3 ms·

> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. That's not really a fair metric. Taking rail requires me to take a bus at e

> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. That's not really a fair metric. Taking rail requires me to take a bus at each end and increases my journey length considerably. I would be boosting the passenger per hour of 3 vehicles despite a worse experience? I think metrics should capture the full cost and experience of the system. Having someone take transit for an 10% longer journey can be worthwhile, having someone take transit for 300% longer journey to save traffic might not be worthwhile if it reduces their labor output to society considerably.

fatfingerd 3y ago
It's really a planning discussion not a personal one. Planners where I lived chose rail as well as streets and I get reliable transport by rail or the Schroedinger street choice.
user_named 3y ago
[flagged]
- signatoremo 3y ago
  Passengers will choose alternative options if it isn’t convenient enough. So yes it is important to take personal experience into account. Also theoretical throughput is different than the real one. A380’s CASM (cost per available seat mile) is awesome when it can be loaded in full, except that it isn’t usually the case. The program is doomed as the result.
w4f7z 3y ago
>> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. The key word is transport. This is a rating of a mode of transport not a rating of any specific journey involving one or more modes of transport.
creer 3y ago
Exactly. Such a metric dismisses the traveller's view. It's a "pat yourself on the back" kind of metric. Reminds me of ... the often misused idea that more traffic lanes don't solve problem because they will soon enough actually be used by people who find a benefit in using them (the horror). One would hope for metrics that take into account the benefits to the travellers. A cab or similar is used because it brings a benefit to the user. NOT typically for the pleasure of spending more money.

fatfingerd 3y ago

It's really a planning discussion not a personal one. Planners where I lived chose rail as well as streets and I get reliable transport by rail or the Schroedinger street choice.

user_named 3y ago

[flagged]

signatoremo 3y ago
Passengers will choose alternative options if it isn’t convenient enough. So yes it is important to take personal experience into account. Also theoretical throughput is different than the real one. A380’s CASM (cost per available seat mile) is awesome when it can be loaded in full, except that it isn’t usually the case. The program is doomed as the result.

w4f7z 3y ago

>> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. The key word is transport. This is a rating of a mode of transport not a rating of any specific journey involving one or more modes of transport.

creer 3y ago

Exactly. Such a metric dismisses the traveller's view. It's a "pat yourself on the back" kind of metric. Reminds me of ... the often misused idea that more traffic lanes don't solve problem because they will soon enough actually be used by people who find a benefit in using them (the horror). One would hope for metrics that take into account the benefits to the travellers. A cab or similar is used because it brings a benefit to the user. NOT typically for the pleasure of spending more money.