Contrast with Montreal, which left its transit network alone and tried to fight traffic congestion during the same time frame...
-
-
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...
-
...bc the waiting times are so low that there's always a connection in a minute or two. In rural areas, Japan times its connections though.
-
But for places like Massachusetts? Density isn't going to justify service in most places unless the network is INTEGRATED like the Swiss one
-
All other factors aside, service frequency--aka, how long do I have to wait?--is the main driver of transit ridership.
-
Density, in turn, is main driver of frequency. What an integrated network does is put low freq service into a context that makes it USEFUL!
-
Those 7 buses to Sternenberg would have no riders if they didn't connect to trains at Bauma, EVEN IF THEY STILL WENT TO BAUMA!
-
This is because Sternenberg-Bauma is not a very demanded route *on its own.* But Sternenberg to Bauma/Winterthur/Zurich/Airport?
-
Network effects in transit MULTIPLY the number of trips that are possible from a given point of origin. We can do this in the USA!
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.