Density vs. Service - Which Gets You More Ridership?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 10. 2023
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/rmtransit-de...
Everyone knows you need density and good land use to drive transit ridership, but frequent service also matters if not more. In today's video I talk about how these two complement each other. Enjoy!
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemicsound.com/nptgfg
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
Thumbnail image courtesy of JR Urbane Network
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
This was a fun video, Reece. Thanks for the opportunity to speak about density!
Add CityNerd and we have the trifecta.
interesting topic but very shallow video.
he did not address the elephant in the room: WHO PAYS FOR THAT? density allow a higher revenue base and thus a decent service. cost per ride in low density is super high. basically is a regressive tax: many are paying so that few people in the suburbs can enjoy a decent service. so messed up...
@@chemicalfrankie1030
Ultimately, it's a prisoner's dilemma situation.
If everyone pays their own way, the overall service sucks, but there are no freeloaders. Ignoring the other costs of a car-centric network, which aren't captured by this comparison. (Lung maladies, increased traffic fatalities, reduced access to areas on the other side of a road, etc.)
If you allow for some selective freeloading; running low-profitability lines alongside high-profitability lines; knowing that you're going to be giving an overall discount to some people who aren't justified it, you can, at least potentially, produce a system that benefits everyone, on average, more.
As I said in my own direct comment, a system that only runs people around the work areas is unlikely to see the ridership, and thus overall benefit, that one that provides home to work, or home to shopping, service would. You need to connect people from where they are to where they want to go.
It can be worth taking a hit, in low-density areas, to see an overall profit.
Also, an area that is better served but under utilized, unless it has a strong NIMBY contingent, will become denser over time, as people migrate to the areas that are better served, building ever-denser in-fill, and brownfield, real-estate, so building a station that is literally surrounded by a mile or more of farm, on the outskirts of a growing metro area, can be a winning strategy. Sure, right now, some farmers get a VERY subsidized ride into town, but in a decade, a few hundred apartment dwellers, and reverse-commuters, may be using that same station at an actual profit.
Then you get into the overall cost-benefit of the system as a whole. A highway is wide, noxious, and noisy. It locks up ...let's see here..., assuming a "lane" is 3.7 meters wide, 0.37 hectares, or 0.91 acres, of property per kilometer-lane that is paved. Removing a "lane" of freeway, for 1 km, and replacing with 1 tram line in a dedicated right-of-way, could be the equivalent of WIDENING that same road by something-like 7 lanes, assuming typical utilization of 1.5 persons per car and 40 per tram, and assuming the tram, or other mass-transit connectivity, is extensive enough that people will use them over cars. Trains would be better, of course, but the animated chart I found, (by PTV Mobility, here on CZcams), didn't cover trains.
Replacing up to 8 lanes of freeway with a dedicated tram or train line, leaving just two or three lanes per direction for cars, could free up many square kilometers of usable, exploitable, land within a metropolitan area.
And that's just for the area under the roads, ignoring the similarly large area that is buried under parking.
This is land that can't be realized at its fullest potential, because it's needed for the adjacent property to realize something close to ITS fullest potential. By narrowing the streets, by using more space-efficient transportation options, even ones run at a "loss", you can better realize a benefit on the land that would otherwise be covered in asphalt.
That, by itself, might be worth running a system at a financial loss.
Unfortunately, you will have freeloaders, but the cost imposed by the freeloaders is less than the added benefit that the non-freeloaders see through a more space-efficient network.
The automatons devoured my reply. Trying again. Mostly verbatim.
Ultimately, it's a prisoner's dilemma situation.
If everyone pays their own way, the overall service sucks, but there are no freeloaders. Ignoring the other costs of a car-centric network, which aren't captured by this comparison. (Lung maladies, increased traffic fatalities, reduced access to areas on the other side of a road, etc.)
If you allow for some selective freeloading; running low-profitability lines alongside high-profitability lines; knowing that you're going to be giving an overall discount to some people who aren't justified it, you can, at least potentially, produce a system that benefits everyone, on average, more.
As I said in my own direct comment, a system that only runs people around the work areas is unlikely to see the ridership, and thus overall benefit, that one that provides home to work, or home to shopping, service would. You need to connect people from where they are to where they want to go.
It can be worth taking a hit, in low-density areas, to see an overall profit.
Also, an area that is better served but under utilized, unless it has a strong NIMBY contingent, will become denser over time, as people migrate to the areas that are better served, building ever-denser in-fill, and brownfield, real-estate, so building a station that is literally surrounded by a mile or more of farm, on the outskirts of a growing metro area, can be a winning strategy. Sure, right now, some farmers get a Very subsidized ride into town, but in a decade, a few hundred apartment dwellers, and reverse-commuters, may be using that same station at an actual profit.
Then you get into the overall cost-benefit of the system as a whole. A highway is wide, noxious, and noisy. It locks up ...let's see here..., assuming a "lane" is 3.7 meters wide, 0.37 hectares, or 0.91 acres, of property per kilometer-lane that is paved. Removing a "lane" of freeway, for 1 km, and replacing with 1 tram line in a dedicated right-of-way, could be the equivalent of WIDENING that same road by something-like 7 lanes, assuming typical utilization of 1.5 persons per car and 40 per tram, and assuming the tram, or other mass-transit connectivity, is extensive enough that people will use them over cars. Trains would be better, of course, but the animated chart I found, (by PTV Mobility, who has a channel here), didn't cover trains.
Replacing up to 8 lanes of freeway with a dedicated tram or train line, leaving just two or three lanes per direction for cars, could free up many square kilometers of usable, exploitable, land within a metropolitan area.
And that's just for the area under the roads, ignoring the similarly large area that is buried under parking.
This is land that can't be realized at its fullest potential, because it's needed for the adjacent property to realize something close to ITS fullest potential. By narrowing the streets, by using more space-efficient transportation options, even ones run at a "loss", you can better realize a benefit on the land that would otherwise be covered in asphalt.
That, by itself, might be worth running a system at a financial loss.
Unfortunately, you will have freeloaders, but the cost imposed by the freeloaders is less than the added benefit that the non-freeloaders see through a more space-efficient network.
Looking at your map, Ottawa catch my attention. Is it really the only 1M city in Canada with no area of density above 2,500 inhabitants /km²? What's different there than even Moncton, Saguenay or Sudbury?
2:00 frequency is even more important for transfers, it unlocks the whole network.
If the first train you take only comes every 30 minutes, you can often plan your activity around that and leave at the right time to get it.
But if you need to transfer and need to wait for the next bus for 30 minutes, you are stuck there waiting
This is a super great point, and is actually what has kept me from being able to utilize the bus as a serious transit method in my city. Even though it has a really great framework. transfers consistently add 15+ minutes each. Why would I use a service that takes an hour and a half to get somewhere when i could just bike the same trip in 30 minutes?
Obviously the bus is great for people who aren't able to commute without it, but for transit to thrive it should offer a better experience than driving and maybe biking (although bike infrastructure is already bad enough here).
It's also a pretty good problem to have over all, as it can be addressed by simply increasing service for many lines. Not that this is free or super easy, but beats out other more costly infrastructure.
Yep! Exactly, frequency hurts transfers the most.
You can kind of circumvent this issue with just better transfers. Integrated timetables do wonders!
Our city ostensibly has those, but without dedicated bus right of way, they get stuck in traffic and messed up. @@jan-lukas
Exactly. As an example, the Lakeshore West train every half hour stops at Aldershot, but every second train will continue on to West Harbour. That means that people who need to get to Hamilton will have to get off at Aldershot and take the bus from Aldershot GO to Hamilton, except this bus is so poorly scheduled and constantly stuck in traffic, making its performance so bad that you might as well wait a half hour for the train to West Harbour, or alternatively just time your trip to take the train that ends at West Harbour. This complexity gets worse if you need to take an infrequent Hamilton bus, as now after all of this you might need to wait another 30 minutes. I suspect if some deal can be reached with CN regarding the junction at Cootes Paradie we can probably have every train end at West Harbour, but until then most people are just gonna drive to Aldershot, especially those that live on the Mountain, as there's only one bus route from the mountain to West Harbour (at the moment, the city's transit agency is redoing the network).
It's both. Also simple payment, affordable pricing, integrated ticketing, reliability and comfort increase ridership too, although perhaps less than those first two things
I hate digital tracking of my on-line activities, and run a cookie-eater as a matter of course.
That said, I can see the benefits of knowing your customer's habits when trying to design a service around them. Here's to more transit cards, not just contactless pay on your bank account, with capped fees. If someone is riding frequently enough to cap out the fees, they're probably riding frequently enough to just ASSUME they're going to be there to take advantage of the bus or train.
Oh absolutely, simple payments are great.
@@S_Roach I trust a transport agency with my movement patterns much more than I'd trust, say, an advertising company with them. The incentives are different. Plus, cards have practical advantages such as rapid boarding. That said, I think it's important to keep a cash option available (even if it amounts to "use cash to buy a card from a vending machine"), for people who want/need to avoid digital tracking, AND as a backup whenever the eftpos network goes down, AND perhaps most importantly for simplicity in welcoming new passengers.
@@Nalehw Absolutely. A visitor, or someone ferrying around visitors, might well need to use some common method of paying, be it a debit card, phone-linked payment system, or something else. But, you can't know that their patterns add up to something you can mold your service around.
Well, you might, but it's less certain.
And actually, a visitor is probably the worst case to try to mold your service around, anyway. At least for commuter resources.
A regular commuter, who always hops on the 7:45 bus, every weekday morning, who always makes a transfer at a certain stop, and who always leaves the network at 8:30, five days a week, is someone you can plan around. You know, with some certainty, that that seat will be filled on those two buses. It's not a guess. And not being a guess, you can afford to charge less for the seat, because the risk of you running an empty seat is lower.
Like how insurance rates are calculated.
As I understand it, this is why Starlink charges more for roaming service over fixed; with fixed, they can count on you being there, in a particular "cell", where with roaming, they have to allow for a bit more slack. So the cost of allowing for the slack has to be amortized over all those who might be visiting the area.
@@Nalehw I am the opposite, government has much more power over my life than any corporation. The motivation of a corporation is profit not to harm me. Typically, their best interest is to not cause me harm. Government on the other hand, their motivation could be to harm me. We really should not trust government more than corporations. Ideally, we want corporations and government at odds with each other so neither can gain too much power over the individual.
London is actually fairly low density overall, but manages a pretty good overall network. The trick is to make sure significant new housing and commercial development goes around transport hubs, with more modest development in areas with moderate public transport, and only smaller developments in places with the worst public transport; while simultaneously slowly ramping up the frequency and service levels of buses, by adding 24 hour services and new routes (including express routes) in places where a new station or line is hard to justify given TfL's financial constraints.
Density affects cost. Low density means more miles of track, which is more expensive, and fewer riders to split that cost between. It doesn't directly affect ridership - many commuter rail lines have high ridership despite serving low density suburbs. However, high cost will indirectly affect ridership as people seek alternate options.
Well, it does, but that's not the whole picture.
The cost of the infrastructure itself; the rails, sleepers, and ballast, and the maintenance of that infrastructure over time, is going to go up linearly with the distance covered.
But the cost of the land that infrastructure is built on will be much cheaper in those lower-density areas than in the higher-density ones. Redesigning the infrastructure to avoid that basic difference can make the infrastructure prohibitively expensive.
It's far cheaper to lay at-grade track in the countryside than to bore a tunnel through the city center.
But that's true of highways, too, even though we don't generally think about it. Plowing a freeway through a neighborhood is a very expensive act compared to running it through farmland.
@@S_Roach On top that, spread: Is it a low density area in that the towns are 10 km apart or is it a low density area in which there is a sea of McMansions?
@@S_RoachAnd yet rail gets very little investment in places like the US, while roads get a lot. It's frankly hypocritical.
Density most certainly affects ridership directly. Suburban rail lines serving areas of low residential density have to be a) very long to attract riders from a much longer catchment area compared to a shorter line urban line, and b) have to deliver riders to an area of high job density (usually the office density Reece mentioned). That's why riderhsip being high or low is often discussed in terms of riders per mile or km.
@@S_Roach the ideal is to do it the way NYC and other older cities did it, build transit in low-density areas or former farmland then allow rapid development around the station. My neighborhood in Queens was literal farmland until 1917 when the subway came and brought us into the 20th Century. That's what LA and other cities get so wrong, their refusal to build around many of their stations (at least until recently with a slew of pro-housing bills passed)
It's not just the density -- in the United States (and judging from the aerial footage in the video, also in some of Canada), the _layout_ of suburban neighborhoods has been intentionally designed to be much worse for transit than density alone would suggest. This consists of squiggly streets and cul-de-sacs that US government policy intentionally encouraged from the 1930s onwards, making enormous areas of automobile-dependent neighborhoods, not only in the suburbs, but also within major city limits (like in Atlanta, GA, where I grew up). This is going to be extremely difficult to undo, especially given that the attraction to this design is driven by innate desire to keep out _the other_ (and it drives and synergizes with NIMBYism).
Not an expert so I'm just spitballing here.
I think a good starting point with undoing that would be to increase public transit where you can and promote more dense housing. Perhaps as cities become denser it will become more economical for cities to buy out lots in key areas which they can then bulldoze to make connections. Or perhaps, instead of buying out the entire lot, maybe buying a strip of land from the homeowner and turning it into a pedestrian cut through.
I feel like making walking/biking paths to short cut those squiggly lines would be highly effective. If done properly, it could actually further incentivize people to choose walking and biking over the car as it would enable them to access busy roads (which means more public transit and shopping options) while continuing to block through traffic. In fact, if we were to incorporate these pedestrian short cuts, I think that the squiggly nature of the roads might actually work to our benefit by making driving less effective then just walking down the block. I know that I've seen plenty of streets where I thought "man, if only I could cut through this person's yard, it would cut 15 minutes off this walk"
It'll take a long time, but I think there's definitely things that we can do. The real obstacle is the NIMBYs. I think if you do it right though, you can sell them on it. Already I see that a lot of the more wealthier neighborhoods around me have these pedestrian shortcuts built in to the design of the neighborhood. Just talk about how increased pedestrianization can benefit them by making it easier for people in their neighborhood to access shopping and services and giving them more route options if they like to walk or own dogs. If they start talking about security, just remind them that people can _already_ get into their neighborhoods easily enough. Gated neighborhoods would provide greater resistance, of course, but those are less common then ungated ones and you can always put a security gate on the cut through so at least the residents are incentivized to reduce how often they drive. These shortcuts will primarily be servicing the residents of the neighborhood, after all.
@@SilverDragonJay Good ideas, and I have even used pedestrian cut-throughs (one bicycle-friendly and one with stairs) in Brookline, MA; but many neighborhoods with squiggly streets (including in Atlanta, GA where I grew up) are absolutely devoid of such things, and are also at distances great enough fro shopping and services to deter people from walking. And people in suburbs (multiple Boston suburbs, Atlanta suburbs) have been all but explicitly racist about wanting to keep out transit on the argument that the people they don't want will use transit to rob their homes (yeah, right -- like criminals are going to take your TV back on the T . . . but since when did racists ever have to make sense?).
I blame the evil tyrant named Kevin Leonpacher.
It’s both honestly. Demand has to be there period. I live in Houston which is low density but the trains made those corridors VERY dense. On the other hand, we revamped our bus network some years back which helps the low density outlying areas. No more 1 hour between buses. So it can be both.
Oh absolutely both!
Depending on the system "a little late" equals either just missing your connection bus for the next hour, or the last bus for the day. Been there, done that, reallllly sucks in the middle of prairie winters.
I know you mentioned it in previous videos, a lot of NA suffers from focusing on routing people to downtown cores, which ends up making quick 10 mins trips by car take upwards of an hour or more by transit. Hell in a previous major city, I lived a 10 min drive from my job, 45 mins walk.... or an hour and 10 mins 2 bus trip, all because the focus of the region was getting people down town.
I'm glad metro Van and translink are working on the cross town connections over the next 10 years and 30 years.
But your video does highlight a major issues cities like Saskatoon faces where they're stuck in the circular thinking,
No one takes transit because its not frequent enough/direct enough > City doesn't fund more frequency or add additional routes, because... > No one takes transit because its not frequent enough/direct enough...
Rinse and repeat.
Man, every day I miss the Taipei MRT because it had both. An MRT stop was basically always within walking distance wherever I went in the city and probably the longest I ever waited for a train was 10 minutes
I'm truly rural, and, aside from a few years in a college town, I've always been truly rural, so bear with me.
You mention that an office tower will drive more ridership than will a residential tower, making it "better", but to me, it seems you want both. If you can't travel FROM a place TO a place, with a given set of resources, you'll use a different set of resources that let you.
If you can't take transit from a point near your home, to a point near your destination, won't you give up and drive?
It seems to me, that unless you serve the home, service to the business district alone is going to be inadequate to drive ridership, all other things being equal.
Of course, everything else is not equal. There's congestion, (if you have grade separation, so it only effects one method), there's the cost and availability of parking to consider, there's congestion pricing... I suppose this is where park-and-rides become relevant.
Granted, it seems easier to provide service to the office. The office, likely, only needs service, frequent service at least, for half the day or less, during the work week. The home, in addition to being inherently lower-density, would need it for two-thirds of the day, or more, every day of the week.
But if you don't provide it to the home, what's the point of providing it to the office? Or the school, the hospital, or the shopping district?
Frankly, it seems to come back to the question of whether a transit line, or system, should pay for itself. Yes, in aggregate, when taking everything into account, but not necessarily as a standalone assessment. If you need to lose money running a bus in the suburbs to make money running a bus to the downtown office towers, and to make money in aggregate, wouldn't you? And if you need to "lose" money, in aggregate, to save more money on infrastructure and avoiding locking taxable land under untaxable roads, wouldn't you?
Edit. A word.
I fully agree with you that the fiscally conservative option would be to estimate the cost and revenue of all option combinations and pick the best one. And that could mean running some lines at a deficit as a feeder to a profitable mainline that prevents the need from expanding a highway for decades and in the end costs the least both directly to the government and including externalities/social costs. (Car exhaust induced medical bills for instance)
Unfortunately the general public isn't that clever and someone in the auto/oil lobby is going to mock your unprofitable lines to get them closed and cascade destroy your system as the declining service pulls in less revenue in a vicious cycle.
@@jasonreed7522 Transit authorities need to be better at promoting the economic impacts of their systems. Stuff like "100K people use this line to go to work, with an average income of $70K/year, this line enables them to earn their $7 Billion in combined salary each year" - what then is the economic value of that line to the region? Not to mention the sales done by the business they work for, and how much consumer purchasing those people do as well.
@@jasonreed7522 if people complain that it isn't profiting, just make it free at the point of use. Libraries are free at the point of use and no one asks them to turn a profit.
I have often had the discussion about cost of transit. I ask this question ‘how much money does road x make (substitute any road in the city/town you are in). The answer is none. Roads are infrastructure that help people move which drives the economy. We don’t look at a road and say, gee, we need to make more money off that road, let’s put a toll on it. Transit should be looked at the same way.
It's true that transit that just goes from office to office, without ever coming in walking distance of any residences, would see pretty low ridership. Transit needs to serve both the TO and FROM parts of the journey.
You can see an example of this problem in the Las Vegas monorail, which just runs between the city's convention centre and a bunch of hotel/casinos, but nowhere else.
On days when there's a major convention in town, the monorail sees _extremely_ high usage, as everyone tries to get to the convention and back.
On days without a convention, the monorail is nearly deserted, because who wants to travel from one casino to another identical casino? It becomes a 'train to nowhere'.
If they'd extended it all the way to the airport, then it would've seen decent use all year long, but that extension was canned due to opposition from taxi drivers.
But Las Vegas is obviously an unusual case!
In normal cities, usually the commercial density and the residential density are linked. For example, you might see a CBD with a bunch of office towers and apartment towers all mixed together. Or out in the suburbs, you might see collection of 'town centres', each with a cluster of shops surrounded by a tight ring of medium-density residences.
(After all, cities don't spring up fully-formed. You start off with a bunch of rural-style villages - just a few shops surrounded by houses - and then they grow outwards until they overlap. So these commercial 'nodes' scattered around are a natural part of nearly every city.)
As a result, even very simple and naive approaches to route design like "let's chain together all the town centres" can end up with many residential homes within walking distance, even though you weren't deliberately thinking about residences.
Of course, there are exceptions. For example, if land values or NIMBYs are preventing you from up-zoning the inner city, what can end up happening is that all of your medium density residential gets built in a giant ring, out on the city's fringes, far away from any jobs, while most of the city's middle is lower-density. (This is happening in my home city Auckland now.) In scenarios like that, you need to think harder about real home-to-job routes.
It's service. One of the busiest railway lines in brisbane, goes through nothing but fairly low density suburbia, but it has a decent frequency and excellent walk up ability
Here in Madison, Wisconsin, the government is hesitant to increase the frequency of many bus routes that run buses once an hour because of low ridership, which is kind of frustrating because if buses only run once an HOUR of course ridership would be low. I'm sure public transit can work anywhere besides the exurbs and countryside as long as service is frequent enough and target the right places.
Which is a shame because Madison is building a BRT system. 30 minute frequency feeder bus routes are absolutely needed.
The real question is how full do these buses actually get? Low frequency does mean low ridership but if you run buses once an hour and there’s still like 2-10 on a bus at any given time (like how it is here in the Atlanta suburbs) more people are going to ride buses but each individual bus will be even emptier. People who adjust their schedules to catch the bus at 5 pm won’t be riding that bus anymore when they can just catch the 5:20 bus. At the same time, increasing frequency isn’t going to significantly increase the amount of people riding the 5 o clock bus when they’ve always had that option.
@@me-it9jn But it might. There could well be a few people who don't take the 5 o'clock bus, and drive instead, in a car they an barely afford, because the 8 am bus is just a few minutes too late to rely on, and don't want to get up almost a full hour earlier to catch the 7 am bus, and spin their wheels outside work for an hour.
It's the round trip.
Getting home 20 to 30 minutes earlier might not be a big deal, but getting to work 20 minutes before clock-in, instead of 60 minutes before clock-in, or worse, before the doors are unlocked to employees, might be the deciding factor in taking transit.
Don't live in Madison Wisconsin then
Bc in a city like Madison that has historically ran hourly service they need to almost DOUBLE the amount of buses they own to get to half hour service on every route. That’s an extreme example but realistically the funding for additional service over the status quo has to exist first.
I feel like if you do want to improve transit, start by increasing service frequency, then observe which routes do the best relative to before and adjust accordingly. Alternatively, build the transit first and plan for density around it.
London is not very dense (Not Houston levels of sparce) but still quite spread out, the suburbs go on seemingly forever yet most people use public transport at least a few times a week, if not every day.
Here in Buenos Aires density is VERY high, 15.000/km2 (28000/sq mi) with some districts over 30000/km2 (80000/sq mi).
But public transit is mediocre at best. Many routes, subway, rail, trams and buses, but a very bad performance overall. Disgusting service.
Each year less people use transit and more and more drive. Service is the MAIN thing to consider IMO.
Service!
Here in Riga we (the operating company) prefers to have a 18m trolleybus every 15 minutes over a 12m trolleybus every 10 minutes (roughly). This might look attractive from a management point of view, but does not seem to be an attractive option for an ordinary passenger. Especially, when service delays take place.
Indeed, 15 minute frequencies with delays can look pretty rough!
I agree that both factors affect transit usage. I live in a close in Philadelphia suburb and have a bus route that runs past my house that serves as a feeder to the city elevated-subway rail line. Our housing is a mix of single and twin homes and some row homes. However the main problem with our bus line is frequency. At rush hour weekdays it runs about every 20 minutes. However off peak and on Saturday it only operates every hour. There is no Sunday or Holiday service. So if I am not traveling into downtown Philadelphia I usually drive to the mall or shopping center since if I miss a bus the wait time is too long. SEPTA our transit agency has changed the routing of the bus several times and is planning to do so again. But without more service I do not see how they should expect higher ridership unless gas prices go higher. As usual they complain about government funding but in many cases they do things that discourage riding transit. Like needing to buy a transit card ahead of time to get the best price to ride and the lack of interchange fares between the commuter rail and the city or suburban bus and trolley network. If the fares and schedules worked together, more people would use the service and then possibly reduce the need for more government operating subsidies.
2:00 I'm always having to explain to people that frequency = speed. For example I'll always recommend taking the cheaper Piccadilly line instead of the Elizabeth line to and from Heathrow as the Elizabeth line is so infrequent to Heathrow with 15-30mins between trains. You pay 3x for the ticket to save 5mins to zone 1 but then waste more than that standing around.
With good service u can mitigate the effects of a bad transit right of way (like the typical US LRT along a freeway or freight rail row) but u no amount of service will fix fundamentally bad corridor choices and alignments (Denver, Portland, Dallas, Baltimore, Cleveland...). On the other hand good alignments can actually produce decent results even with mediocre service levels, overall weak public transit network and an outright hostile urban environment (see Valley Metro in Phoenix with riders per mile exceeding Denver and Dallas and on par with Portland).
I absolutely agree, really frequent transit is very attractive, but so is very fast transit!
Density does not guarantee ridership. I know this from residing in NYC. You need service in order to have ridership as no one wants to wait more than 15 minutes for a bus or train to arrive.
In Suburban areas, like Suffolk County, bus lines generally travel along major Commerical corridors, which are ridership generators. Routes that travel along residential corridors do not generate the most ridership as many are car owners, and the few that use the line are generally looking to connect with major lines along Commerical corridors or to Rail lines to/from Manhattan.
Brain-dead corporate transit managers are the biggest problem. I remember when I was in university and the students union was trying to get the Upass (cheap student fares) implemented. The local transit authority turned us down flat because "Cheap fares will drive up demand and we will then have to run more buses." I often think back to this whenever I wonder why we can't have nice things.
I recently spent a week using Chicago's transit system, and it seemed quite good by my standards. They clearly also have the density, yet 70% drive cars there. Is there another factor? Maybe perceived safety or comfort?
I live on the West Island of Montreal which will get the REM hopefully late next year. Presently there is infrequent service with most buses with half hour schedules with a few exceptions (like the 470). Density, on the other hand, is definitely increasing with new residential condo towers coming up in Pointe-Claire and Dorval and maybe others. I just hope that once the REM is active and the bus routes are modified to make use of the REM that there are some frequent bus routes that match precisely the 15 minute lead time on REM trains at off peak, so getting off the bus there is hardly a wait for the next REM train. Totally unrelated, the provincial government here is purportedly planning to cut their funding for public transit; this is terrible, terrible news.
Oh man I’ve been hearing about that since I first visited a decade ago. Hope they finish it soon. Love MTL!
Had this exact conversation with family! Unfortunately, Memphis is planning on cutting back bus service to 7pm and MINIMUM headway to 60min, although only 7/24 routes currently run more frequently than that. And they claim it is "To give the community service it
can rely on." It hurts to see MATA shooting themselves in the foot. D':
That sounds like it might be due to ongoing bus drivers shortages
@@jakeboxrud Actually, they say it is due to a shortage of mechanics.
I'm a service first person ... density is important but it doesn't take a lot of density to fill transit if the service is excellent. I would love for my "every 15 minutes" bus to/from downtown to become every 10 minutes, and 15 minutes is pretty good.
However, there's a problem with increasing frequency - finding enough drivers. My city is constantly advertising for bus and light rail drivers. According to the ads, they pay a good wage during training, and it goes up from there. But they had to decrease light rail frequency to every 15 minutes (too long for light rail) because they don't have enough drivers.
Absolutely, and while the wages they pay have gone up, in countries with great transit wages tend to be really high!
Definitely it's both. Scarborough at 3500 per sq. km. = 9000 / sq. mi is actually denser than the whole of Los Angeles! But service (frequency + connectivity + reliability) is key. What good is a 15 minute frequency if it is not kept and you have to wait more than an hour for a bus? And transfers only work if you don't have to wait too long for the second bus: if you're switching from an hourly bus to an hourly bus, if the first bus is late and the second one early, you might miss the second bus have to wait an hour for another one to show up to get to your destination, something that's a deal breaker for transit if it makes you late for work, even more so if it makes you awfully late. And if an hourly bus doesn't show up when you need it to, the route might as well not exist. So without good service you won't get the density.
We have 4 buses per hour, but they often arrive in pairs. Uggh!
Excellent video Reece. Really one to spread around. Which I will.😊
Reece great job,love your videos on Trains,and Buses.
Density will drive service and the other way round (unless you actively prevent it, looking at you Americas). You need to start with one of them, preferably service so that the new residents from the increasing density will use transit as their default, but then it'll continue on itself
Having grown up in Scarborough I can agree that the buss service was excellent. To the point where a trip to the downtown area was almost always a bus/subway trip and not a car ride
I think of it as:
Transit is a magnet. Passengers are smaller magnets that stick to transit. Density is how many smaller magnets there are. Good service is to have as few possible magnets deciding to break the laws of magnetic physics and not stick to the transit magnet.
Regarding service, my inner densha otaku wants to see more Japanese trains on north american tracks. I'd love to see all single deck trains running on local and limited rapid services, and mixed single deck and double deck trainsets on rapid and express services. (Imagine something like the Tokaido, Joban, or soon Chuo lines, except half of the train is double decks and there are bigger doors and stairways on the double deck cars, compared to the current green cars. I'd say don't go 100% double deck so you can have extra door capacity from the single decks, but still have more double deck cars than current JR trains nonetheless.) These trains would be a standard gauge version of the E231 or E233 series trains (the best trains in the world). Also, convert light rail systems to Japanese suburban systems, like how Japan converted the old interurbans to suburban systems. (You actually mentioned this in an old video, it's actually where I learned about that!)
When it comes to development, I personally like Japanese suburbs a lot more than modern developments. Something about those small apartments along a narrow street, separated by wooden walls, next to those yellow and black railroad crossings with trains going by every few minutes is just a vibe to me. (The Keio line and it's suburbs it serves is one of my favorite rail lines in the world.) What do you think?
I think the issue a lot of places has is lack of connectivity to places that aren't downtown, which is why I think the REM might be more successful then people expect when it fully opens because it connects the West Island to the South Shore in a way that they've never been before.
You know its a good day when RM Transit uploads!
The other thing with frequency, is that even if a given route is not perfect for you, then you are penalised by a transfer. Long transfer times are another factor that makes people consider taking the car, since two 10 minute rides can quickly become 50 minutes, if the transfer times are long, due to lower frequency.
Team frequency here... Density has knock-on effects on quality of life, particularly once you reach the point where increased density can only be achieved with highrise buildings. I also think "job sprawl" can have a positive effect. The primary reason most people make "trips" in commuting to/from work. In cities where jobs are densely located around the urban core but housing doesn't match, there's a need for more miles traveled (whether by car or by transit). By spreading out jobs the balance between housing and jobs is more equal, so people can more easily live close to where they work, which reduces the overall number of travel miles required, which in turn reduces the need for all forms of transit, but particularly cars.
As a Chicago resident, I'm very mad at the cta for cutting service so much that Vancouver now has more ridership than we do.
The other important thing is that it needs to go where people want to go. You can't just stick down a bus stop or rail station and call it a day.
Yesn't. If you have a line with good destinations but also "filler stations", those stations in between still actually become destinations sooner or later. You need some destinations, but you can also create them just by having good transit
Absolutely, some systems in the US like Dallas and Denver show this well!
I enjoy seeing São Paulo popping up every once in a while after you recorded its metro. Definitely an underrated transit system. Still lots to improve but it has gotten so much better. Most buses I have taken there were very frequent and served many parts of the city and subway stations through axes and streets. The only thing I'd change would be the numbers as the destination text indicated in front of the bus. It is so confusing when many buses come at once and their destinations are: 7903-10 or 875A-10 or 778R-10 or 7545-10 or 7272-10. When 4 buses arrived and left the bus stop at the same time I panicked! And I sometimes entered the wrong bus lol
There is another important variable which is alluded (particularly re Brampton) but needs to be made more explicit. That is, trip patterns. A more concentrated set of origins and destinations goes along with denisty and service. Brampton may be a case of some scattering of origins (lower density housing) coupled with a selected set of high employment and scholastic centers. (I am somewhat guessing, not being that familiari with it). BTW, I am familiar that Brampton is an immigrant hub which bring up issues slightl;y lower socio-econimic, i.e., lower car ownership rates. Another BTW, a key difference between Canada and the US are fuel prices and the copious amounts of free or low cost parking south of hte border.
But back to o-d patterns. Two important factors have been at play for at least the last 30 years if not more. Cit centers are no longer the only and in many cases no longer the principal locus of jobs. The rise of suburban industrial and office complexes has created the "reverse commute". The other is that Norht American households have for now nearly two generations dismissed the "Leave it to Beaver" model where only one spouse works outside home. The more sprwal the more that this complicates o-d patterns. Transit agencies have been very inept at responding to these trends and a witha few exceptions keep falling behind.
The best response to these three variables (denisty, service, and o-d patterns) is introducing a fourth variable, public policy which encourages TOD, transit-oriented development, both residential and commercial. That is part of the success of VancouverOne can create a virtuous circle where amenties are located near transit and people make housing, employment and recreational choices based on tranit availability rather than highway access.
Interesting point about Vancouver having newer density than many other places and that feeds the ridership numbers of the Skytrain.
Get up on one of the mountains and you can basically trace the rail lines by the tower blocks in what is a pretty solid "tall and sprawl" we got going on here. But something that ill add in is that of the 23 municipalities in Metro Vancouver, 7 now have Skytrain with those 7 having about 3/4rs of the population. The train then acts as a very strong magnet for growth within those large municipalities and feeding a very distributed, but concentrated, growth pattern.
At this point, we are already getting action on orbital express routes to link the outer areas. What also helps ridership is the largest university campus has such a large draw that basically every route going to it is a frequent one. Also also we dont have urban freeways into the core of the city so transit options arent competing with "one more lane bro" syndrome.
Around two minutes into the video, the topic of travel time of the bus route comes into play, and the implication is made that travel time doesn’t matter. It’s really frequency at the stop that matters.
I’ve started to think about a topic I’m calling Transit Differential, and this is a measure of how long it takes to get somewhere by bus versus somewhere by car, given the same time of day, weather, etc. I live in a city where many trips can be completed anywhere from 7 to 15 minutes but trips by bus often take 25, 30, 40, or more minutes because of the windy routes they take.
When I was on the mass transit districts, board of directors, and we held a public hearing about annexing a new neighborhood into the district, a resident of this neighborhood, in fact, brought up that their work was less than 10 minutes by car, but almost 40 by bus, and” who, in their right mind, would choose to give that amount of time up round-trip every day?”
I believe that transit leaders need to pay attention to the concept of ride times versus drive times or they will continue to lose out to ride sharing services and other options.
Very nice topic
I'm kind of making a grimace seeing 2500/sqkm used as the mark for high density.
Paris is a lovely place to live with plenty of green space and no significant high rise, with 20000/sqkm. I've lived in great neighbourhoods in Singapore with >25000/sqkm.
I know you're working with what there is in North America but God damn.
This video reminds me how sick it is that in my city we have trolleybus network with two most frequent lines going every 15 and 20 min
grade separation falls under service as trains that get stuck waiting for cars to turn means slowed service. for most people driving will always be faster so the train is not an option for commuting. we really need more dedicated bus lanes too
other 2 factors that i feel add more incentive are:
1- convenience of service, how easy is to just pay for the bus & forget it; how much does one payment of bus covers you
2- consistency, it doesn't matter if it is 2 minutes or 20, as long they're consistent enough that you can actually plan accordingly [points at Metro de Santiago vs Transantiago]
I live in suburban London and it sure it might be a bit more dense than suburban north America but it's still the suburbs. There are buses going towards central London and the tube every 10-30 minutes depending on the route. And what a surprise buses are always busy at rush hour. I think the ridership is higher in London suburbs compared to North American suburbs is a combination of service but also the fact that London suburbs are sort of laid out like individual towns with their own high street where people go to work and shop as well as catch the bus or train.
"London suburbs are sort of laid out like individual towns" - that's exactly what they used to be, small towns and villages out in the countryside until the early 20th century. The construction of railways caused London to expand and absorb them into suburbs. I quite like that facet, gives every suburb its own distinct character.
I live inside the city limits of one of the communities that make up the Greater Vancouver Regional District. At the very eastern edge of the city. I live in a very low density suburb but we do get bus service. 6 days a week we get a short bus that makes 7 runs a day in a loop that begins and ends at the Haney Bus Loop. It runs about every 2 to 2.5 hours. 6 times on Saturday. I found that going at the bus just before noon, there would be about 7 people riding. On the way back, leaving the loop just after 3, after we pass the high school there might be up to 11 people on the bus for at least part of the route. Definitely a money loser. .
Earlier this year I could no longer safely unload or load my lightweight folding powered wheelchair out of my small SUV. (I have a heavier duty powered chair for use at home. So while I did research, on a replacement system. I started using the bus service to get into downtown Maple Ridge for shopping, etc. I found that it was not too bad really with the low frequency. It was nice to meet people as well. I did learned the schedule pretty quickly.
However I found that it took me about 30 minutes to go where I could drive in 20 minutes. Plus, I would habitually get to the bus stop 10-20 minutes early which added time to the trip. But returning, as this was a loop route, by return trip was about 45-55 minutes. Sometimes I would connect to the R3 Rapid Bus for another 30 minute or so ride to the Skytrain station in Coquitlam. At least this bus was just as fast as driving. Then Skytrain to Lougheed station to my doctor's office. A total time of 90 minutes en route. And 10-20 minutes waiting for my first bus.
For the cost that a retired person pays, of about 55% of regular rare, it is an incredible bargain. compared to the cost of driving. But I really hated the incredibly rough ride of the vehicles. The short but has incredible hard suspension. But all the vehicles jerk badly when stopping and even when accelerating. Most operators including the Sky Train make little of no effort to make smooth stops. I know it can be some. I have done them routinely on all sorts of vehicles. But this sudden jerk back when they stop starts to make me nauseous after a short while. And the noise level!. Absolutely horrid. It appears the drivers do not receive any training on how to drive smoothly.
So in my case in July I bought a minivan to be able to use my wheelchair safely again on the road. The lift to get me from my wheelchair to drivers seat and the robot arm that comes out the side door to load or unload my smaller power wheelchair took until mid September to arrive and install. So after spending about $60 on my Compass card, I am back to driving. I could live with the schedule. I could even live with the additional time compared to driving. At least in the summer. But the harsh ride and horrid amounts of noise were unbearable. As well, I had to use my heavy powered chair on transit as it has a seat belt and the additional mass to handle the roughness. Though there were multiple times where if I did not have the seat belt I would have been thrown out of the wheelchair. It is so nice again to be able to go again in smooth quiet luxury, with my tunes playing in surround sound and to get where I am going in less time.
My point is that so long as I can hold onto my drivers license, you can try to improve transit a lot but the sheer physical discomfort and noise of transit is a big turn off for trying to get even more drivers out of their comfortable cars. I will only return after I am no longer considered a safe driver. I am 72. My grandfather was good until he was in his early 90s. .
But I would like to thank you for your coverage of Canadian transit systems.
Yes. Hudson Bergen Light Rail is harsh too.
you. can have massive density and a bus every 5 min ;but if you get to go from a parking lot to a parking lot no one would ride ir
In a way you could say that a lot of parking spaces in general mean you don't really have too dense of a city.
Or maybe by american standards you still do. Idk, i am too european to know what yall mean by density (i mean we also have a very big car problem, but at least we don't have parking lots in like 60% of public space)
Well thats what Toronto has, and that city does pretty well!
I think when it comes to better suburban transit/mobility, it's better to focus on rapid transit extensions + getting a solid multi use pathway/protected bike lane network to and from the transit extension to outlying residential neighborhoods, with a focus on intensifying the core with TOD.
Excellent video! 😊
Density first then increace Frequency. in my bus transit, the buses leave every half hour but increase frequency when demand surges. Previously it used to be every hour.
Many years ago a friend was told, “Chicago has a great system; the problem is no service.” I suppose that still to be true though I seldom use it now. I laughed at the thought of waiting thirty minutes for a bus. That’s on a good day. Service might be scheduled more frequently, but screw-ups occur with regularity. Even the trains - at certain hours the odds are at least 50% that it’s going to be real bad, with delays followed by express trains that skip your stop. 😂
Density would help but service probably has to come first. It would be hard to convince masses of ex-veteran riders to trust the CTA again however.
I love how Hong Kong is included in so many of your videos. This is coming from a Hong Kong person. 😀
Edit: Shenzhen too!!!
Frequency is definitely the most important factor. When frequency/service quality takes a hit, even in dense areas people will stop taking public transit. I live in the Boston area right now and can confidently say people uber constantly even if they live close to heavy rail transport because the MBTA is in such shambles right now.
Toronto suburbs are the model? Jeez. I grew up in North York and relied on the bus for 8 years. It was a miserable experience (and influenced my decision to move downtown). Took a long time to get anywhere and i often found myself enduring long waits in the bitter cold at a bus stop or crammed into an uncomfortably crowded bus. Driving is a far more desirable option if you have the means.
I took a shot every time Reece said “transit” and now I’m dead.
Reliability is number 1. Ottawa's OC transpo pre LRT era with the bus was serving 300-400k/day with a population that's 1/4 Vancouver and 1/5 Toronto. Since the LRT and covid, our usage has cut to 70% pre covid levels due to reliability AND change in work
greetings from Shenzhen
here in chicago our bus service is decent but our suburban bus is absolutely terrible. Unfortunately it serves some areas within the city limits, and they have like half-hour+ frequencies and are usually late by 10-30 min.
I think urban layout matters just as much as density or service. Density is all well an fine, but if amenities are far apart and streets are poorly designed, then people won’t be incentivised to walk around (especially if it’s unsafe). Having a walkable neighbourhood ensures people can get basic necessities like groceries, food as well as schs and work without possibly little to no requirement for transit. It’s only a matter of whether they want to for the sake of a bit more convenience.
For instance, I lived in a public housing apartment in a neighbourhood called Admiralty in Singapore. Grocery, food courts clinics were literally two blocks away from where I live. I only had to walk. Meanwhile, my secondary and primary schools where just across the street. I rarely had to take the bus. Walking and cycling were very much the way I moved around in my neighbourhood. I only needed to take the train if I were visiting my grandmother or going out to the central business district where most of the touristy places are. As a teenager, I spent less than $20 on transit every month.
Reece mentioning that one shouldn't overlook office density made me wonder if there's a known ratio for how important residential, workplace and commercial density are.
-- A (pure) workplace is easy to predict: it generates 10 commutes in a typical week (I'm summing up departures and arrivals for everything). Maybe some employees make additional trips to get lunch or breakfast, but that depends heavily on the local culture and also skews towards walking, so I'll omit it.
-- A living space will generate 10 _commutes_ per resident, but only for residents which are employed (around 60% or 63% or so in the US). I.e. 6 _commuting_ trips for the _average_ resident. But you also have commerce-induced weekday trips by those 40% which are not employed; and everyone might do additional trips on weekends. Let's say those do 5 trip legs every week, and that an average person makes 2 trip legs per weekend day. That would sum to 6+5*0.4+2, which is also 10.
If a significant part of the population is engaged in sports clubs or spending the evening out, that might add another 6 trips per week, but it depends on the local culture again.
So let's just call this 10 as well.
-- An area of commerce is getting REAL nuanced. It's not only a place of work (10 commutes per workplace), but also attracts customers. And the amount of customers can vary wildly. Compare hospitals (where a patients can stay for several days and receive only about a visitor or three per day, while being cared for by several of the medical personnel) or car repair shops to grocery stores (where a cashier services a customer every 5 minutes(?) for 8 hours straight, attracting about 100 customers per day).
I'd say that each workplace in a commercial setting generates between 30 and 200 trips per week.
I'd say if you want to estimate how many trips could originate (and terminate) in a certain area, you'd add the residential density and workplace density, multiply by 10-ish, ...and then do a bunch of hand-wavy fudging to account for commercial density.
Of course when someone talks about bus frequecy… no Mtl😂 guys we just have 9 « frequent » bus services in the entire city…
Great video as always !
The answer is a both/and answer. Combining frequency and density WITH high-speeds are the answer. The faster and more frequent the transit (especially if it’s comparable to driving), the more people will take transit. The high-speed regional rail networks being built in the megapolitan regions of Delhi in India and Seoul in South Korea will be so fast that no driving will ever be as a fast as taking the train. While these regions are megacities that are massive in area, there are still plenty of opportunities for fast regional transit in smaller metropolitan regions, even if not super high-speed like those of Delhi and Seoul.
If you can't have frequent services, then make them easy to use. If you have a bus roughly every half hour, you need to consult the timetable. If you have a bus exactly every 30 minutes, every hour, all the week, you need to consult the timetable once, and then you know, your bus is at h:23 and h:53.
I've known a case where going from an exactly 15 minute frequency to an exactly 12 minute frequency lost passengers, because it's easier to remembre a bus going every 15 minutes than every 12 minutes. For most people it's easier knowing the bus runs at h:05 and the every quarter of an hour, so at minutes 05, 20, 35, 50, rather than 05, 17, 29, um, 41, 53...
Hey Reece! Can you do a video on Manila’s metro system? (LRT/MRT) I would LOVE to see your opinions on the current network, and its future lines.
I think that when design public transit, there should a vision of foresight, in which how fast would the city grow and where are or would be clusters of development. There should be a overall tendency of concentrate the employment and residential areas into clusters in terms of urban planning, and these cluster should prioritize in transit design, even if that may not have the high density at that time. The higher frequency of transit would make people and business move to places that previously not in higher density, which fosters the demand of high density development, thus increase the density the transit serves
Because of the MTA's IBX choosing light rail, I would like to see what base model and what specifications you would choose for the line based off of its environment.
I personally chose the Stadler Variobahn as its base model, with 1 5-car set that can be paired with another set.
Interesting. The MTA model for the IBX is a 3 articulated car light rail train.
When you started this video, you ask the question: Density vs. Service, and I am really not sure that's the right question. Or rather, it's incomplete: *Coverage* may actually be the most important factor here: Access to transport the entire day and evenings, 7 days a week. While it's not going to generate much on its' own, it boosts passengers gained from density and better service because if you fail to provide proper coverage you lose a very considderable chunk of (potential) ridership: You end up eliminating almost everyone who wishes too be transport reliant, or wouldn't think about it now but would choose to be (partially) transport reliant if the options existed. They are one of the biggest rider groups on most succesful networks. Missing them, is lethal to a good and functional transit system.
Especially in the US it seems that there's very few cities who actually have a good grasp on this concept, causing many systems; especially smaller systems, to end up in a financial death spiral due to low ridership where politicians and people fail to have the confidence to make the necessary improvements to public transport, especially after they tried and failed when not fixing this issue first before trying things like adding a glamerous new BRT/tram/streetcar/light rail line. (Birmingham Alabama may be the single worst example I can think of: There is no all day, 7 day service at all in the entire metro area. And f*ck - even the new BRT system won't run on Sundays.)
Density and Service are incredibly important, and for the future, arguably both priorities need to be adequately balanced; but if you don't have the coverage first, you won't get the most out of it, and you're left with transport deserts where communities become isolated. I am facepalming so hard at governments, especially in Western Europe, who got this right for donkeys' years, now failing to understand the importance now and have started seriously cutting the coverage in order to save money and/or use the money on either new density or service; which will still generate gains in the short term, but those gains won't be as robust as before in the longer term, and transport deserts are starting to appear in areas where that'd be unthinkable before.
Definitely the kind of video you use to convince a city council.
thumbnail of hk makes me want you to talk about how hk buses actually work
I wonder how much subsidization plays into it, in the sense that suburban lines to less dense areas of major cities would be subsidized by the more lucrative urban, higher density lines. In other words, Toronto might be able to run frequent transit in low-density suburbs, but (say) Ottawa might not because it has less of a revenue-generating core. (I’ve probably picked the wrong cities as an example, but I think the point is clear)
My brother was going to the airport yesterday. There were 2 trains he could catch 5 minutes apart. We left on time, got stuck behind a school bus and he missed the later of them by literally 30 seconds. The next train wasn't for another *hour*. I ended up having to drive him to the airport through a storm and heavy traffic. Despite a google maps estimate of half the travel time, the drive still ended up taking as long as the train would've taken because of the traffic. The train schedules for my local station make zero sense. And I'm lucky enough to have access to one of the US's best suburban rail networks, and yet it's still borderline unusable except for commuting to the city center.
Lemme guess Newark?
@@jetfan925 NJT, but it doesn't really matter. Almost all suburban rail in the US suffers the same issue. It's just not economical to run high frequency rail to such low density places.
Plus, when you already have to get in a car to get to the station, few people are going to be willing to not take that same car the rest of the way to their destination. Unless parking and traffic are really really bad, like when commuting to a city center at rush hour, it's just more convenient for most people to take their car unfortunately.
@@cebo494
The thing is though, that this and other "the US isn't dense enough" arguments fundementally ignore the non-accounting costs of driving. Public transit isn't supposed to be economically viable, just like how roads aren't economically viable. Public transit saves society money through reduced pollution, reduce road accidents, reduced congestion and reduced general wastage of human time driving. If you factor all the social benefits of public transit, even running near empty busses every 15 minutes to the burbs suddenly becomes a net gain to society.
Thats bad to hear, a train network should be the best choice! The consistency of travel times is one of the best things about it.
i would love to see a video about metro do porto in Portugal
Heyˈ think you can do a video on the light rail that Austin is planning?
Both but also coverage.
"Just one more train!"
For the average passenger on a frequent service transit line, normal train delays are not a significant problem. You just take the next train to arrive. Gaps in service are the principal frustration.
I’m curious what you think about “directness” and if you think that is a factor at all. My city’s bus route is forced to take a really out of the way route, where the cars can cut through the middle of the city and therefore cut the trip by at least half. It’s mainly due to a bridge that is super outdated and can’t carry busses. But do you think that making transit either more direct or making cars go around via a ring road affects ridership at all?
Directness definitely matters. I personally am much more likely to ride transit when the route is direct than when it's circuitious.
It's also true to say that they feed into eachother. High density invites high service, and service invites higher density
BART, are you listening?
BART needs work, but it seems to be getting better!
1:34 oop, Minsk ❤
In my city real estate developer built apartment towers near train station that increase density in a some way
Sydney vs Melbourne is a great example as they both have similar population. Sydney has the higher ridership because of its more frequent services.
And a better network layout that enables trips that are not just CBD -> Suburbs and Vice versa
@@RMTransit That is where buses come into play. I live pretty close to the Sydney Metro Northwest line. With the introduction of the new line in 2019, the buses in the area have more cross-city focused and greater suburban line feeders to the Metro. Most Metro stations now have high-frequency bus services to Parramatta (Sydney’s second significant CBD). Sydney’s bus patronage is almost as the train patronage.
I think you are missing one possible problem with transit in low-density areas: travel time. If you run transit through low-density areas, you (potentially) need to travel long distances to actually get to anything interesting. That can make transit, being generally slower than driving, unattractive.
Its an issue for sure, but those suburban buses in Toronto still fill up despite it. I remember using the buses to take journeys that would be notably faster by car so its not the end of the world.
Any tips for places like Adelaide with average density below 500?
speaking for my own opinion: more NON bus services would get my ride, i always try to use light rail but never buses as i get sketched out by the people riding on them as well as they are subject to the same traffic i would encounter in the comfort of my own car. i live in between everett and seattle and would use the sounder in a heartbeat if it ran on weekends but it only runs on weekdays during rush hour and because i work at boeing unless i take off work i literally CANT use the service unfortunately
I’m interested to know how much good quality service increases density. Land with easy access to transit tends to increase in value, leading to a natural increase in density to make the best use of expensive real estate.
All true, but more bus service also means a lot more labour cost per passenger/km and too many buses on a corridor make for a very undesirable urban setting. (trains, good).
More density means huge savings to the city for providing all services (schools, water, parks and so on) per resident as well as the promise of more walkable, retail rich, streets leading up to the transit station.
Its not all about the headway; its about the city we want to live in.
The first footage is clearly from Guangzhou Subway, not the JR.
So given job sprawl, busses are the way forward, not rail?
As for frequency *or* density ... someone figure out a way for us to get more bus and train drivers (likely tram and metro too, but I only hear about the former ones). The local buses were just reduced again because of a lack of bus drivers. Trains frequently get canceled because a train driver got sick (and there is no replacement). Both are actively advertising for new drivers ...
8:38 Can someone tell me where and when the video was taken? Is there a flood happening? It’s kind of unrelated, but why is there so much water there?
A classical case of "Why not both?" 😌
When i'm travelling with the Nuremberg Metro i want go as fast as possible. The U1 drives each 6 minutes and the U2/U3 each 3 to 4 minutes. That's okay.
Can you share the map of places with >2,500 people per square kilometer?5:49
Service Frequency is what makes the users want to use public transit.
Density is the excuse companies and profit centric politicians use to not expand upon, or heck even push for privatization of, public infrastructure
Nah, density truly is important!
@@RMTransit but it is still not important for the users of the public transit. While I love how much more frequent Seoul's public transit is compared to probably anywhere on North America, I still absolutely despise that so often the buses and the metro are at the point where they are about to explode because they are trying to squeeze in so many people into them. It physically hurts to be a rider in such over-crowded public transportation.
Density is what always matters for the ones who make the decisions... and Unfortunately, it is, more often than not, being used as an excuse to not expand upon making public transit more accessible and appealing.
I have been having debates about what people prefer to have when it comes to public transport coverage. In my country, where trams (streetcars) build the country's main cites the passenger catchment was based on 500 metres either side of the tram route with tram stops approximately 400 metres apart, meaning it was 5 to 9 minute walk to a stop. In 2023 with nearly nearly 65 years of car based urban sprawl, the current thinking of urban and transport planners are working on the concept of frequent bus services which can have been 700 to 900 metres catchment either side of a bus route with 500 to 600 metres between bus stops equating to 8 to 12 or possibility of a 15 minute to a bus stop depending of terrain. Your Bey (porn between 1990 20 2000) and Gen Z want to have less that 8 minute walk to a bus stop. Just curious to what people think.
I have often had the discussion about cost of transit. I ask this question ‘how much money does road x make (substitute any road in the city/town you are in). The answer is none. Roads are infrastructure that help people move which drives the economy. We don’t look at a road and say, gee, we need to make more money off that road, let’s put a toll on it. Transit should be looked at the same way.
Bro ok? he looks grey
He’s just missing the fangs and black cape