Non MBTA buses, School buses and electrification

[stick n move]

There wasnt a proper thread for non MBTA bus system news like WRTA so Im creating this thread.

This would also be the appropriate place to post news about school buses and or electrification of school buses.

Private bus news like Greyhound/Peter Pan would also be appropriate.

 

[stick n move]

Boston Public Schools Puts First 20 Blue Bird Electric Buses in Operation
Pilot Program is First Step to Convert Entire BPS School Bus Fleet of 750 Vehicles to Electric by 2030


“MACON, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Blue Bird Corporation (Nasdaq: BLBD), the leader in electric and low-emission school buses, in conjunction with its dealer Anderson Blue Bird Bus Sales of New England, has delivered its first batch of 20 electric school buses to Boston Public Schools (BPS). School officials and local government leaders hail the groundbreaking pilot program as the largest electric school bus deployment in the Northeast. Spearheaded by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, the transition to electric vehicles will help BPS to significantly reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions while improving student and community health.

Boston Public Schools recently put 20 advanced Blue Bird Vision electric buses into service. The school buses can carry a maximum of 71 students for up to 120 miles on a single charge. The vehicles take approximately four hours to charge from 0% to 100% based on BPS's Level III ICE 30 kW fast chargers installed at their Readville, MA bus depot. Blue Bird’s zero-emission buses now transport over 2,500 students safely and reliably to and from 42 local-area schools every day.”

https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...irst-20-Blue-Bird-Electric-Buses-in-Operation

 

[stick n move]

Electric school buses serve as mini power plants during the summer

District transportation director Dana Cruickshank unplugs the charging cable from one of Beverly's electric school buses. (Robin Lubbock/WBUR)

“Summertime in New England is when people demand the most electricity from the grid because of air conditioner use. At those high-demand times, utilities turn to so-called peaker plants to supply the extra power. They’re often older, more polluting facilities, and they are expensive to run. But a project in Beverly offers an alternative on-demand power source: the school district uses their electric school buses’ giant batteries as mini power plants to send energy back to the grid.”

“Beverly Public Schools is one of the first in the country to use its electric buses for more than transportation. The project uses bidirectional chargers that can both charge the bus battery and also allow the battery to send energy back to the grid.”

“The program in Beverly started in the summer of 2021 with one bus. Last summer, it increased to two buses and it sold seven megawatt hours back to the grid — the equivalent to powering over two hundred homes for an entire day. This summer, the school district expects to use three out of their four electric buses to provide backup power.”

“Electric buses are ideal backup power plants for two reasons. First, they carry a big battery – a lithium ion battery with three times as much capacity as an electric car. Second, the school buses usually don’t have a “summer job.””

https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/04/18/beverly-electric-school-bus-summer-grid

 

[sm89]

I'm sort of confused about this bus electrification plan. There was an article a few months back saying that most buses aren't used to their capacity (number of passengers) [Globe?].
Here's one from WGBH from 2017 either way citing most buses 49% full: High Costs And Empty Seats: Why Boston Public Schools Spends Millions On Bus Transportation (wgbh.org)
Another article from 2009 talking similarly about under capacity buses: School buses' vacant seats costing Hub - The Boston Globe

The Freeport bus yard is nearly all short-length conventional school buses: https://goo.gl/maps/A3rFihMYQtFvQ4X66
The Washington bus yard is nearly all micro/mini-buses: https://goo.gl/maps/NmA9G1DxH1qgUm9WA
The Readville bus yard is a mix, but also mostly short-length conventional school buses: https://goo.gl/maps/Qh7GUcZm9XSM5a527

So my question is, why the obsession with the full size school buses that 'typically run less than half full" instead of electrifying the smaller vehicle, larger fleet? The micro/mini-buses seem ripe for easy electrification since their engine shells are models that already come in electric. Smaller vehicles are also easier to maneuver in traffic and much safer to operate around children and vulnerable road users.

I'm not an expert on this, just noticed these things...

 

[Koopzilla24]

So my question is, why the obsession with the full size school buses that 'typically run less than half full" instead of electrifying the smaller vehicle, larger fleet?

My guess is the “expected increase in demand by 2040” that they put on everything transport related. Completely disregarding how many potential new students would walk, bike, or take an MBTA bus to school.
The other guess would be that the full size buses allow them to spend less to electrify less for the “same seating capacity” as the minibus equivalent. Again disregarding that school buses can’t just cut and consolidate routes like a transit system when our streets aren’t made safe enough for kids to walk the longer distances.

 

[WestMedford]

Not knowing bus operations all that well, during the two month Sumner Tunnel shutdown (and arguably all the time), wouldn’t it make sense for Massport to operate its airport shuttles directly from Chelsea CR station? Similar to what they do now at Airport BL station? The double transfer from Chelsea Station to SL3 to Airport Station to Massport shuttle buses obviously discourages using this mode to access the airport. Cutting out the SL3 “middle man” would also eliminate the need for a CharlieCard as some CR riders probably only have the mTicket app (because they live in, say, Wenham). And the bus way is there and I don’t believe at any way near capacity. Lastly, there’s no center median divider in the busway so Massport buses could go around the SL3 when it stops at an SL station between Chelsea and Airport.

Proposed routing:
Chelsea station
Airport station (drop off only)
Terminals A, B, C, E
Airport station (pick up only)
Chelsea station
I included Airport station for transfers from/to Chelsea for those connecting to other Massport buses, but arguably that transfer could be eliminated because who is renting or parking a car if they’re taking public transport? Regardless, my back of envelope math says the round trip is approx 30 minutes (so long at the Chelsea Street bridge is not raised), so two buses in operation would allow for 15 minute frequencies, which line up well with Chelsea weekday peak CR schedule every 1/2 hour inbound & outbound. Massport could call it the 77 bus.
Thoughts?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Not knowing bus operations all that well, during the two month Sumner Tunnel shutdown (and arguably all the time), wouldn’t it make sense for Massport to operate its airport shuttles directly from Chelsea CR station? Similar to what they do now at Airport BL station? The double transfer from Chelsea Station to SL3 to Airport Station to Massport shuttle buses obviously discourages using this mode to access the airport. Cutting out the SL3 “middle man” would also eliminate the need for a CharlieCard as some CR riders probably only have the mTicket app (because they live in, say, Wenham). And the bus way is there and I don’t believe at any way near capacity. Lastly, there’s no center median divider in the busway so Massport buses could go around the SL3 when it stops at an SL station between Chelsea and Airport.

Proposed routing:
Chelsea station
Airport station (drop off only)
Terminals A, B, C, E
Airport station (pick up only)
Chelsea station
I included Airport station for transfers from/to Chelsea for those connecting to other Massport buses, but arguably that transfer could be eliminated because who is renting or parking a car if they’re taking public transport? Regardless, my back of envelope math says the round trip is approx 30 minutes (so long at the Chelsea Street bridge is not raised), so two buses in operation would allow for 15 minute frequencies, which line up well with Chelsea weekday peak CR schedule every 1/2 hour inbound & outbound. Massport could call it the 77 bus.
Thoughts?

Easier possibility (if the demand is even there) is to have the SL3 do the Airport terminal loop, before proceeding onward. Diverting Massport busses from Blue Line service in this period is a big red flag (And the Chelsea Draw is a huge, unpredictable time sink issue on the route).

But it is not at all clear the amount of Airport bound traffic that is going to come from Chelsea Station. CR service is not frequent in he right way, because peak CR does not align with peak airport transfer needs, so it is not a big feed to the Airport. SL3 riders are much more likely headed to the Seaport or Downtown.

 

[Teban54]

Easier possibility (if the demand is even there) is to have the SL3 do the Airport terminal loop, before proceeding onward. Diverting Massport busses from Blue Line service in this period is a big red flag (And the Chelsea Draw is a huge, unpredictable time sink issue on the route).

But it is not at all clear the amount of Airport bound traffic that is going to come from Chelsea Station. CR service is not frequent in he right way, because peak CR does not align with peak airport transfer needs, so it is not a big feed to the Airport. SL3 riders are much more likely headed to the Seaport or Downtown.

Massport already operates a 77 bus from the employee parking lot in Chelsea (next to SL3 Eastern Ave station) to the terminals, just that it's not advertised publicly (and I'm not sure if it's open to public or limited to employees). @WestMedford is likely suggesting a temporary extension of this existing bus route from Eastern Ave to Chelsea station.

 

[WestMedford]

Massport already operates a 77 bus from the employee parking lot in Chelsea (next to SL3 Eastern Ave station) to the terminals, just that it's not advertised publicly (and I'm not sure if it's open to public or limited to employees). @WestMedford is likely suggesting a temporary extension of this existing bus route from Eastern Ave to Chelsea station.

Haha well I’m not that smart or savvy to have known there is a secret 77 bus. Just picked a double digit number that wasn't on the Massport website.

 

[#bancars]

I feel like there's gotta be a better use of these funds than turning many of the RTAs fare-free? The frequency is generally abysmal.

New Year, No Fares: Beacon Hill Bankrolls Dozens of Free Bus Routes Statewide - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The state budget that lawmakers passed last summer is bankrolling a major expansion in popular fare-free bus routes across the entire Commonwealth this winter. As we reported last summer, the new state budget gave the state’s Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) – the transit operators that serve...

mass.streetsblog.org

 

[StreetsblogMASS]

I feel like there's gotta be a better use of these funds than turning many of the RTAs fare-free? The frequency is generally abysmal.

New Year, No Fares: Beacon Hill Bankrolls Dozens of Free Bus Routes Statewide - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The state budget that lawmakers passed last summer is bankrolling a major expansion in popular fare-free bus routes across the entire Commonwealth this winter. As we reported last summer, the new state budget gave the state’s Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) – the transit operators that serve...

mass.streetsblog.org

For these smaller RTAs, fares make up a tiny component of their operating costs, but the costs of fare collection – maintaining the machines, counting coins, increased dwell time at every stop, etc., are high. So eliminating fares doesn't actually have a big impact on their bottom line; the $15 million that the state is spending on these programs is meant to replace the lost fare revenue, but it also eliminates a lot of those fare collection costs on the spending side.

Good overview here:

The Dollars & Sense of Free Buses - Mass. Budget and Policy Center

There are many reasons to eliminate transit fares, especially on buses. In addition to advancing equity and reducing climate change emissions, fare-free service is more efficient, faster, and more convenient. Eliminating fares also increases transit ridership and helps stimulate the local...

massbudget.org

Meanwhile, the fares are also a significant barrier to their riders. Agencies like the WRTA (fare-free since 2020) and MeVa (fare-free since March '22) have seen the biggest gains in ridership. MeVa has also been adding service but the WRTA has not, because of driver shortages:

 

[ritchiew]

I feel like there's gotta be a better use of these funds than turning many of the RTAs fare-free? The frequency is generally abysmal.

New Year, No Fares: Beacon Hill Bankrolls Dozens of Free Bus Routes Statewide - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The state budget that lawmakers passed last summer is bankrolling a major expansion in popular fare-free bus routes across the entire Commonwealth this winter. As we reported last summer, the new state budget gave the state’s Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) – the transit operators that serve...

mass.streetsblog.org

I'm coming to agree with you on this. I'd rather just see better operations.

But I still think going fare-free can be a really good idea in some cases. Some of these RTAs already run on ~90% government subsidy and ~%10 passenger fares. And then some chunk of the passenger fare revenue is offset just by the cost of fare collection. So I think for some of these RTAs, charging passengers has a really small benefit, especially compared to the hassles it causes (passengers have to board slowly and only at the front door; passengers have to figure out where/how to get a transit card or fumble with exact change; confrontations between passengers and bus drivers; personnel have to fix fare machines and safeguard cash; etc.) Throwing money at RTAs this way isn't the best way to improve transit, but it is a fairly cheap, simple, idiot-proof way to improve transit. I'll take that for now.

EDIT: @StreetsblogMASS and I responded within seconds of each other, but they came with sources and graphs. Thanks for those!

 

[KCasiglio]

To provide a supporting anecdote, I did a lot of work last year with Connecticut's Southeast Area Transit Distrct (SEAT) which serves the New London/Norwich area and is one of those RTAs where fares make up a miniscule amount of operating funds. The state of CT was funding fare free transit with covid dollars until April of 2023. Prior to the return of fares, ridership was actually above pre-pandemic levels and at the highest levels since 2015. With the resumption of fares, ridership was cut by about a third. Paratransit and NL<->Norwich service were most heavily impacted, showing a clear equity impact as well.

I don't think fare free makes sense for the core subway system, but I'm sold on RTAs and I think there's strong enough arguments to warrant a broader fare free bus pilot within the MBTA service area.

 

[Riverside]

Meanwhile, the fares are also a significant barrier to their riders. Agencies like the WRTA (fare-free since 2020) and MeVa (fare-free since March '22) have seen the biggest gains in ridership. MeVa has also been adding service but the WRTA has not, because of driver shortages:

Wow! That is some compelling data. Looks like

• WRTA recovered at a faster rate after going fare-free
• WRTA is the only agency (and I guess SEAT in CT [lmao at the homophonic acronyms] as well!)
• MeVa saw an accelerated increase in ridership after going farefree, at a time when most of the other agencies went down or held flat
• Aside from WRTA, MeVa has gotten the closest to 100%

So, yeah, that seems pretty clear.

 

[HenryAlan]

I think there's strong enough arguments to warrant a broader fare free bus pilot within the MBTA service area.

I've always thought the MBTA should study going fare free on buses, in part, because so many of them involve a transfer to the subway, meaning that the fare is captured anyway. I haven't seen data on local service only bus trips (ie without subway transfer), but it can't be nearly as large a number. At any rate, my thesis is that the improvement in bus operations over all, coupled with a likely smaller hit to farebox recovery than total ridership might imply, would mean that it wouldn't cost that much to implement across the board.

 

[ritchiew]

I've always thought the MBTA should study going fare free on buses, in part, because so many of them involve a transfer to the subway, meaning that the fare is captured anyway. I haven't seen data on local service only bus trips (ie without subway transfer), but it can't be nearly as large a number. At any rate, my thesis is that the improvement in bus operations over all, coupled with a likely smaller hit to farebox recovery than total ridership might imply, would mean that it wouldn't cost that much to implement across the board.

The MBTA's study of their current fare-free #28 bus route mostly answers your question. And you're right, most people transfer, and so making the bus segment free is a pretty small cost.

In the study, they framed it as "how many riders are saving money?", but it works out the same. About 2/3 of riders already had a monthly pass or would always pay for a transfer anyways. Of the rest of the riders, most would at least sometimes transfer.

 

[737900er]

I've always thought the MBTA should study going fare free on buses, in part, because so many of them involve a transfer to the subway, meaning that the fare is captured anyway. I haven't seen data on local service only bus trips (ie without subway transfer), but it can't be nearly as large a number. At any rate, my thesis is that the improvement in bus operations over all, coupled with a likely smaller hit to farebox recovery than total ridership might imply, would mean that it wouldn't cost that much to implement across the board.

Anecdotally, and as someone who owns a car, the fare has often been a deterrent to taking transit, especially for a local bus trip short of the inbound terminal.

It also might be interesting to see how much ridership there is to stimulate in a corridor with higher vehicle ownership and less transit dependency like 71/73/77.

I don't know exactly how Charlie 2.0 is supposed to work when it comes to paying with cash, but as the study shows people thought it was more reliable. Those long dwells from people loading cash and crowding around the front door are brutal.