A brief thread here about some of the main points in "Transport for Suburbia" by Paul Mees
During the same time frame, Vancouver had made improvements to its transit network, reducing trip times, while leaving congestion alone.
-
-
Contrast with Montreal, which left its transit network alone and tried to fight traffic congestion during the same time frame...
-
...average commute times increased from 62 minutes to 76 minutes--and there was no comparable population growth to explain it.
-
In sum: Vancouver REDUCED travel times by allowing congestion, Montreal INCREASED travel times by trying to eliminate it.
-
Next topic--land use and population density. Mees quotes "Building the 21st Century Home," a widely-used guidebook...
-
"We may lament the decline in public transport...it must be recognized that reduction of housing densities has played its part..."
-
"...densities of 100 persons per hectare are required to support a viable bus service and around 240 persons per hectare for a tram service"
-
Sounds reasonable--except that by this metric no city in Europe should have trams, except Paris (with its 250 residents per hectare).
-
To counter the density argument, Mees considers the efforts of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) between the 1960s and 1980s
-
Toronto has a small subway system; abt 15-20% of its residents live in walking distance of a station. But the remainder also use it...
-
...because Toronto's bus network is *functionally* an extension of the subway. Feeder buses and trams timed to connect with subway trains.
-
Melbourne, despite having a far more extensive rail system than Toronto, has lower per-capita use because it ignores network principles.
-
Only 10% of Melbourne's train passengers get to the station by bus, vs 76% in Toronto. 69% walk to the station in Melbourne, 20% in Toronto.
-
If Toronto only bothered w passengers who could walk to the station, it wouldn't have enough ridership to justify running trains every 5 min
-
...seven days a week, as late as 1:45 AM. By synchronizing buses with trains, it dramatically increases catchment areas for each station.
-
This is a two-way synergy--the buses made themselves *more useful* too by syncing w subway. This allowed for frequent bus service all year.
-
Running every 10 minutes or better all day, with cross-city and radial routes, Toronto stands out for *bus to bus* transfers too!
-
Last major point--on transit ridership and urban form in Switzerland.
-
Mees mentions Switzerland throughout his book, but begins by looking at Sternenberg, a rural municipality near Zurich, population 349.
-
Most people in Sternenberg live in farms, or tiny hamlets of 3-4 dwellings. The village center is a few houses around an old church.
-
In the USA, Sternenberg would have no public transport at all. But instead, it has 7 buses every weekday, 5 on weekends (7 in the summer).
-
19% of workers in Sternenberg use transit; 10% walk or bike, the rest drive. That's better mode share than ANY American city except NYC!!
-
What gives? Density can't explain it, and even frequency is too low. Something else is going on here...
-
Every bus serving Sternenberg goes to Bauma (pop 1000), the nearest town w a train station, just in time for riders to connect to the train.
-
That train, in turn, connects to the regional hub at Winterthur, just in time for connections to Zurich, the airport, and other centers...
-
This synchronization works in reverse, too--ride a train from Zurich to Winterthur, you'll be in time to connect to Bauma, then Sternenberg.
-
This is the NETWORK EFFECT. This is how public transit works with itself to be useful *anywhere* it goes, no matter how rural.
-
I mentioned that Mees does not discuss Japan--does Japan use this network effect, too? Sort of...
-
Mees sought to show that density is not the final arbiter of transit's usefulness. But it *does* still play a role, which he acknowledges.
-
Density is a big factor in determining frequency--note the low frequency in Sternenberg. In Japanese cities, density is usually a given...
-
...so there's no difficulty in justifying high frequency service. Where frequency is high enough, timed connections become moot...
- 7 more replies
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.