
The Transit Ridership Recipe (2015) - dmit
http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership-recipe.html
======
jseliger
This is a great piece in conjunction with "The Astounding Collapse of American
Bus Ridership"
([http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/21/buses_in_new_...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/21/buses_in_new_york_and_other_u_s_cities_are_in_crisis.html)),
which explains why bus policy is so often bad and even counterproductive.

In Seattle, transit ridership is up significantly because of grade-separated
light rail: [http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/07/16/link-ridership-
up-8...](http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/07/16/link-ridership-up-82-in-
may).

------
mjevans
Short version:

Urban environments with well planned transit corridors make useful service far
more likely.

Suburban environments make 'coverage' more likely, but not effective coverage
or coverage that is useful for those that would need it the most (anyone
unable to afford personal transport).

Rural environments are just shafted; there can't even be the pretense of
economically viable coverage.

I can't help but imagine how self-driving cars would change the above; when
you can have an automated taxi take you directly from point A to point B, or
maybe share one or two stops at most with carpoolers along the way.

~~~
ubernostrum
_I can 't help but imagine how self-driving cars would change the above_

Well, he's written about that:

[http://humantransit.org/2016/07/elon-musk-doesnt-
understand-...](http://humantransit.org/2016/07/elon-musk-doesnt-understand-
geometry.html)

~~~
natrius
I agree with Walker's criticism of the transit service Musk describes, and his
conclusion: "...[Take] frequent fixed-route bus service seriously. If you
don’t do that in your land use planning, you’re going to end up building a
city where fixed transit is geometrically impossible, and then you’ll have to
settle for Musk’s vision."

However, it seems very clear that fixed-route transit service isn't optimal,
and that technology will help us arrive at something better. People want to
get where they're going as fast as possible, and each stop along a transit
route makes it less attractive. Ridehailing networks create a real-time market
for transportation that will make it easy to optimize each person's travel
time and costs. Some people will end up with what looks like fixed-route bus
service, just with dynamically generated routes instead. Many will end up with
more direct service with few stops, especially if they're traveling between
dense neighborhoods we've allowed to thrive by ending restrictions that
prevent them.

The key to making that future work is ending the crazy practice of allowing
our roads to become congested. We know how to turn off traffic. We just don't
do it. Charge fees that increase until traffic flows freely. Rich people get
direct travel with more personal space. People with less money share space and
travel with more stops. No one waits pointlessly in traffic.

------
parent5446
This blog seems really interesting. Has anybody read the other content? I'm
considering subscribing to it.

------
jdavis703
One of the main problems is even when we build transit stops we still do
everything else wrong. About two blocks away from the Hayward Park Caltrain
station they're building large single family homes. Those should at least be
town homes, but really should be apartments. This in itself is a waste of
taxpayers money as that station is just sitting there languishing for riders.

~~~
ubernostrum
Well, the "languishing for riders" bit probably also has something to do with
it being so close to the Hillsdale station. San Mateo has an overabundance of
Caltrain stations (depending on what part of town you live in there are up to
five different stations you could reasonably use).

Plus, there are larger apartment/condo projects going in near both Hayward
Park and Hillsdale stations.

