We decided we should spend some time riding Park City Buses, if we were going to understand what’s working and what’s not with our transit system. We headed to the bus stop in Kimball Junction by Silver Mountain to await our 2:53 PM pickup (the bus was a bit late). A nice couple from Michigan was already waiting. They said hi and we asked how the skiing had been on their trip. They replied that it was nice on the top of the mountain but down low was pretty slushy; overall they had never skied in such nice weather though (great attitude!).

As the bus pulled up, they asked us if this bus would take them to Main Street. They wanted to go shop and have dinner. It was a “7 Pink” bus pulling up, so we responded that it would eventually get to Main Street, but there could be a better option. So we said they should ask the bus driver. We could have replied, “Well you should download My Stop Mobile, Park City’s $1.2 million application from the Apple App store” but there isn’t really time for that when the bus is pulling up.

When asked by the couple, the bus driver replied, “oh no… you should take the Brown bus line”. The couple got off the bus and headed back to wait. The bus drove off, and as we looked at the couple sitting there, we wondered how long would they wait. It turns out that they would have plenty of time to download the MyStop Mobile App.

We looked up bus transportation data and it told us that if they would have taken the 7 Pink, they would have gotten to Main Street at 4:45. Granted, that is almost an hour later (ugh). However, if they waited on the Brown bus, they waited until 4:51 for it to pick them up and it wouldn’t have dropped them off until 5:17 (double ugh). Oh, and that same 7 Pink bus even came back through the same stop. So, hopefully they got wise and just hopped on it.

What is more likely is that they hopped in their car and drove to Main Street.

Now, is this just an anecdote? Sure. In this case were the buses running late? Yes. Does this happen all the time? We don’t know.

What we are sure of is that public transportation failed this couple. It also highlights the inherent problem with our public transportation system. The buses are scheduled too far apart and when something goes wrong (like being late), it causes a huge impact. Then, if we think about the times when buses are late due to heavy traffic (special events, big snow, rush hour, etc.) it’s also the same time we want more people to take the buses. So, the times we need buses are likely the times they fail.

So, you may say that we should run the buses more frequently. However, that requires that the demand is there to justify it. We’ve been looking at the ridership data, and except on a few key routes between PCMR and Deer Valley, it seems really low. We will share some of that data as soon as we have enough information to draw a full picture.

It also highlights a technological problem. Given that Park City has invested so much in an automated system to track buses, this information should be shared with their drivers. A bus driver should be able to easily pull up a screen with popular destinations, and then the system could use their current location and real-time data to enable the driver to tell that poor couple from Michigan, “normally you’d take the 8 Brown bus but today you should ride with me. We may be taking the scenic route but its the fastest way to get there and you’ll see a lot of what makes Park City great.”

Instead, the couple likely headed to Wendy’s to get a Frosty for their car drive in.

Yesterday we linked to a study that suggested that light rail pollutes our environment less than buses. However, what we read today is a little more interesting. The Reason Foundation has published an article about greenhouse gas emissions and whether buses are superior to cars.

Like us initially, you probably believe buses are far superior. A study from Duke University backs up that idea with the conclusion that less greenhouse gases are produced by buses than cars. The only issue is that they calculated the optimal solution based buses being 63% full. In reality, most buses are far less full. The conclusion that the Reason article draws, is that in the real world, based on real-world ridership and occupancy of cars, people riding in cars typically produce less greenhouse gases because buses have very low ridership (as a whole).

Why this matters around Park City is that we are trying to plan our future transportation needs. Right now we are focused on how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B and buses seem to be the only feasible solution to that. However, greenhouse gases are an equally troubling issue. We don’t want the valley inversion to spread here.

So, in Park City are buses better for both traffic and the environment? We suppose that depends on what percentage of buses are full. We are looking into that and should have data shortly.

For now we are left wondering if it ends up being a battle between air quality and traffic. If it does, which do you care about more?

This morning on KPCW, Summit County Council member Claudia McMullin spoke about the Health Department wanting wood fireplaces banned in new construction as well as her preference for light rail (over buses) at a high level.

This got us wondering about the pollution impacts of buses versus light rail. Fortunately for us, Maryland’s Action Committee for Transit, published a study on the subject. The study’s results show, “that although advances in diesel technology have radically improved bus emissions, LRT (Light Rail) systems still produce less regional or urban emissions in the three categories considered than BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems. This is true whenever equal technology levels are compared and even when superior BRT technology is compared with standard LRT systems for some pollutants. In addition, emissions of both modes have improved over time. These results are only applicable to the effects of these technologies on regional air quality and not on street-level air quality or emissions on a national or global scale.”

NOx Comparison:

VOC Comparison:

 
CO Comparison:
 

If this topic interests you, you may want to check out the entire results:

http://www.actfortransit.org/docs/2008JulLRTvsBRTemmissions.pdf

On Wednesday, the Summit County Council will be reviewing a design for a bus transit center that occupies 3 acres behind the Richins Library building in Kimball Junction. The project, in development since 2010, aims to realign county bus routes for better efficiency, provide a “circulator” service around Kimball Junction, and provide expanded opportunities for regional transit services.

The proposed transit center has 10 spaces for buses, 2 spaces for vans, 20 parking spaces for cars, a 2500 sq foot customer service building (restrooms, info booth, etc.), and bike storage. This what the proposed facility will look like:

It’s a nice looking building and seems to complement the Richin’s Building nicely. It also appears to be a done deal. According to a Summit County presentation on the topic, “the Design [was] Reviewed and Approved by PC Transit. PC Transit Applied for a $1.7M Grant from FTA and an award was made in 2014. County Council Approved $500K for construction. PC Transit also rearranged FTA Monies for Design and Summit County Received a check for $95,000.”

Yet, is this just another case where we build something and spend taxpayer money with the hope that it will somehow do something? We’re not sure, but we do believe it’s another case of where hopes and wishes have trumped the real world. Here are our questions and concerns:

• From county documents, it sounds like they don’t want many people driving in and parking and using this as a park and ride (only 20 park and ride spaces). If they did, it would only contribute to additional traffic on 224. So, how will it be used? Most likely as a transfer station. Isn’t that sort of what the area by Newpark Hotel already does?
• Creating a base for buses that would circle around Kimball Junction is another stated goal. Again, that sounds good but what population will use this? We envision the idea is that people will ride around Kimball Village shopping and dining. However, what does that really look like? People would need to ride a bus from wherever they are to the new transit station. They would then get on the circulator bus. They would stop at Smith’s and do their shopping. They would have 3 or 4 bags of groceries. They would ride to PetCo and pick up their 30 pounds of dog food. They may stop off for lunch after that at Zuppas. They may then hit Best Buy to pick up that memory stick for their camera they’ve been needing. Really?…is that probable or even possible? We’ve been trying to figure out a scenario, with the current shops where someone may “circulate” around Kimball Junction. Maybe someone drops off their broken Mac at Simply Mac and heads to Maxwell’s for a beer? OK, that works. Perhaps they hit Best Buy, buy a salad at Whole Foods, and then go to the Salon? Yeah. Maybe we are missing something but the blend of shops and uses just doesn’t seem to lend itself to a circulator (at last right now and for the foreseeable future).
• Another stated goal is to have more efficient routes. We actually like this idea. If they were able to offer direct buses to Canyons, PCMR, and Deer Valley,thatmay be a great idea. However, a few obstacles would haveto be overcome:
  • They don’t want us to drive and park there, so the average joe would need to catch a bus there. So, all those routes would also have to be optimized and made more frequent as well.
  • It would have to be very frequent. Most people wouldn’t wait more than 15 minutes at the new transit station for the bus. So, the buses would have to run often. That’s more buses and more cost. It is also a gamble that by making it more frequent that will be enough to entice people to use the service.
  • There couldn’t be more transfers for riders, because that takes time and turns people off. So, the transfer at this station would likely need to replace other transfers. It would have to be a hub and spoke system to the most popular destinations.
• It appears buses would exit both on to Landmark Drive and Ute Boulevard. During busy times of the day, Ute Blvd gets backed up by the Richens Library already. How much additional backup congestion will this add?
• Shouldn’t this be built with some room for expansion? It seems that to draw people, you need to have services that make people want to come. Perhaps in this case, there could be lockers for people to store their ski gear and places to dress for skiing. Maybe e-bikes could be rented in the summer (it’s pretty adjacent to the paved trail system). A coffee shop also wouldn’t be a bad idea. We believe there needs to be enough room to accommodate some of these things that may draw a few more people.

Overall, we can see why there were great hopes for this in 2010 and maybe it’s not a bad idea now. In 5 years, if Boyer Tech Park has been built, Kimball Junction has filled in with a myriad of different establishments, and people have changed their mindset to use the bus, then this will look very smart. However, if 2020 doesn’t look much different than 2015, then this will likely be just another hope-filled excursion.