4 ms·

I would argue that the efficiency of public transport during peak hours compensates for inefficiency during off-peak hours. Most public transports reduce the f

by zaarn 9y ago

I would argue that the efficiency of public transport during peak hours compensates for inefficiency during off-peak hours. Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak (there are 3 trains after 2200 to 0500, from 0500 to 0900 and 1800 to 2200 there are 8, from 0900 to 1800 about 9, total: 30 trains, of which >50% are used during peak hours). Today the train cart I used held about 40 people while being about as long as 4-5 cars (which would hold about 4 people each, or 16-20 total) Since 50% of the trains drive during peak hour, the overall efficieny is 50% peak hour: 20 people (0.5 * 40). Which would be equivalent to the number of people transported in the car. Now keep in mind; trains are much more efficient than a car per passenger, use no roadspace, are much safer and faster and cheaper (0.50€ to 5€ depending on ticket for my particular route, which includes all costs, gasoline used for route costs about 1€ per trip, which does not include other costs incurred by the operator).

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak Ah, but that's the trouble, right? If you only operate mass transit at the times and places where it's efficient, it doesn't serve the majority of people. Trains are great for the people who want to travel between two train stations during peak hours, but then there is everybody else. If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. Efficient mass transit requires high density. As long as there is sprawl there will be cars. So if you want less cars, have less sprawl.
- zaarn 9y ago
  >If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? To get to the train I walk about 10 minutes from home. Once I get off I take the Tram Line 4 or 6 one station, then switch to Tram Line 1 for another few stations. >Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. I'd time my clocking out with the train so I would ideally only arrive 10 minutes before the train. >And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. It's not a bad thing to operate mostly empty buses as long as the full buses can compensate for the efficiency loss. And they do. >There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. That solves it for new locations but existing locations will continue to face the same problems. Especially the inner city where I live cannot build larger buildings or become any much denser. The inner city is too old and the design does not permit skyscrapers with efficiency. Having train routes to and from major infrastructure hubs and using buses and trams to distribute into the city can get you within a 15 minute walk to and from any destination or origin. And it's cheaper, safer and more efficient than clogging up the city with cars or skyscrapers.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > To get to the train I walk about 10 minutes from home. That's great for the people who live a 10 minute walk from the train station. But when the surrounding area is only zoned for low density housing, that constrains the number of such people who can exist and other people will have a two hour walk to the train station. > I'd time my clocking out with the train so I would ideally only arrive 10 minutes before the train. You don't choose your hours, your boss does. If there are trains at 2200 and 2430 and your shift ends at 2230, you wait two hours. If there are trains arriving at 2200 and 2430 and your shift starts at 2400, you get there two hours early. > It's not a bad thing to operate mostly empty buses as long as the full buses can compensate for the efficiency loss. Yes it is. The two things have nothing to do with each other, because you can run the full buses without running the empty buses. And why run a bus with two people on it (or zero people on it) when the alternative of not running the bus and having those people share an Uber is actually more efficient? > That solves it for new locations but existing locations will continue to face the same problems. It solves it for both. If you create a lot of housing in the city at affordable prices then most people who work in the city move into it and get off the roads. Other people who also work in the city won't want to buy their old homes when there is now equally attractive housing in the city with no commute, so most of the people who buy the old homes will be people who don't work in the city. People who work from home, or work in the suburbs, or want a vacation home. Alternatively, the low housing costs may attract people from all over to move into the city and increase the population (and therefore average density) which proportionally increases the area over which you can efficiently operate mass transit. If the city becomes popular enough, the high density section expands to consume the suburbs and all the old sprawling single family homes get bulldozed and replaced with tall buildings that have the density needed for mass transit. > Especially the inner city where I live cannot build larger buildings or become any much denser. The inner city is too old and the design does not permit skyscrapers with efficiency. The inner city isn't the problem. It already has enough density for efficient mass transit. It's the area just outside the inner city which is the problem. A good workaround is to build a new transit hub in the middle of a currently low density area just outside the inner city and rezone it for high density. Then people will build high density buildings there because it has a transit hub that goes directly to the inner city and the existing buildings there are cheaper to raze. > Having train routes to and from major infrastructure hubs and using buses and trams to distribute into the city can get you within a 15 minute walk to and from any destination or origin. And it's cheaper, safer and more efficient than clogging up the city with cars or skyscrapers. Running empty buses is never efficient, and skyscrapers are the city. There is no traffic congestion in Hamberg, North Dakota because there are no tall buildings there for people to clog the roads getting to. The problem comes when the city wants to grow and you don't let it grow upward so instead it grows outward and loses the density needed for efficient mass transit.

by zaarn 9y ago

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak Ah, but that's the trouble, right? If you only operate mass transit at the times and places where it's efficient, it doesn't serve the majority of people. Trains are great for the people who want to travel between two train stations during peak hours, but then there is everybody else. If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. Efficient mass transit requires high density. As long as there is sprawl there will be cars. So if you want less cars, have less sprawl.

zaarn 9y ago
>If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? To get to the train I walk about 10 minutes from home. Once I get off I take the Tram Line 4 or 6 one station, then switch to Tram Line 1 for another few stations. >Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. I'd time my clocking out with the train so I would ideally only arrive 10 minutes before the train. >And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. It's not a bad thing to operate mostly empty buses as long as the full buses can compensate for the efficiency loss. And they do. >There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. That solves it for new locations but existing locations will continue to face the same problems. Especially the inner city where I live cannot build larger buildings or become any much denser. The inner city is too old and the design does not permit skyscrapers with efficiency. Having train routes to and from major infrastructure hubs and using buses and trams to distribute into the city can get you within a 15 minute walk to and from any destination or origin. And it's cheaper, safer and more efficient than clogging up the city with cars or skyscrapers.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > To get to the train I walk about 10 minutes from home. That's great for the people who live a 10 minute walk from the train station. But when the surrounding area is only zoned for low density housing, that constrains the number of such people who can exist and other people will have a two hour walk to the train station. > I'd time my clocking out with the train so I would ideally only arrive 10 minutes before the train. You don't choose your hours, your boss does. If there are trains at 2200 and 2430 and your shift ends at 2230, you wait two hours. If there are trains arriving at 2200 and 2430 and your shift starts at 2400, you get there two hours early. > It's not a bad thing to operate mostly empty buses as long as the full buses can compensate for the efficiency loss. Yes it is. The two things have nothing to do with each other, because you can run the full buses without running the empty buses. And why run a bus with two people on it (or zero people on it) when the alternative of not running the bus and having those people share an Uber is actually more efficient? > That solves it for new locations but existing locations will continue to face the same problems. It solves it for both. If you create a lot of housing in the city at affordable prices then most people who work in the city move into it and get off the roads. Other people who also work in the city won't want to buy their old homes when there is now equally attractive housing in the city with no commute, so most of the people who buy the old homes will be people who don't work in the city. People who work from home, or work in the suburbs, or want a vacation home. Alternatively, the low housing costs may attract people from all over to move into the city and increase the population (and therefore average density) which proportionally increases the area over which you can efficiently operate mass transit. If the city becomes popular enough, the high density section expands to consume the suburbs and all the old sprawling single family homes get bulldozed and replaced with tall buildings that have the density needed for mass transit. > Especially the inner city where I live cannot build larger buildings or become any much denser. The inner city is too old and the design does not permit skyscrapers with efficiency. The inner city isn't the problem. It already has enough density for efficient mass transit. It's the area just outside the inner city which is the problem. A good workaround is to build a new transit hub in the middle of a currently low density area just outside the inner city and rezone it for high density. Then people will build high density buildings there because it has a transit hub that goes directly to the inner city and the existing buildings there are cheaper to raze. > Having train routes to and from major infrastructure hubs and using buses and trams to distribute into the city can get you within a 15 minute walk to and from any destination or origin. And it's cheaper, safer and more efficient than clogging up the city with cars or skyscrapers. Running empty buses is never efficient, and skyscrapers are the city. There is no traffic congestion in Hamberg, North Dakota because there are no tall buildings there for people to clog the roads getting to. The problem comes when the city wants to grow and you don't let it grow upward so instead it grows outward and loses the density needed for efficient mass transit.