Groesbeck. One driver and his/her bus might operate trips on several routes in the course of a shift.

professorscott, you usually hit the nail on the head when it comes to analyzing DDOT and SMART operations, but your recent comparison on how DDOT and SMART operate their bus fleets is not quite correct.

The policy you mentioned of "One driver and his/her bus might operate trips on several routes in the course of a shift," that you attributed only to SMART, applies also to DDOT, and more often than you realize. In addition, that four-digit number you mentioned that's displayed in the front windshield has nothing to do with the bus per se, or the route on which it travels, but identifies the "run number" the operator is working.

SMART also uses run numbers. The difference is that DDOT identifies its runs by assigning it to a line while SMART uses numbers only. A run is the pre-scheduled work assigned to an operator for that day. The work scheduled within each run does not change daily, even though the driver might. The way both agencies identify their runs has no impact on service whatsoever. Other issues come into play there.

At both DDOT and SMART run numbers are created by the Scheduling Dept. weeks in advance. After timetable headways, blocks, recovery times, and other parameters have been established, the completed schedule is then divided into individual work assignments called "runs," which are then identified by numbers.

While SMART uses 3-digit run numbers beginning with #101, 102, etc..., at DDOT the runs are assigned to the line where the majority of its work is associated. The number is determined chronologically, based on the time the work is scheduled to be "off" for that day.

So run #1 Woodward [[displayed in windshield as "5301") is the first run assigned to Woodward due off that day, while "5315" is the 15th run assigned to Woodward due off. The first two digits identify the route assigned, while the second two digits identify the assigned number. But don't let that route name designation mislead you. This does not mean that the run "only" works Woodward the entire day. Run #15 Wood. might work five hours on Woodward in the AM rush, but during the PM portion might do a short School Spot on Wyoming and then a round trip on Chicago-Davison. But the operator will still display "5315" in the windshield during the PM, despite the fact he/she is not working route #53 Woodward. Although this occurs primarily on split 2-piece "swing" runs, straight piece runs have also been known to work another line.

So the run number you see displayed in the windshield does not necessarily dictate what bus route that bus will be working. The route number/name displayed in the destination sign window reveals that information. A Gratiot, Tireman, Schaefer, Dexter, or whatever run can be scheduled to work any line within that terminal based on demand, just like SMART runs do.

[Mikeg]

Actually, "sometimes based on demand" is not how the "official" SMART press release reads.
http://www.smartbus.org/smart/NewsIn...10%20final.PDF

It says that the buses will operate "...during the times and along the segments where the ridership demand is extremely heavy." In that PR, SMART general manager John Hertel is quoted as saying, “The articulated buses offer us the extra space on routes where people are jammed onto a bus and in some instances drivers cannot pick up additional riders."

It means that from the routes listed, the buses will be utilized where SMART determines where there is the "heaviest" ridership demand. The coaches would be assigned to work runs that operate trips during those periods and along those routes......

My only reason for highlighting the "sometimes based on demand" phrasing was to point out that the inclusion of the larger and more expensive articulated buses adds a secondary purpose that probably undercuts the original stated purpose for this project, which was to gain test experience with alternative fueled buses prior to the start of fleet replacement in 2014. Did SMART reduce the total number of alternative fueled buses purchased with ARRA "stimulus" funds [[and thus reduce the testing experience gained) because they revised the project to include the larger and more expensive articulated buses?

I highlighted the "Canadian" adjective only because of how the ARRA was sold to the public on the basis that the US Government needed to borrow and spend a lot of money very quickly so that they could stimulate demand and get unemployed US workers back to work [[or save the jobs of those who still had one). I personally believe that regardless of whether the new buses had 0%, 60% or 100% US content - or whether they were delivered 2 months or 20 months after the ARRA was passed by Congress - the stimulus effect on the US economy would be no different than what we have seen.

[DetroitPlanner]

Look kids, BRT has arrived before light rail! [[continues in the traffic circle between big ben and parliment)

[Hypestyles]

I see these buses are being built in Canada.. I don't suppose there's any reason why next-gen buses can't be built in Michigan/Detroit...?

[Mikeg]

I see these buses are being built in Canada.. I don't suppose there's any reason why next-gen buses can't be built in Michigan/Detroit...?

As explained above by "bc_n_dtown", even though the company is headquartered in Canada, these articulated buses were built in Minnesota with 60% US-made content.

He also explained that there are no remaining bus manufacturers here in Michigan and few in the entire US. Requiring a bidder to set up shop and build an order of buses in the state where they will be used will result in either:
a) a "no-quote" from busy and disinterested manufacturers
b) additional extra costs in the quotes from those few manufacturers willing to play the game.

So to answer your question, yes there is a very good reason why they shouldn't be built here - it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to pay extra just to have something built here which can be purchased for less if built elsewhere!

[DetroitPlanner]

I highlighted the "Canadian" adjective only because of how the ARRA was sold to the public on the basis that the US Government needed to borrow and spend a lot of money very quickly so that they could stimulate demand and get unemployed US workers back to work [[or save the jobs of those who still had one). I personally believe that regardless of whether the new buses had 0%, 60% or 100% US content - or whether they were delivered 2 months or 20 months after the ARRA was passed by Congress - the stimulus effect on the US economy would be no different than what we have seen.

We did a study of how ARRA spending impacted Mihcigan and found that about 40 percent of all dollars spent on bus replacements ended up here with most of it coming to the Detroit area. Just imagine how this has propped up the local economy as it is 40 percent of not only DDOT's and SMARTS bus purchases, but of every transit agency the recieved ARRA funds!

[Mikeg]

We did a study of how ARRA spending impacted Mihcigan and found that about 40 percent of all dollars spent on bus replacements ended up here with most of it coming to the Detroit area. Just imagine how this has propped up the local economy as it is 40 percent of not only DDOT's and SMARTS bus purchases, but of every transit agency the recieved ARRA funds!

Unfortunately we do have to use our imagination, because there is no hard evidence of any "stimulus" effect on the economy from all of the ARRA spending here in Michigan or elsewhere - except perhaps along the DC Beltway. "Propped" is about the most charitable term one can use to describe what this massive spending of borrowed dollars has accomplished.

[professorscott]

Has anyone else been on the new bus? I rode one of them this morning, out on the Gratiot line [[natch). Driver said his rush-hour a.m. run is normally crowded with lots of standees but on the new bus everyone got a seat. Bus accelerates more smoothly [[but also less quickly) than the standard SMART bus. He said the turning radius is no problem, no harder to turn around than any other bus.

I wasted 25c on a transfer I didn't need, just to have a souvenir

[Parkguy]

Here is a link to a video explaining King County's new Rapid Bus system. It uses the same kind of articulated bus as we're talking about here, but this goes on to explain how the rapid bus system works. This is the kind of system that the regional transit plan has in mind. I think the manufacturer is the same. Don't hold me to the details. One of the big differences: King County will run their system every 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak, 18 hours a day, seven days a week. They plan to set up three lines [[one is already up and running), along with the light rail they opened this year. Extensions to light rail are already under construction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT07UUJHAQU