Triangle Regional Transit

[vitaviatic]

Can someone provide an example of another area that has, or is building, a non-centralized system around mostly non-urban areas such as the one TTA and many forumers trumpet?

[staffer]

This thread is a great resource. I'm on the Transit Vision Plan committee

though it's been awhile since I was actively involved in any transit issues (I was in on the ground floor when Chapel Hill Transit was inaugurated in 1974)

I will try to post committee documents here for folks comments and analysis.

I wonder what people think of the NCSpin upcoming transit conference? Balanced? Tool for highway lobby? Potential for positive results? Or just an opportunity for Professor Hartgen to tell everyone how paving everything will solve the problem?

[DanRNC]

Seems like the whole thing is focused on building more roads. I guess we still haven't learned the lessons of I-540.

[orulz]

Both sides of the issue are evenly represented, at least numerically, so at the very least it should make for an interesting discussion. Hood-Hartgen-Harrington represent the Highway lobby (enough 'H's for ya?) and Szlosberg-Fitzsimon-Willingham representing a more progressive approach.

I'd really love to see David King on a panel like this. From what I've seen, he's well connected, well spoken, and has a very realistic and persuasive vision of how to diversify our transportation infrastructure. If there's someone to speak about the role of transit in the state's future, he'd probably be my #1 guy. Szlosberg has good credentials, a background in transit, and I've heard good things about her as well, but I guess I'm just not as familiar with her as I probably should be.

I'm not really familiar with Fitzsimon and Willingham, though I probably should at least know something about Willingham...

As an aside, I must admit, I'm sick of David Hartgen getting quoted, as an expert, without a disclaimer of where he gets funding for his research. Often, his statements run completely unchallenged. It always leaves me wondering, where are the transportation experts from UNC or other schools across the state and country? Oh yeah, they're not backed by powerful political activist groups, they're simply transporation experts.

[orulz]

Also... welcome to the forum, staffer. We'd all appreciate greatly any insight you can share into the Transit Vision Plan Committee. You mention your background with Chapel Hill Transit. It's great to know that. I feel that the more knowledge committee members have at the outset, the more this committee will get done.

Watching the wheels spin as more knowledgable committee members try to move forward while others struggle to keep up can be maddening. Of course I don't expect transit experts across the board, but occasionally I've been shocked to find that some serving on similar committees around here lack even a fundamental understanding local transit issues. What's worse is when these folks show little or no desire to learn.

This seems like a rather large committee to me (25 members). Hopefully the leadership will keep things moving forward quickly. I feel like the clock is ticking, and each week that goes by the future of regional transit, or even the region itself, slides further into jeapordy.

I see at least one other UP forumer on that committee (though I see they spelled his name wrong...)

[staffer]

First email from Transit Vision committee staff, certainly positive, letting us know of a forum sponsored by the City of Raleigh, flyer at: Transit Oriented Development, How do We get there from here.

May 10, 2007, 6:00 - 8:30 pm, Progress Energy Center., free

More information and to register.

May 10, 2007

6:00-8:30 p.m.

The Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts, Fletcher Opera Theater, in Raleigh, NC.

GET ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a fast growing trend to create healthy, vibrant, compact and sustainable cities by integrating a variety of transportation options into community design.

• <LI class=paragraph>How can we create a transit vision for our city and our region? <LI class=paragraph>What are the benefits of making transit investments? Why should we care? <LI class=paragraph>What cutting edge policies and planning techniques are being implemented in Transit-Oriented Development around the world? <LI class=paragraph>What forms can transit take, and which modes have been successful in cities like Raleigh?

• What is the connection between community design, transit choices and health?

OUR PRESENTERS

Dr. Robert Cervero is an internationally renowned author of Transit Metropolis, A Global Inquiry and scholar in the area of sustainable transportation policy and planning and currently serves as chair of UC Berkeley

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

As an aside, I must admit, I'm sick of David Hartgen getting quoted, as an expert, without a disclaimer of where he gets funding for his research. Often, his statements run completely unchallenged. It always leaves me wondering, where are the transportation experts from UNC or other schools across the state and country? Oh yeah, they're not backed by powerful political activist groups, they're simply transporation experts.

[vitaviatic]

Howdy gang...

Just posted an addition to our webpage detailing more of our transit ideas for the Triangle. The click below will take you to the portal. Simply scroll down to to the category Operational Modification Projects and click the link beneath it.

Thin Air Group, LLC

Note: Except for TTA figures, fleet quantities are estimated. None of the other agencies responded to our request for fleet figures, and frankly we're too busy to file FIA on this and wait.

Nothing earthshaking here, but just to demonstrate another attempt at not only internalizing expenses within TTA or any other agency, but actually generating a profit from functional investments, such as would happen in a co-opted TOD development incorporating a station, etc. If the flow of expenses can be reversed back into the coffers of the agency, it no longer becomes a cash drain, with farebox recovery as the only offset to what, in some badly conceived agencies, is a cash hemorrhage that soaks up nearly all of the subsidies (usually taxes) that can be thrown at it.

The idea is to form an interagency partnership between eastern North Carolina's bigger transit operations -- for the purpose of this demonstration we included CAT, DATA, TTA, Chapel Hill Transit, and Cary's C-Tran operations for the Triangle, as well as Wilmington's WAVE (CFRTA). The partnership would finance, whole or in part, the construction of a biodiesel plant for production of B-100 to operate buses, paratransit (jitney buses) and DMUs for the agencies, with a target overproduction of 50 to 150% (beyond the immediate needs of the partner agencies) which would be sold to other local or state agencies for fleet use, and/or private fleets by contract (such as Progress Energy or BellSouth for example) at market or near-market rates (some profit). The partnership could be bigger, of course. Fayetteville was not figured in, although it would fit nicely into the geographics. Assuming an I-40 (Benson to Warsaw - "close to the fields") location to minimize production costs, the Triangle, Fayetteville, and Wilmington would be within an economical delivery radius. (Wolfline was also omitted for logistical reasons, but also could easily be incorporated into the scheme of things.) The Triad, Charlotte, and anybody else in Virginia or South Carolina could buy in as well, but delivery costs would be somewhat higher.

There are substantial challenges to using a pure B-100 diesel. Weather-related performance is a little trickier than with regular diesel, but the mild climate in the Carolinas plays to the favor of implementing it. Engine tuning is also a bit different with biofuels since they burn cleaner and at different octanes, but engines come by a longer life and longer times between overhauls, thus lower repair costs and man-hours performing those overhauls. The benefits would more than compensate for the challenges however, among them: 1) the ability of the agencies to control costs by engaging in a far less volatile fuel market and enjoying stable and predictable operating costs from that; 2) derive extra income from external sales and profits; 3) environmental impact mitigation (known as the "French fry effect", from the smell of vegetable-derived fuels), and financial credits gained for that effort; 4) funding available through non-standard channels from the alternative fuels orientation of the various operations; 5) the fact that this type of intra-agency fueling would be a showcase item (the first of this type to our knowledge) gaining research funding perhaps from the private sector as well; and 6) not the least of which, beleaguered eastern NC farmers will actually contribute to, and partake in the rewards of, solutions to an urban problem, through contract sales of staple Carolina crops such as soy or mustard seed. (The political synergy of getting Down East legislators onboard should not be lost on anyone here.)

Having said all of this, one major problem exists. Getting 6 or 7 separate transit agencies together for a joint project would be a Herculean feat in the extreme. It will take political mechanizations at one or two levels above these agencies to get things done. The norm would be gunnysacking to protect home turf, so this type of a project would more than likely need to be imposed on them, by the parent governments, the voters directly, or even the Legislature.

The highly Balkanized nature of transit in the Triangle will continue to dilute any kind of funding in the future in any case. When you have one or more agencies claiming operations in one area, such as DATA and TTA in Durham, CAT, C-Tran, and TTA in Wake County, etc., the overlay will continue to stratify attempts for funding Federal or otherwise. It's time for Triangle leaders to realize that substantive transit improvements will be hard to come by unless all the horses are pulling in one direction. Better yet, one huge horse getting fed well. Most effective transit agencies operate regionally, and transcend invisible lines drawn around jurisdictions.

[ChiefJoJo]

From the Coffeehouse:

The next lecture in the series, "Transit-Oriented Development: How Do We Get There from Here?" will be held on May 10th at the Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts. Dr. Robert Cervero and Dr. Reid Ewing will discuss transit's crucial role in healthy living, the environment, and our region's future. Lectures are free and open to the public. For more info and to register, visit www.raleighnc.gov/lectureseries.

[orulz]

I'm sure old Hartgen and Hood will generate some scintillating conversation.

[ncwebguy]

The "consortium biodiesel factory" might be a bit of a stretch, but could be a way to accelerate research at NC State on making biodiesel from switchgrass, wood chips, and agricultural waste and similar studies.

But vitaviatic's plan also emphasises the savings that could be achieved by the transit systems in the area working together to combine resources to buy vehicles, fuel, maintenance, dispatch etc. If there was a, umm... Triangle Tranist Authority would be a good name (LOL) there could be a cost savings that could increase the level of service for the whole area.

Unfortunatly, the existing systems were created to serve their municipality's (CAT, DATA, CH, CTRAN) or university's (Wolfline, Duke Transit) needs and any talk of mergers so far have yieled "don't take away these routes" negative comments. For some reason, individual transit systems have done nothing to dispell these rumors.

[vitaviatic]

Grabbed this off of Planetizen regarding New Mexico's RailRunner:

Albuquerque Tribune -- 04/12/2007

The numbers for RailRunner are porpoising somewhat, keeping in mind that the destinations from ABQ are not relatively high density suburbs with nodal commercial centers, but are industrial burbs along the Rio Grande. The system's spine is now nearly in place, and they will begin backfilling the mainline with stations within the urbanized zones of ABQ and Santa Fe, once the capital comes online, realistically in 2010. The numbers from Santa Fe will be impressive, I can assure you, provided the routes are not circuitous. I-25 is a jamfest north to Santa Fe.

Of note here, look at the cost ($393m), and the length (Belen to ABQ = 35 miles, ABQ to Santa Fe = 75, total 110 miles). As we have pointed out earlier, for the ABQ-Belen segment, RailRunner operates along the BNSF ROW. Therefore, construction charges were minimal and reflect mostly operational infrastructure investment. This is true also for the northern segment to Bernalillo, however beyond that the State of New Mexico has decided to diverge from the freight corridor and follow the interstate for time savings. The main point is that New Mexico has decided that it is viable to invest in rail as an option to interstate expansion, even though most of the ROW is either Indian reservation, industrial, or like much of the West, without water, thus unbuildable. In the Triangle, 100% of the NCRR corridor will be developed, with or without rail. The question is how, and to what density. And of course, more density along the rail corridor will mitigate sprawl away from it if enough ammenities are offered to make high-density living attractive enough.

Somebody please tell me that NC can figure out how to ballpark a 26-mile service on an existing corridor, with equal or less funding.

*****

RTD's Southeast Corridor, which was rolled into the massive T-REX expansion of I-25 through Denver, came in at (as I understand) around $30 million per track/mile. This involved no less than four extensive flyovers, dual mainlines, catenaries, and subgrade depressed trackways with a couple of subterranean stations. These no doubt drove the average up. Given that most of this work was done pre-Katrina, with lower construction costs, there still is no way that even DT Raleigh or NCSU should come in above that figure, with no catenaries, traction power substations, or any of the light rail specific hardware involved. So let's run some numbers here:

Downtown Raleigh

Stations: Government Center, MMTC

Trackage: 2 miles

Track Type: Urban

CPM: $25 million

Construction cost adjustment (CCA): 50%

Total: $75 million

NCSU

Stations: NCSU

Trackage: 1 mile

Track Type: Urban

CPM: $20 million

CCA: 50%

Total: $30 million

Fairgrounds

Stations: Fairgrounds,

Trackage: 5 miles (Method Rd. to I-40)

Track Type: Urban/HD Suburban

CPM: $13 million

CCA: 25%

Total: $81.25 million

Cary

Stations: DT Cary, Cary West

Trackage: 5 miles (I-40/NC 54 to Weston Pkwy.)

Track Type: HD Suburban

CPM: $15 million

CCA: 35%

Total: $101.25 million

Morrisville

Stations: Morrisville/RDU

Track Type: MD Suburban

Trackage: 4 miles (Weston Pkwy. to Miami Blvd.)

CPM: $13 million

CCA: 25%

Total: $65 million

RTP

Stations: Triangle Town Center/RTP, RTP North

Track Type: LD Suburban, Greenfield

Trackage: 7 miles (Miami Blvd./NC 54 to Briggs Ave.)

CPM: $10 million

CCA: 25%

Total: $87.5 million

Durham

Stations: NCCU/Alston, DT Durham, Erwin Rd.

Track Type: Urban

Trackage: 3 miles (Briggs Ave. to Erwin Rd.)

CPM: $20 million

CCA: 50%

Total: $90 million

Alignment Total: $530 million

These figures include verrrrrrrry generous budgets and include construction surcharges that, to me anyway, seem high. I am not an engineer, and I did not calculate down to the foot/ton of concrete or ribbon rail. I would have no idea how to do that. But, intuitively using stock numbers, we come out with just over half a billion for the rail corridor. And I still believe this is a pretty high estimate, since one track is already there, and quite a bit of the signalling as well.

The state originally offered two-thirds that much in assistance to the TTA project. If that were to be invested directly into the NCRR corridor as improving a state asset (thus retaining that money on the state's own books), I do believe that TTA, with local assistance in setting up special tax assessment districts in and around the transit corridor, could quite easily provide the trainsets and operational expenses as another tenant operator on the NCRR. I would think also, that, if open parcels were zoned for high-density commercial and residential, enough sales tax revenue would be generated from new development around the corridor over a 20-year bond period in order to more than offset (and justify) the state's investment.

If the HSR were to be piggybacked onto this improvement project, I can't imagine the numbers being that much higher (maybe 35%), but accessing that trough of federal funds at the same time.

[tkd720man]

Would HSR require its own right of way?

[sax184]

Would HSR require its own right of way?

[monsoon]

I don't think you can take the specifics from another railroad proposal and use them to project a plan elsewhere. There are going to be huge differences which will make a dramatic difference in the costs that have to be covered. You can use this method to come up with an example of what it could cost, but in order for it to be more acceptable I would recommend the costs of at least 3 similar systems be examined.

I do think building a 26 mile long transit corridor, with the specifications that have been asked is very difficult to do for less than a $billion dollars. This line will have trains with the ability to handle 10 minute response times in both directions simultaneously. i.e. it is almost equivalent to light rail and that is now running somewhere between $55M and $64M/mile.

As another comparison, the 26 mile long proposed North commuter rail line in Charlotte is coming in around $350M. But you are talking about a system that will have a 30 minute response time and in it's initial phase will only offer service in one direction. If they upgraded this line to the TTA specs then I would expect the costs would quickly skyrocket. (and keep in mind they are paying NS almost nothing to use this corridor)

[ChiefJoJo]

FYI, here's the post where I itemized the various costs of the system as proposed. You can check out the report for cost estimates on individual segments:

For the project costs, check out the FY 06 New Starts Report (large pdf)--see pg 32. Here's some highlights:

const. (hard) costs:

$237M guideway & track elements

$7M stations

$25M maintenance yards, shops, etc

$114M sitework (utilities, haz mat, retaining walls, parking lots)

$67M systems (signals, comm & cntrl, etc)

soft costs

$54M land acquisition

$53M comm rail vehicles

$175M professional services*** (surveys, engineering, legal, project admin, insurance)

$10M contingency

$65M finance charges

TOTAL = ~ $810M or $28.7M/mile

*** this is the one that sets off alarm bells for me... it's tough to believe this needs to be so high, although about $70M has already been spent, which I suppose must go into the overall report for the project.

[vitaviatic]

Thanks for (re)posting the cost breakdown on TTA Final submission, Chief JoJo. For some reason, I either forgot to save it, or it dropped into the netherworld of my harddrive, buried deep where no one would ever see it again, except for the trolls that lurk...

Never mind.

This is a good illustration of some points that I have made before, and which are actually pretty common knowledge among planners. Public transit is very much a "toll road" (sorry about the mixed metaphors here) that all transit projects have to pay the "sentinels" (in this case, consultants) in order to even proceed. PBQ&D being the most prominent here. Note that the entire signalling system could have been paid for already with what has been been paid to date to these "sentinels" before one tie, or foot of rail, or new signal has been installed.

Having said this, I'm not an expert, but I'm not a dufus, either. I realize that outside engineering needs to be employed on a project of this scale, and I'm quite sure NCDOT, without some impetus from on high (the Governor's office) is loathe to take on permanent staff dedicated to NCRR projects (even though it is more or less part of the State). I know that speed is increased by ad-hoc assemblages of professional temp staffing, and more professional credit can be passed around from such arrangements as well. However, from the sampling of materials that I have read, most of the consulting efforts, and I assume expenses, were directed toward proving the "feasibility" of the project, which for many reasons, is nearly impossible to do. Some of this type stuff is part of the "dog and pony show" required to get Federal funding. $70M is nothing to sneeze at. That money could have done quite a bit of work in at least providing a "springboard" service, rather than purchasing tricked-out Sim City-like models that were disgracefully error-prone, and of little insight on the metamorphosis that would occur around the ROW, once operational.

The whole thing is like a poor man using his last few dollars to buy a new suit to impress a bank (or loanshark) to get a big loan. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. In this case, it didn't. This sorry stampede for Fed funding produces more losers than winners. The upfront waste of taxpayer funds irritates citizens enough that the plug usually gets pulled on a transit project before it gets done. Taxpayers are much more ammenable to spending, provided they actually see some progress on something, rather than confusing and obfuscated press releases detailing and extolling "progress" when not one shovel has met the dirt.

As far as the specific costs go, I would say that the $237M for guideway/track and the $65M for finance charges are lowballed at this point; I would ratchet those up by a factor of 1.5 at least, just to be safe. The contingency fund is way too low. An intuitive figure for me would be in the $40 to $50M range. "Contingencies", as they are called, are a way of life out here in the transit world. The $7M for stations could be high or low, depending on what parameters are used. In our experience, an agency budgets "x" dollars for stations, plans accordingly, comes up with a sterile design that nobody likes, then the served community either requests, or more often demands changes to meet public taste, then change orders get thrown in, often doubling or tripling the costs. What we recommended here was to involve the communities from the outset, perhaps even build stations out of community budgets (as has already been done in Cary and Raleigh on behalf of Amtrak), thereby relieving yet another fiscal burden from TTA's underfunded coffers. Everyone presumably gets what they want, or are willing to pay for, and things move along.

The $78M between CRVs and the maintenance facility is a variable as well. This could be addressed, and possibly diluted, if a turnkey contract were utilized, whereby the contract/consortium operator supplies the building and the rolling stock, the costs of which are rolled into a monthly/quarterly/yearly contract fee. This may certainly, dollars and cents-wise, be more expensive over the long haul, but it lessens the risk up front. If the whole thing turned out to be a bust (highly unlikely, but one never knows), the turnkey contract could specify a buyout price that would stanch the bleeding. The maintenance facility (built on TTA land) would be reclaimed by the agency, and be retrofitted as a high volume bus facility (widths of service bays and pits are similar for trains, but if redundancy is planned in at the beginning, it would make for a seamless transition in such a case. The rolling stock would be reclaimed by the operator, overhauled and refurbished, and sold or leased on the aftermarket. In this scenario the risk of TTA or other operator "getting stuck" with all of this gear, if no one shows up to ride, is substantially negated.

As for the $114M in sitework, this looks like a lot of bells and whistles that got thrown in during the "mission escalation" stage. Retaining walls? What retaining walls? If the existing trackage is used, the operation is grandfathered into the existing rail structure. During the proving stage, it would be prudent to simply build extended sidings where they would be needed to make bi-directional train meets (in places like RTP, this would not require retaining walls). Later on, the extended sidings are fused together, as service requires it, in order to provide multiple main track. The parking lot equation would be addressed to TODs, provided by the developing partner at whatever particular station, so either zero that out as part of the developer's cost, or reduce it as a shared expense item. By "haz mat", I assume they mean runoff mitigation during construction. The less construction, the less the mitigation costs are. If they mean catchbasins all up and down the alignment, this is a rip-off, since the only possible liquid waste stream generated by passenger service is derail, passive, or crash spillage of fuel and effluvia from onboard lavatories. Use of less toxic biofuels would lessen this risk. Otherwise, it comes down to TTA and taxpayers paying for upgrades that benefit freight rail, who can now carry cars of HCl, ammonia, sulphur, or whatever else along the mainline now, without impedence. At most you may need new bridges and flyovers, which I assume were rolled into the track budget.

As I understand, most of the absolutely necessary land acquistion has either been done, or deals put into place. Other than that, most of the costs delineated here are directly attributable to the ROW. If the State picks up the tab for this, keeps everything associated with the tracks under NCRR domain for multiple client/users, and TTA can find development and operating partners to at once disperse costs and create separate revenue streams from royalties, air rights, or sales in the vicinty of stations, then commuter rail service could get put together quickly, and easily begin by the time the minimal track improvements are made in order to start service.

[monsoon]

FYI, here's the post where I itemized the various costs of the system as proposed. You can check out the report for cost estimates on individual segments:

[ChiefJoJo]

Yesterday, TTA voted to purchase 20 new buses later this year. Hot damn! Maybe I'll get A/C next time I ride the 550X!

They also extended the contract of David King until October 2009. He's done a lot of good in a short period of time. He has been visiting area towns to educate them on the need for a transit plan. He's got the right personality and being from NC, I believe he can relate better to local leaders than Claflin.

[orulz]

2 TTA-related updates from the News & Observer today.

First, TTA will place an order for 20 new Gillig low-floor buses. Rather than the Thomas-built and El Dorado buses they are running now, the Gillig buses are a tried-and-true, reliable, and common model found all over the nation. This should help TTA cut down on maintenance costs.

Second, TTA's interim general manager David King has been hired on a permanent basis, with a contract extending until 2009. I've said it before, but I think King is just the right man for the job, and I'm glad that TTA has decided to keep him, and he's agreed to stick around. I have faith that King can build a consensus around what we want transit to do for us in the Triangle.

[ncwebguy]

The new buses look pretty good! I liked that Thomas Built buses were built in NC, but the "slightly modified school bus" feel was not what a transit system needs. The questionable AC and often malfunctioning wheelchair access of the Thomas buses won't be missed!

The increased fuel efficency and lower maintenance should be looked at when other area transit agencies buy new buses for their fleets. Adding service/routes will be nice too.

[ChiefJoJo]

The Transit Advisory Commission has held their initial meeting. There are two good signs I take from this article:

Local mayors and county commissioners called for a quick, fresh study last August, after an $810 million commuter train proposal ran out of steam. They took nearly nine months to agree on the makeup of their Special Transit Advisory Commission, but they want the new group to finish its work in less than six months.

"It's very important that on Oct. 31 you give a report," Alice Gordon of Chapel Hill, an Orange County commissioner, said Wednesday at the group's inaugural meeting in Research Triangle Park.

"In my mind, we're behind -- and we're going to fall farther behind unless we do something aggressive," said Bill Cavanaugh of Raleigh, retired president and CEO of Progress Energy and the advisory group's co-chairman. "Atlanta has been behind from the first day I ever went there. They've got a massive problem."

First, although they are behind schedule (only due to the elected officials squabbling, mind you), it seems CAMPO/DCHC expect them to finish by Oct 31st anyway, which if true, could give us a new Regional Transit Plan by the end of the year.

Second, it's good to hear the co-chair say things like that. It gives me some optimism that there is solid leadership and recognition that business as usual is not an option.

[JeffC]

Anyone know the extent to which a change in party control in DC in the 2008 election (Dem in the White House; solidified Dem control of Senate) would improve the financial climate for Mass Transit? Any chances the funding formulas would loosen again?

My cynical side says "probably not" especially given the impact on the federal budget of Dubya's ongoing foreign escapades...

[ncwebguy]

Does anyone know if TTA bus drivers are striking or anything?

On my way in this morning around 9:45, (I was running late, the road my driveway opens to was blocked off for "construction" without warning) I noticed *six* TTA buses on the side of the road -- two on the 40 west to Airport Blvd off ramp, one on 40 W just before the Page Road bridge, and three near the Alexander/NC 54 intersection (on 54 east, east of the intersection, on 54 west, just west of the intersection, and on southbound Alexander, north of the intersection) A couple had the "go around" triangles up but the rest didnt. Where there was multiple buses, it looked like the drivers were talking to each other.

Is that a regular occurance? Resetting schedules after the morning rush? It seems weird to do that away from major stops, and the three on I-40.

[orulz]

Not sure exactly what happened today. Around 9:45 a lot of TTA buses go out of service. TTA has far more buses in service during the rush hour (from ~6am to ~9:30am and 3:30pm - 7:00pm) than they do during other hours. The buses you saw that were not broken down were probably out of service. Even the ones that were broken down were probably out of service at 9:45, too.

I've been noticing a lot more TTA breakdowns over the radio on the bus these days now that it's getting hotter outside and they're needing to use the AC more.

TTA just needs to hurry the heck up, and get the new buses in service ASAP. Ditch the Thomas/El Dorado lemons right now!