Those familiar with @humantransit's work will know that in the realm of public transit there is a tradeoff between coverage and ridership.
-
-
The guardian mentality applies to things which don't benefit from competition, like police services or governments. Best to just have one!
-
The guardian mentality is concerned with the welfare of its subjects, and tries to work with equal effectiveness throughout its territory.
-
The commercial mentality, on the other hand, applies to things which benefit from competition. The more the merrier!
-
The commercial mentality is concerned with maximizing customers, and so it tends to concentrate its work where it's most effective.
-
You can get a sense for what falls into what category by asking: is this something every little hamlet needs, or is it an urban luxury?
-
So, back to transit: the ridership and coverage dichotomy at the heart of transit is really two different things with the same label.
-
"Coverage transit" means providing a trip for anyone who needs one, from anywhere to anywhere, when they need it.
-
This sort of service will be very expensive to provide and impossible to schedule regularly--but it can be done. It already exists!
-
The more common term for "coverage transit" in the USA today is "paratransit." People who need it sign up and book trips as needed.
-
Unsurprisingly, this sort of service is VERY expensive to provide, relative to conventional "fixed-route" transit.
-
In my neck of the woods, a conventional trip costs about $2.50 to provide, a paratransit trip costs about $25.00
-
So if guardian transit is what we call paratransit, does that mean that commercial transit is fixed-route? You bet!
-
A fixed-route service operates according to a regular schedule, along a specified route, making stops at predetermined locations.
-
If you get the schedule, route, and stops right, this sort of transit can be incredibly profitable--as is the case in Tokyo and Osaka.
-
The ideal form of coverage transit is something like a taxi (which, as I've mentioned before, is a type of public transit).
-
The ideal form of ridership transit is something like a (grade-separated!) train.
-
The difference between the two has to do with the sort of networks they run on. The one uses a road system, the other uses dedicated tracks.
-
A vehicle on roads stops at most junctions, whenever it needs to change its route. A vehicle on dedicated tracks *only* stops for riders.
-
A bus or trolley that operates in mixed transit, by the way, is the worst of both worlds. It stops for every light AND for every stop.
-
This has some implications for transit provision: where ridership is too low to justify commercial transit, stick to ensuring coverage.
-
On the other hand, where ridership makes commercial transit viable, take all possible steps to ensure dedicated ROW, whether or not on rails
-
Coverage transit, which cannot possibly turn a profit, should be provided by the state, as part of a social safety net.
-
Commercial transit, however, should aim for privatization and keep costs in line with revenue.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.