4 ms·

Eh, in the Bay Area we have plenty of public transportation agencies / systems (which all coordinate really poorly with each other), and none of them are great

by ummonk 7y ago

Eh, in the Bay Area we have plenty of public transportation agencies / systems (which all coordinate really poorly with each other), and none of them are great (though some are more cost-efficient than others, e.g. Caltrain vs. Bart).

ves 7y ago
None of them compete, effectively, since they’re in different coverage areas. Except for bart, basically. And I certainly treat bart and MUNI as competitive products for commuting to work, although it doesn’t feel like MUNI does...
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  BART and MUNI have fundamentally different orientations, despite overlapping service along the Market Street subway. BART's service is long-train (up to 10 cars) through service on fully dedicated trackways following a single through route within San Francisco. If you happen to be transiting any points between Colma and Embarcadero strickly along that route, BART is your best bet. MUNI Metro serves multiple endpoints throughout San Francisco, several lines of which transit the upper level of the Market Street subway. Outside that route, the metro shares rights of way with street traffic, resulting in drastically less predictable schedules. The requirement to manage tight-radius curves and street traffic also limits the length of metro trainsets to a maximum of two coupled trolleys. The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in.
  - ummonk 7y ago
    >The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in. Not necessarily. They could exclusively run fast 4 car trains along the length of the subway, with transfers to street lines. That would prevent a single street-level train from backing up the whole system. http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/ http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      That's a possibility, though there's a long history of transit users prefering through routes rather than transfers. If Muni could maintain 4 minute headways (or shorter), consistently, in the subway, that might be an option. It would reduce the wait times inbound on the subway to an average of 2 minutes, which is tolerable. You still end up with the service irregularities on the surface sections, unless those rights of way are dedicated. Something which really should have happened long ago on Geary and Irving/Judah, 3rd St., etc. Maybe with the dedicated transit route on Market the idea will spread. Extending the subway further out is another option, though expensive and fairly unlikely.
Joeri 7y ago
But do they actually compete? Whenever I see privatized public transport it seems the systems cover different areas and in practice you either have only one real option or you have to pay for all options, neither of which leads to actual competition.
- bluGill 7y ago
  My understanding is in Tokyo they compete a little - that is there are a few people who are within walking distance to two different private operators. However even there most people are only really within talking distance of one line. With land based transit competition it is really hard to compete because land within walking distance is finite. (if you don't demand walking distance you get less riders by a lot). Thus to have real competition you need to have extremely high density - 50 story apartment buildings with few parks or other open space, at that point one line cannot handle all the riders and a second line can compete.

by ummonk 7y ago

ves 7y ago

None of them compete, effectively, since they’re in different coverage areas. Except for bart, basically. And I certainly treat bart and MUNI as competitive products for commuting to work, although it doesn’t feel like MUNI does...

dredmorbius 7y ago
BART and MUNI have fundamentally different orientations, despite overlapping service along the Market Street subway. BART's service is long-train (up to 10 cars) through service on fully dedicated trackways following a single through route within San Francisco. If you happen to be transiting any points between Colma and Embarcadero strickly along that route, BART is your best bet. MUNI Metro serves multiple endpoints throughout San Francisco, several lines of which transit the upper level of the Market Street subway. Outside that route, the metro shares rights of way with street traffic, resulting in drastically less predictable schedules. The requirement to manage tight-radius curves and street traffic also limits the length of metro trainsets to a maximum of two coupled trolleys. The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in.
- ummonk 7y ago
  >The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in. Not necessarily. They could exclusively run fast 4 car trains along the length of the subway, with transfers to street lines. That would prevent a single street-level train from backing up the whole system. http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/ http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That's a possibility, though there's a long history of transit users prefering through routes rather than transfers. If Muni could maintain 4 minute headways (or shorter), consistently, in the subway, that might be an option. It would reduce the wait times inbound on the subway to an average of 2 minutes, which is tolerable. You still end up with the service irregularities on the surface sections, unless those rights of way are dedicated. Something which really should have happened long ago on Geary and Irving/Judah, 3rd St., etc. Maybe with the dedicated transit route on Market the idea will spread. Extending the subway further out is another option, though expensive and fairly unlikely.

Joeri 7y ago

But do they actually compete? Whenever I see privatized public transport it seems the systems cover different areas and in practice you either have only one real option or you have to pay for all options, neither of which leads to actual competition.

bluGill 7y ago
My understanding is in Tokyo they compete a little - that is there are a few people who are within walking distance to two different private operators. However even there most people are only really within talking distance of one line. With land based transit competition it is really hard to compete because land within walking distance is finite. (if you don't demand walking distance you get less riders by a lot). Thus to have real competition you need to have extremely high density - 50 story apartment buildings with few parks or other open space, at that point one line cannot handle all the riders and a second line can compete.