It’s been a little over a year since SEPTA started “Bus Revolution,” their cost-neutral bus network redesign. The “Bus Revolution” is proposing many changes, including frequency changes, splitting up and merging routes, consolidating bus stops, and cutting some routes and even eliminating transit service to some parts of Greater Philadelphia.

A cost neutral redesign means no increase in overall service, just a reorganization of existing resources. Any changes proposed will involve “trade offs”– some areas get more service, some get less. SEPTA needs to be clear about what is being sacrificed, who exactly is being asked to sacrifice, and SEPTA should be prioritizing outreach to groups who would be sacrificing the most.

Normally, each of the individual service changes that are being proposed would have at least a 6-12 month period where signs are put up across the entire system to inform riders, rider input is collected to guide implementation, and feedback is closely monitored after implementation to see if the changes have made a positive impact to riders. To riders who have just heard about these changes, the all-at-once approach SEPTA is going for is understandably overwhelming.

We are concerned that the rider outreach SEPTA has done so far is severely lacking. In some of the virtual “Bus Revolution” meetings, consultants that SEPTA has hired to do rider outreach have said that SEPTA has not given them sufficient resources to do their jobs. And it shows: we’ve been out putting up signs and talking to riders, none so far had heard about the redesign. Next, we surveyed a sample of riders we’ve met during our previous campaigns and found that three quarters of riders¹ had not heard that SEPTA was currently in the process of making these drastic changes. We share SEPTA’s goal of faster and more frequent service, but if drastic changes are made with little input from riders and operators, this cost-neutral bus network redesign could leave us with worse transit service than we have today.

Evaluating SEPTA’s progress on accomplishing their “engagement plan” for the bus network redesign

To evaluate whether SEPTA is meeting the goals they’ve set for rider engagement, we reviewed their “Bus Revolution Public Engagement Plan” from May 2021. This report lists some opportunities to reshape the SEPTA bus network to address changes in where people live and travel, climate, and to address racial, social and health disparities. It defines broad principles for engagement: impacted riders should be heard, make sure as many riders as possible know about the coming changes, engage riders “where they are,” transparency, and more.

The “key engagement tactics” section in SEPTA’s engagement plan isn’t a list of what they will do, but apparently a grab bag of what they could do. In this section the use of the words “will” and “can” for different items are the only indication of what might be an engagement plan. There are many good ideas that apparently were not incorporated into the process: community ambassadors, thorough signage on buses and at bus stops, public meetings across the SEPTA service area. A January 2022 engagement report enumerates the outreach methods that were used so far: surveys, 10 pop up events, virtual “transit talks,” partnerships with 30 community-based organizations, 20 interviews, and 5 group listening sessions.

We are not saying that SEPTA has not done rider outreach, but when comparing the 2021 engagement plan with the 2022 engagement report, it seems that most of the tactics to meet riders “where they are” were not used.

Specific Process Improvements

While we reject the idea that a cost-neutral bus network redesign is a “bus revolution,” we don’t want this redesign to be a complete failure and leave us with a worse SEPTA system than we have today. To help SEPTA meet its own stated principles for the bus network redesign, we suggest the following process improvements.

SEPTA should commit to a principle that acknowledges that removing bus stops and reconfiguring routes will make it harder for riders to access transit. For some riders a longer walk to the bus is a minor inconvenience, for riders with limited mobility it can make public transit inaccessible. Improvements in “efficiency” at the expense of riders who completely depend on public transit are not improvements at all.

SEPTA should be honest to the public about who exactly is being expected to make “trade offs” in a cost-neutral bus network redesign. How much further will residents in US Census geographies have to walk to get to the bus? Which areas and neighborhoods are being asked to walk further? Publicly quantify and map who will see less transit service or have longer walks and more expected transfers with all proposed redesign options.

When considering the elimination of a stop, a route segment, or a route, SEPTA should list the specific metrics that will be used to identify those stops, segments, or routes. SEPTA should score each stop according to these metrics to be transparent in what exactly drives decision-making. These metrics should include ridership data, boarding and alighting by seniors, number of wheelchair ramp deployments and the frequency with which a bus “kneels,” as well as qualitative input like nearby amenities and the accessibility of adjacent bus stops. (For an example, see Translink’s Bus Stop Balancing, where they go over each stop on an affected route and explain why it was either removed or retained.)

Map social service agencies and take them into account when considering which stops and routes to remove. Food pantries, Department of Human Services facilities, social security/WIC/SNAP offices, and other locations used by marginalized and limited-mobility communities should be contacted for input. Incorporate their input and publicly quantify their responses.

Use bus advertising space, digital displays, and audio announcements to relay information about the bus network redesign and ask for rider input. Use plain language, like “did you know we are changing our routes? Your bus stop may be changed or removed. We want to hear from you.” Have comment cards on the buses for riders to give input. The Bus Revolution Team shouldn’t be afraid to go too far advertising the biggest change in the bus network’s history. They should consider full ad wraps and replacing all interior ads on some buses, as is common practice in New York and Vancouver. When SEPTA controls so much ad space, in stations, inside and outside buses, there is no excuse for so many riders to know so little about the bus network redesign. (SEPTA has made different claims about the extent of the advertisements they are running for this project. They’ve claimed car cards are on “most buses” and in a recent “Transit Talk” event claimed they were on “all buses” but were rotated out – honestly we haven’t seen any advertisements on buses, nor heard from any rider who has.)

Talk to riders on the bus and at bus stops. Again, talk about the bus network redesign in plain language. Take what riders have to say seriously and quantify their responses.

Talk to more operators, nobody knows entire SEPTA routes better than the operators. Many operators are unaware that the route they drive could be eliminated next year. Identify their input and make it public. On the July 14th Transit Talk, the Bus Revolution team revealed they had said they had spoken to only 13 operators so far.

If a bus stop is being considered for removal, put up weatherproof signs that explain in plain language, multiple languages, and pictures, why the stop is being considered for removal. Include a phone number and encourage riders that use this stop to offer feedback. Put signs up at least 9 months before a potential change. In 2011, SEPTA tried removing bus stops to improve route 47: the pilot “did not achieve the desired levels of improvement for decreased travel time or reductions in customer pass ups.” Stops should not be removed if the removal does not improve service.

If a bus route is being considered for removal, put up advertisements on the bus that explain in plain language, multiple languages, and pictures, why the route is being considered for removal. Use the bus announcement system to make these announcements. Include a phone number and encourage riders that use this route to offer feedback. Put signs up at least 9 months before a potential change. (Other transit agencies have done this, SEPTA can too.)

When speaking to riders, explain what a “bus network redesign” is, and ask if riders will be less likely to ride the bus if a bus stop or route is removed.

When presenting alternatives, compare impacts of bus-only service changes with impacts of fare policy changes that would integrate all modes. If changing the entire bus network is on the table, changing fare structures that exclude transit riders from the rail network should be as well.

Evaluate the impact of proposed network changes for passengers who pay with cash rather than using SEPTA Key and who would be required to pay for additional transfers. Report on options for providing fare equity to cash riders, including free transfers.

Be transparent when communities ask for new or changed routes. A Chinese community organization asked SEPTA for a route from Chinatown to the Northeast as part of the redesign. We were told that SEPTA dismissed their idea; this is unacceptable. If a community is asking for new or expanded transit service, SEPTA should take that ask seriously and let the public know that an ask for expanded service was made: it might mean that more people ride the bus.

SEPTA should not be scared to be honest with riders. If a route or stop is being considered for removal, riders must be informed of SEPTA’s intentions, in plain language, with an opportunity for riders to respond. SEPTA has chosen to do a cost-neutral redesign and must take responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

After the redesign

We are concerned that a cost-neutral redesign could actually mean worse SEPTA service. SEPTA should take these actions after the redesign to constantly evaluate the redesign and quickly fix any problems.

Regularly report to the public: have the bus network redesign changes been effective in addressing SEPTA’s stated goals for the redesign? If not, what is being done to fix the problems that were created as part of the redesign.

Resume the annual service plan process, with the open-house events where riders could come to SEPTA HQ and speak with planners about route changes. The bus network redesign should be explicitly about how the annual service plan process will be re-started, maintained and improved. Are the previous SEPTA service standards still valid after the redesign? If SEPTA’s previous service standards are now obsolete, why were they changed and what is the new set of service criteria?

Make the need for another big system redesign obsolete. Regularly reevaluate routes, adding or changing iteratively, as needed. Publicly report when communities ask for additional routes or route changes. Commit to taking these requests seriously– study and run pilots for new routes.

Conclusion

Our recommendations are not revolutionary. Each recommendation addresses shortcomings in SEPTA’s own stated goals for their redesign project, and each recommended action has been taken by other agencies during similar redesigns. All we ask is that SEPTA doesn’t leave riders behind.