4 ms·

What a sad indictment of the situation that your wild fantasy system has 15m headways. 4 Trains Per Hour. That's borderline unusable. 10 TPH is what I'd conside

What a sad indictment of the situation that your wild fantasy system has 15m headways. 4 Trains Per Hour. That's borderline unusable. 10 TPH is what I'd consider tolerable. 18 TPH is what I expect from first class cities in developed countries.

metadat 4y ago
That's a train every 3 minutes. What country has this? Definitely not USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Spain, France, Italy, or Portugal. EDIT: My mistake, thank you folks! Your experience traveling abroad is different than mine. For a proper train in especially Spain or Italy during off-peak hours, there were often only one per day for many routes. Caltrain and BART are both still utter disgraces.
- gcharris 4y ago
  The skytrain in Vancouver, Canada has 3 minute frequency at peak.
  - alephxyz 4y ago
    The o-train in Ottawa and the greens and orange lines in Montreal too.
- jamesmackennon 4y ago
  Hong Kong and Singapore do. It's quite nice, really.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Popular intracity buslines in bigger Dutch cities drove every 5-10 mins at peak times pre-COVID. It's really not that high of a standard.
- philbert101 4y ago
  Subways in London, Tokyo and Moscow. Probably not on all lines though and maybe not at all times.
- josegonzalez 4y ago
  During peak hours, NYC has subways running every 2-5 minutes. It’s usually a 5-10 minute wait during the day otherwise (and it’s about a 20 minute wait off-hours).
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  > What country has this? Definitely not [...] France Many metro lines in Paris run at less than 3 minute intervals during peak times (when there aren't any "incidents"). Even the aging line 6 has around 3 minute intervals during rush hour. I'm not very familiar with the Bay Area, so I don't know how these would compare to the line described by OP distance-wise. Longer distance trains in Paris (RER and other suburban lines) don't run at 3 minute intervals either.
- siquick 4y ago
  The new Sydney Metro has trains every 4 minutes in some areas. Can’t really remember ever waiting long for a train in Barcelona when I lived there.
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
  I can catch a tram every 4 minutes during peak times a block from my apt in NL. I haven't had to drive in years.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  From some recent HN discussions, a 2 minute headway for tracked transit seems to be the minimum based on both safe stopping distances and dwell time. BART achieved 4 minute headways through the San Francisco subway portion. That also effectively limits headways on branch lines (absent additional trackage through SF) as when multiple 15m headway lines are combined the net headway is reduced. For longer-haul commute service, 5--10 m headways aren't unreasonable, and a dedicated East-bayshore or Peninsula bayshore BART line might be able to accomplish this, with either a transfer or dedicated trackage in SF itself. (Muni Metro runs on what was intended to be additional BART trackage.) See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834413
- blibble 4y ago
  the Victoria line in London has 36 trains per hour or a train every 1 minute 40 seconds (2 track railway, all station stops)
dekhn 4y ago
Remember, the United States already built a full train infrastructure with excellent times almost a hundred years ago, and removed it because at the time cars were a good alternative. I've seen that many rapidly developing countries are seeing massive increases of car purchases by a new middle class. So I figure we just are about 50-75 years ahead. To me 15m with a 1m variance is pretty usable. A typical trip on BART (it's intercity) is going to be 30-40 minutes, and in many parts of the system you have multiple train options, which also reduces the wait time. To build some new train that works in SF, here's what you gotta do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway Now that is about $1B-2B in building prices to go underground 1.7mi. Oh, that was built to replace a freeway that was torn down in 1989 after an earthquake. So we're just about to see the infrastructure replacement about 30 years later. You can stop nearly any public transport project by using the state's EIR (IIRC the BART extension to the airport was slowed because of some endangered frogs). Another issue is that many PT projects are pork-barrel. The route of the "high speed train from LA to SF" is a nice example of this; the train will not be high speed for the popular sources and destinations, because the central valley obtained concessions about the routing. It will probably never see ridership to justify its costs, and major contribution to that is that it can't bring people from downtown LA to downtown SF quickly. I dunno. does the shinkasen make a detour to rural agricultural areas? What about high speed trains in China? Do they go through second-tier cites? My point is that while the US/SF is a first class city in a developed country, it lacks the political will to make great public transport, has trouble raising the funds to pay our very expensive building costs, and the alternatives are "just good enough" that the populace isn't super keen on large amounts of spending of PT without seeing some sort of benefit from it. Addressing all three of those and making change that makes the US a better place seems pretty implausible at this point.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > it lacks the political will to make great public transport It has enough space to continually and affordably reduce population density. I'm sure other countries make greater public transit investments because they do not have this convenience at their disposal.
throwk8s 4y ago
> 18 TPH is what I expect from first class cities in developed countries. Silicon Valley isn't arranged like a city at all, it's almost rural except for the traffic jams. (San Francisco is another story, but even SF is a very small "big city"). Four trains per hour seems fairly frequent for that type of suburban/exurban environment.
CaptainZapp 4y ago
The Zurich S-Bahn network runs 2 - 4 trains per hour, depending on the route and is very successful. It complements trams (streetcars) and trolley buses in the larger cities - Zurich and Winterthur - which run in 6 - 10 (maybe 15 in Winterthur) intervals. It further connects to a rural network of buses that serve literally every tiny village in the Canton and are timed to connect with S-Bahn trains. The whole system is very successful and utterly useful with those frequencies. Arguably, the city of Zurich runs one of the best public transportation networks worldwide. You don't need a 3 - 4 minute interval if you're not connecting Tokyo with Osaka, or inner city Paris. What you need is a well designed network, with guaranteed connectivity and predictable travel times with a simple ticketing system (independent of mode of transportation) and maybe not the fetish that it needs to be financed by ridership alone.

metadat 4y ago

That's a train every 3 minutes. What country has this? Definitely not USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Spain, France, Italy, or Portugal. EDIT: My mistake, thank you folks! Your experience traveling abroad is different than mine. For a proper train in especially Spain or Italy during off-peak hours, there were often only one per day for many routes. Caltrain and BART are both still utter disgraces.

gcharris 4y ago
The skytrain in Vancouver, Canada has 3 minute frequency at peak.
- alephxyz 4y ago
  The o-train in Ottawa and the greens and orange lines in Montreal too.
jamesmackennon 4y ago
Hong Kong and Singapore do. It's quite nice, really.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Popular intracity buslines in bigger Dutch cities drove every 5-10 mins at peak times pre-COVID. It's really not that high of a standard.
philbert101 4y ago
Subways in London, Tokyo and Moscow. Probably not on all lines though and maybe not at all times.
josegonzalez 4y ago
During peak hours, NYC has subways running every 2-5 minutes. It’s usually a 5-10 minute wait during the day otherwise (and it’s about a 20 minute wait off-hours).
vladvasiliu 4y ago
> What country has this? Definitely not [...] France Many metro lines in Paris run at less than 3 minute intervals during peak times (when there aren't any "incidents"). Even the aging line 6 has around 3 minute intervals during rush hour. I'm not very familiar with the Bay Area, so I don't know how these would compare to the line described by OP distance-wise. Longer distance trains in Paris (RER and other suburban lines) don't run at 3 minute intervals either.
siquick 4y ago
The new Sydney Metro has trains every 4 minutes in some areas. Can’t really remember ever waiting long for a train in Barcelona when I lived there.
beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
I can catch a tram every 4 minutes during peak times a block from my apt in NL. I haven't had to drive in years.
dredmorbius 4y ago
From some recent HN discussions, a 2 minute headway for tracked transit seems to be the minimum based on both safe stopping distances and dwell time. BART achieved 4 minute headways through the San Francisco subway portion. That also effectively limits headways on branch lines (absent additional trackage through SF) as when multiple 15m headway lines are combined the net headway is reduced. For longer-haul commute service, 5--10 m headways aren't unreasonable, and a dedicated East-bayshore or Peninsula bayshore BART line might be able to accomplish this, with either a transfer or dedicated trackage in SF itself. (Muni Metro runs on what was intended to be additional BART trackage.) See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834413
blibble 4y ago
the Victoria line in London has 36 trains per hour or a train every 1 minute 40 seconds (2 track railway, all station stops)

dekhn 4y ago

Remember, the United States already built a full train infrastructure with excellent times almost a hundred years ago, and removed it because at the time cars were a good alternative. I've seen that many rapidly developing countries are seeing massive increases of car purchases by a new middle class. So I figure we just are about 50-75 years ahead. To me 15m with a 1m variance is pretty usable. A typical trip on BART (it's intercity) is going to be 30-40 minutes, and in many parts of the system you have multiple train options, which also reduces the wait time. To build some new train that works in SF, here's what you gotta do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway Now that is about $1B-2B in building prices to go underground 1.7mi. Oh, that was built to replace a freeway that was torn down in 1989 after an earthquake. So we're just about to see the infrastructure replacement about 30 years later. You can stop nearly any public transport project by using the state's EIR (IIRC the BART extension to the airport was slowed because of some endangered frogs). Another issue is that many PT projects are pork-barrel. The route of the "high speed train from LA to SF" is a nice example of this; the train will not be high speed for the popular sources and destinations, because the central valley obtained concessions about the routing. It will probably never see ridership to justify its costs, and major contribution to that is that it can't bring people from downtown LA to downtown SF quickly. I dunno. does the shinkasen make a detour to rural agricultural areas? What about high speed trains in China? Do they go through second-tier cites? My point is that while the US/SF is a first class city in a developed country, it lacks the political will to make great public transport, has trouble raising the funds to pay our very expensive building costs, and the alternatives are "just good enough" that the populace isn't super keen on large amounts of spending of PT without seeing some sort of benefit from it. Addressing all three of those and making change that makes the US a better place seems pretty implausible at this point.

akira2501 4y ago
> it lacks the political will to make great public transport It has enough space to continually and affordably reduce population density. I'm sure other countries make greater public transit investments because they do not have this convenience at their disposal.

throwk8s 4y ago

> 18 TPH is what I expect from first class cities in developed countries. Silicon Valley isn't arranged like a city at all, it's almost rural except for the traffic jams. (San Francisco is another story, but even SF is a very small "big city"). Four trains per hour seems fairly frequent for that type of suburban/exurban environment.

CaptainZapp 4y ago

The Zurich S-Bahn network runs 2 - 4 trains per hour, depending on the route and is very successful. It complements trams (streetcars) and trolley buses in the larger cities - Zurich and Winterthur - which run in 6 - 10 (maybe 15 in Winterthur) intervals. It further connects to a rural network of buses that serve literally every tiny village in the Canton and are timed to connect with S-Bahn trains. The whole system is very successful and utterly useful with those frequencies. Arguably, the city of Zurich runs one of the best public transportation networks worldwide. You don't need a 3 - 4 minute interval if you're not connecting Tokyo with Osaka, or inner city Paris. What you need is a well designed network, with guaranteed connectivity and predictable travel times with a simple ticketing system (independent of mode of transportation) and maybe not the fetish that it needs to be financed by ridership alone.