3 ms·

> Where exactly do you think schooling and medical practices happen or children are taken care of? in close vicinity of the housing. not sure i understand the

by bosie 5y ago

> Where exactly do you think schooling and medical practices happen or children are taken care of? in close vicinity of the housing. not sure i understand the question. > How hard is to coordinate to double the number of trains or buses? running a bus during peak hours at twice your current rate (unless the rate is completely ridicilous) does not sound easy. why do you assume it is? at that rate, for SF at least, you are talking subway. by streets i meant the higher volume during peak hours that need to be sustained (walking, cycling, driving, busses, trams, parking etc).

rahimnathwani 5y ago
"running a bus during peak hours at twice your current rate (unless the rate is completely ridicilous) does not sound easy" The 14R (the fastest bus from my home to downtown SF) is scheduled to run every 10 mins (on average) during the morning peak. Running that bus every 5 mins (which presents no special difficulty) would double the capacity, and reduce average wait time by 5 mins.
- bosie 5y ago
  Can you please back up the claim that doubling every bus and tram does not present special difficulty? I would genuinely love to read an actual analysis of 'just doubling the frequency', does not even have to be San Francisco per se.
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    I didn't say every bus. I didn't mention trams. I wasn't making a general case that's applicable to every city. I was talking about specifically about SF, which has relatively uncongested roads, bus lanes that are mostly empty, and where the busiest bus stops receive buses no more than ~10 times per hour.
    - bosie 5y ago
      You said this: > Running that bus every 5 mins (which presents no special difficulty) would double the capacity, and reduce average wait time by 5 mins. the problem with public transportation among other things are connections. running specific buses with a higher frequency does not give you a lower wait time (on the journey) but only on that stop. > I didn't say every bus. > I didn't mention trams. ok i don't get it. why did you bring this up at all then?

by bosie 5y ago

rahimnathwani 5y ago

"running a bus during peak hours at twice your current rate (unless the rate is completely ridicilous) does not sound easy" The 14R (the fastest bus from my home to downtown SF) is scheduled to run every 10 mins (on average) during the morning peak. Running that bus every 5 mins (which presents no special difficulty) would double the capacity, and reduce average wait time by 5 mins.

bosie 5y ago
Can you please back up the claim that doubling every bus and tram does not present special difficulty? I would genuinely love to read an actual analysis of 'just doubling the frequency', does not even have to be San Francisco per se.
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  I didn't say every bus. I didn't mention trams. I wasn't making a general case that's applicable to every city. I was talking about specifically about SF, which has relatively uncongested roads, bus lanes that are mostly empty, and where the busiest bus stops receive buses no more than ~10 times per hour.
  - bosie 5y ago
    You said this: > Running that bus every 5 mins (which presents no special difficulty) would double the capacity, and reduce average wait time by 5 mins. the problem with public transportation among other things are connections. running specific buses with a higher frequency does not give you a lower wait time (on the journey) but only on that stop. > I didn't say every bus. > I didn't mention trams. ok i don't get it. why did you bring this up at all then?