10 ms·

From life in Oslo, Norway. In so far as improving the comfort of passengers using mass transit the best way to attract more travelers and retain travelers is t

From life in Oslo, Norway. In so far as improving the comfort of passengers using mass transit the best way to attract more travelers and retain travelers is to run enough busses, trains, subway trains, during rush hour so that the passangers are not packed like sardines ass to dick for 30 mins or more twice a day. Then cooling inside the inside the passaenger area is also key Sweating like a pig while playing a sardine makes the experience even worse. Starting work drenched in sweat and the smell of other poeples perfume and cologn is not a good start.

naming_the_user 1y ago
100% this - make it more comfortable and handle the rush. I live in London, we have tons of public transport. In the middle of the day, outside of rush hour, I use it a lot and it can be really pleasant, particularly suburban rail, you can stretch out a bit, there is often air conditioning, a nice view from the window, etc. When it's busy I will drive even if it takes longer because my car is guaranteed to have personal space and is clean.
bluGill 1y ago
I agree, but that costs a lot money. It costs $100/hour (this is likely low since I haven't checked in several years what inflation has done) to run a bus. That is one bus, even a tiny city will need more than 100 buses to just provide bad service, and would need 5-10 times as many just to give good service. If running buses were free everyone would have a bus every 5 minutes, with many different routes to choose from. Providing good places to wait for your bus is cheap by contrast, the cost of a single bus will upgrade many bus stops and the investment will last longer than the bus (though you need to maintain it) You are wrong about rush hour. You need to provide good service all day, not just during rust hour. People who have good rush hour service and then a "family emergency" pops up mid day when they discover service is bad will go back to driving just in case that happens again. Plus running all day service at the same rates ends up breaking even - between staff willing to take less per hour, and good service enticing people to ride you can generally break even on your costs.
- seszett 1y ago
  > even a tiny city will need more than 100 buses to just provide bad service, and would need 5-10 times as many just to give good service Wikipedia says De Lijn (the company that provides public transport for Flanders) has 2200 busses total. Service could be better but it's not awful either, and that's for a whole region of 6 million inhabitants, so I think your numbers are quite off. A tiny city only requires a handful of busses, a medium one use 50 busses or so.
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    I assume that the major urban areas also have decent rail and tram systems, though. It makes a big difference. Dublin has a metro population of about 1.5 million, and has about 1,400 buses (excluding intercity and private services); however its rail and tram systems are, er, inadequate. Berlin has about 1,600 buses for a metro area of 6 million, but of course has a far better rail and tram system.
    - seszett 1y ago
      Right, I totally forgot that the bus network here is only there to fill the gaps between the tram lines, which might not be the case in other places.
      - rsynnott 1y ago
        Yeah, there's a route (or set of closely related routes) near my office which, at peak times, has a 100 person double decker bus about once per _minute_. Really, it should be a tram route, but that would require building a tram line, and Dublin tends to see that as an immense undertaking to be done only once a decade or so (and this decade's one is already planned out).
        Scoundreller 1y ago
        Have they made any efforts to make peak demand... less peaky? That's kinda a problem with big capex transit projects: you're spending all this cash to 24/7 fix a problem that only exists for 5-10 hours/week.
putpoointheloo 1y ago
[dead]

naming_the_user 1y ago

100% this - make it more comfortable and handle the rush. I live in London, we have tons of public transport. In the middle of the day, outside of rush hour, I use it a lot and it can be really pleasant, particularly suburban rail, you can stretch out a bit, there is often air conditioning, a nice view from the window, etc. When it's busy I will drive even if it takes longer because my car is guaranteed to have personal space and is clean.

bluGill 1y ago

I agree, but that costs a lot money. It costs $100/hour (this is likely low since I haven't checked in several years what inflation has done) to run a bus. That is one bus, even a tiny city will need more than 100 buses to just provide bad service, and would need 5-10 times as many just to give good service. If running buses were free everyone would have a bus every 5 minutes, with many different routes to choose from. Providing good places to wait for your bus is cheap by contrast, the cost of a single bus will upgrade many bus stops and the investment will last longer than the bus (though you need to maintain it) You are wrong about rush hour. You need to provide good service all day, not just during rust hour. People who have good rush hour service and then a "family emergency" pops up mid day when they discover service is bad will go back to driving just in case that happens again. Plus running all day service at the same rates ends up breaking even - between staff willing to take less per hour, and good service enticing people to ride you can generally break even on your costs.

seszett 1y ago
> even a tiny city will need more than 100 buses to just provide bad service, and would need 5-10 times as many just to give good service Wikipedia says De Lijn (the company that provides public transport for Flanders) has 2200 busses total. Service could be better but it's not awful either, and that's for a whole region of 6 million inhabitants, so I think your numbers are quite off. A tiny city only requires a handful of busses, a medium one use 50 busses or so.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  I assume that the major urban areas also have decent rail and tram systems, though. It makes a big difference. Dublin has a metro population of about 1.5 million, and has about 1,400 buses (excluding intercity and private services); however its rail and tram systems are, er, inadequate. Berlin has about 1,600 buses for a metro area of 6 million, but of course has a far better rail and tram system.
  - seszett 1y ago
    Right, I totally forgot that the bus network here is only there to fill the gaps between the tram lines, which might not be the case in other places.
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      Yeah, there's a route (or set of closely related routes) near my office which, at peak times, has a 100 person double decker bus about once per _minute_. Really, it should be a tram route, but that would require building a tram line, and Dublin tends to see that as an immense undertaking to be done only once a decade or so (and this decade's one is already planned out).
      - Scoundreller 1y ago
        Have they made any efforts to make peak demand... less peaky? That's kinda a problem with big capex transit projects: you're spending all this cash to 24/7 fix a problem that only exists for 5-10 hours/week.

putpoointheloo 1y ago

[dead]