4 ms·

I have even taken this strategy to a bit of an extreme for simple cases intentionally complicating switching in order to gain time or comfort. Let's assume: -

I have even taken this strategy to a bit of an extreme for simple cases intentionally complicating switching in order to gain time or comfort. Let's assume: - I want to get from B to G. - Line 1 goes A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H. It is an obvious choice. - Line 2 goes -A-B-C-D-K-. Line 3 goes -I-C-D-E-O-. Line 4 goes -J-D-E-F-M-. Line 5 goes -L-F-G-N-. I might choose to take 2->D,3->E,4->F,5->G just because it is quicker because line 1 would have a longer waiting time. Or I might even choose to take 2->D,3->E,4->F,1->G (at the end taking the original line 1 that would have taken me the entire journey, therefore not saving any time) because it is too cold or too hot and I prefer to wait 4 shorter periods instead of one continuous long period. Things get more complicated when routes diverge and converge and when taking timing into account. For creating such combos the system you proposed would not help but a map does.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Public transit users in practice have some aversion to transfers. * people don’t like waiting, and often perceive waits as longer than they actually are, particularly if they’re uncomfortable * a scheduled connection is one thing, but missing a connection is stressful, and compounds the first factor * people are lazy and like being comfortable. If I get a seat on the first bus I take, do I want to give it up and potentially be forced to stand on the second one? Various places model this differently, but IIRC the most “friendly” transit planning model in North America assumes 1 minute of connection to be equivalent to 1.75 minutes of motion time.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  What I detailed, I do in real life because I don't like waiting, because waiting in the station is far less comfortable than being in the vehicle and because timetables are reliable enough that I do not worry about missing a connection. Besides, in the simple linear example I have given , it is impossible to miss the direct connection. It either catches up to me in which case I just take the direct connection when it does (and as a result I split my waiting time into shorter periods) or I arrive to the destination before the direct connection does (therefore saving time). > If I get a seat on the first bus I take, do I want to give it up and potentially be forced to stand on the second one This is never a scenario. I never get off a bus that takes me to my destination. I get off a bus when it no longer goes in the desired direction. I get ON the first bus that goes in the desired direction even if it doesn't reach the destination. If the first bus to arrive is the direct connection, I take it of course, and no longer bother with a combo. Compared to when tickets were per ride so combos were disincentivized, I vastly prefer the current system and I do these combos almost on a daily basis. An unreliable transportation system results in aversion to transfers. That is not the case in the cities relevant for me. Transportation is reliable enough that transfers are an opportunity for optimization instead of being something to avoid. Sometimes I even ended up missing the initial bus at the starting point that would normally be the last direct connection with my destination before a critical time point, but I manage to still make it in time by doing a combo instead.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Public transit users in practice have some aversion to transfers. * people don’t like waiting, and often perceive waits as longer than they actually are, particularly if they’re uncomfortable * a scheduled connection is one thing, but missing a connection is stressful, and compounds the first factor * people are lazy and like being comfortable. If I get a seat on the first bus I take, do I want to give it up and potentially be forced to stand on the second one? Various places model this differently, but IIRC the most “friendly” transit planning model in North America assumes 1 minute of connection to be equivalent to 1.75 minutes of motion time.

alexvoda 4y ago
What I detailed, I do in real life because I don't like waiting, because waiting in the station is far less comfortable than being in the vehicle and because timetables are reliable enough that I do not worry about missing a connection. Besides, in the simple linear example I have given , it is impossible to miss the direct connection. It either catches up to me in which case I just take the direct connection when it does (and as a result I split my waiting time into shorter periods) or I arrive to the destination before the direct connection does (therefore saving time). > If I get a seat on the first bus I take, do I want to give it up and potentially be forced to stand on the second one This is never a scenario. I never get off a bus that takes me to my destination. I get off a bus when it no longer goes in the desired direction. I get ON the first bus that goes in the desired direction even if it doesn't reach the destination. If the first bus to arrive is the direct connection, I take it of course, and no longer bother with a combo. Compared to when tickets were per ride so combos were disincentivized, I vastly prefer the current system and I do these combos almost on a daily basis. An unreliable transportation system results in aversion to transfers. That is not the case in the cities relevant for me. Transportation is reliable enough that transfers are an opportunity for optimization instead of being something to avoid. Sometimes I even ended up missing the initial bus at the starting point that would normally be the last direct connection with my destination before a critical time point, but I manage to still make it in time by doing a combo instead.