Important point here! A bit overstated--transit functions well even if it's not operating at capacity--but the point holds, there is a GAP between what car traffic is capable of and what transit is designed forhttps://twitter.com/poiThePoi/status/1004049716177498114 …
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
TBF, the question is: At what point does buying a fleet of quarter-million dollar buses (and paying the drivers and paying the pensions and paying the mechanics) make more sense than just having the riders all buy cars?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poiThePoi @380kmh
And the answer to that seems to be 10 minute headways. Ideally 6, but 10 if you can do it. /Also, buses without bus lanes... I took the bus from Mountain View to Palo Alto *once* (Dentist's appointment + afternoon meetings). 45 minutes for 6 miles at noon!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @poiThePoi
oh you're talking at what *frequency* is transit worth it--and yes 10 minute headways are the beginning of "ideal" (the beginning of "adequate" is more like 15 minutes)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Well, frequency converts to capacity pretty trivially. If you run a bus every hour, no one takes the bus (except the very, very poor). If you run a bus every 10 minutes, but can't get at least 3-4 people's worth of buses to ride your 6 buses at peak....
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @poiThePoi
this is like saying you shouldn't build roads unless they will operate at gridlock capacity for at least a few hours of the day lmao Japanese transit typically maintains high frequency throughout the day, when trains are mostly empty!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
A bus costs a quarter million dollars and gets about 3 MPG, the drivers cost $100k/year plus matching pension in retirement (when they aren't actually driving the bus) plus bennies There's a break-even point at which cars make sense /Or Ubers, since Ubers don't need parking
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @poiThePoi
Ubers (taxis) are much more useful than cars in this context--useful at higher densities than driving! But very expensive per passenger relative to distance traveled. Not viable on their own... Bus fuel economy and driver cost is not set in stone, and you leave out issue of fare
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @poiThePoi
Certainly it's important in USA to start charging passengers for the actual cost of the trip they take--this is something I discuss frequently
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
At which point I would've been paying $24/day for my commute from Mountain View to Palo Alto instead of $10, and would've stopped taking the train and started driving. And that's a solo car, a family of four...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
perhaps such a route isn't viable for train, then! but the only way to be sure is to see how many ride when the fare is correct--and on a related note, it is not just the cost of riding transit that is artificially depressed...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.