
A conversation about how public transport really works - mpweiher
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/01/26/2198114/a-conversation-about-how-public-transport-really-works/
======
cameldrv
I like Jarrett Walker. He does come at the problem from a certain perspective
though -- he wants to solve problems with mass transit. Just like he talks
about there being immutable laws of geometry, there are some immutable laws of
transit. Mass transit fundamentally depends on having a lot of people who want
to get from point A to point B, all at the same time. Since this is never
true, you have to relax the requirements. You can make people wait until there
are enough of them, you can make them walk to or from a stop, you can make
them detour, slow down, stop and then speed up to let others get on and off,
and you can make them switch vehicles. Fundamentally those are your options
given some set of vehicles, whether they're planes, trains, or automobiles.
All forms of transit exist on the tradeoff surface between these
possibilities. As population density goes up, it's easier to find lots of
trips that are close enough in the five dimensional space of origin,
destination, time.

Where I perhaps differ from Jarrett is that I see no problem in having transit
options that have one or two people per vehicle. The 2-5 person capacity mass
transit vehicle has been a very underexplored space because someone has to own
it and someone has to drive it. Services like Uberpool and Lyft Line are
exploring this because smartphones make it possible, and this will only
increase when you don't have to pay someone who isn't riding to operate the
vehicle.

~~~
djsumdog
America use to have more rail at one point in time than Europe has today. It
wasn't that long ago. We're talking less than 70 years.

If we start building infrastructure in our cities again for rail and express
buses, you will see things being to naturally be more compact. Business spring
up around rail stations, and people who want to live close to one another fill
in those spaces and move closer to the city.

The "America is too spread out" argument is total bullshit. At the very least,
make the cities have good transport and walkable areas. It can happen in a
very short time frame. We lost it in a short time frame. Northern Indiana has
the same population density of Scotland, so it can work if we build it. We use
to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga Choo-choo"
doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore.

Transportation is the largest factor in the ability of people to move up from
poverty. This isn't some subjective statement. There are tons of objective
studies to support this[1].

The idea that you need to own a car (and insurance an maintenance) in most of
America is pretty insane. A car shouldn't ever be a necessity. Associating it
with freedom, as the American car companies have, and buses with poverty, is
ass fucking backwards.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA&t=316s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cjfTG8DbwA&t=316s)

~~~
pc86
> _We use[d] to have trains from Nashville to Atlanta. The famous "Chattanooga
> Choo-choo" doesn't even have an AmTrak anymore._

Why do you think that is? Because nobody bought tickets from Nashville to
Atlanta. Do you think that route was throwing off millions a year in profit to
AmTrak and some executive sat back and said "No, I hate poor people let's get
rid of that route."? Of course not.

If people bought the tickets but the business was mismanaged, that's one
thing. But not enough people bought the tickets.

~~~
buckbeak
pc86 you are wrong. I have bought tickets on Amtrak, and Amtrak sucks. I have
done the price/time opportunity cost calculation for several destinations, and
Amtrak came out a big loser, and I ended up driving. I have taken trains in
Europe many times, and the overall difference is astounding. I don't know how
to fix it, but American trains just seem to want to fail.

~~~
bunderbunder
Amtrak is a bit of a special beast. It's a Frankenstein's monster that the
government assembled from the corpses of the many independent rail companies
that were failing in the mid 20th century.

As for why Amtrak's service is so poor, my personal sense is that Amtrak made
a bunch of bad decisions that maximized their bottom line, such as using
excessively cushy (and heavy, and low-capacity) rolling stock for the kinds of
routes that would be covered by something more like IC service in Europe. In
essence, they made a gamble that what rail travelers want is luxury, which
translated into 250lb seats with half an acre of leg room and 3" of foam
padding, when what they really want is frequent, regular service.

Commuter train systems like Chicago's Metra are much better, but they're
unable to extend themselves out to full-fledged intercity service, no matter
how successful they might be at it, because Amtrak enjoys a statutory
monopoly.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Amtrak is something the government assembled from the corpses of the passenger
operations of many independent rail companies. Those passenger operations were
(all of them) losing money, even if the rail companies themselves were not
failing (some were, some weren't).

------
djsumdog
I wrote about this a while back. Self driving cars are not a solution, at
least in America where they won't solve the last leg problem from trains to
home (because we have so few trains or even express buses).

[http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-
sol...](http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-
transportation-problem/)

Self driving vehicles on dedicated road ways can't even expect to match a tiny
percentage of what trains or even express buses can deliver. Singapore already
has autonomous fully automated trains. The same tech has been sold to Kuala
Lumpar. London has several driver-less trains with more of their underground
being switched over to semi/full-autonomous as well.

We've already had two articles on HN about NYC's crumbling rail infrastructure
(both the subway and Penn Station). Chicago hasn't expanded their lines in
decades. Our two biggest European style rail cities are not expanding, and are
actively falling apart.

There is hope though. Seattle is expanding with ST3 and Florida's high speed
line just went operational, with additional stops opening over the next few
years which will eventually connect Miami with Orlando. Now if California
doesn't fuck things up, we might finally have two real high speed lines in
this country (and no, I'm not counting the Acela).

~~~
adventured
You can add Texas to that list. They're aggressively working on building high-
speed rail. They will beat California to it and do it at a far cheaper cost.
Once they build the first line from Dallas to Houston, I think it's extremely
likely they'll continue building more lines between other major cities. You do
Dallas to Austin & San Antonio. Then you look at Dallas to Oklahoma City.
They'll show it works, that it's financially beneficial, and that it can be
done within a reasonable cost.

[https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2018/01/29/te...](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/2018/01/29/texas-
central-announces-downtown-dallas-high-speed-rail-passenger-station-site)

[https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/Dallas-Terminal-
Renderi...](https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/Dallas-Terminal-Renderings-
Maps-Released-in-Bullet-Train-High-Speed-Rail-Project-471650694.html)

~~~
gamblor956
If Texas can't build a HSR on flat terrain at a cheaper cost than a HSR that
must go over/through/around mountains, above valleys and rivers, around world-
famous national parks and forests, and is twice as long...quite frankly,
they're doing something wrong.

The CA HSR authority has fucked many things up, but you're comparing apples to
oranges here.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/zIs6Z](http://archive.is/zIs6Z)

~~~
p0la
thx !

------
ThrustVectoring
>And so this is why it’s tricky and this is why in your example of a bridge,
if you widened the bridge but lots of people want to cross it, you’ll end up
with a wider bridge that’s exactly as congested as it is now.

Widening the bridge does increase throughput; people who used to be unable to
use the bridge are now doing so. There's a benefit there, it's just siphoned
off from "reducing congestion" to "people are no longer forced to stay home
rather than deal with congestion".

~~~
djsumdog
Wenover productions does a great video on how increasing traffic lanes makes
traffic worse in every city. People who normally wouldn't drive, will now
drive thinking they'll be less congestion.

Atlanta had some major closures recently and the city migrated around the
problem, people took different paths to work and more people decided to get on
public transport.

The fact is car lanes can never reach a fraction of the capacity of a train
running at regular intervals. Even if you had nothing but self driving cars
running bumper to bumper at 120kph and all filled to a capacity of 4.2 people,
on a four lane road, you wouldn't even approach 8% of the capacity of a single
rail line running at 2 minute intervals! Singapore's trains are automated.
They're already self driving and run at <1.5min intervals during peak hours.

~~~
mseebach
There’s something wrong with your numbers. 120kph for two minutes is 1km, or
250 4-meter cars, bumper to bumper. Four lanes, 4.2 occupants, that’s 16,800
passengers per two minutes, which is a full order of magnitude more than a
12-carriage train packed with standing passengers[1] - and the people in the
cars are all sitting down.

1:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700)

~~~
djsumdog
[http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20Document%20Library/ma...](http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20Document%20Library/maximum-
theoretical-person-capacity-24-hour-period.pdf)

~~~
schiffern
Ahh, that explains it. The paper assumes a sane minimum of 1.6 seconds/car
(aka 2250 pcphpl), but 4 m spacing at 120 kph would be 0.12 seconds/car.

------
rahulnair23
Really wonderful interview.

One point that doesn't come up os that serious operational inefficiencies and
"friction" exist in how current fixed route services are delivered in most
cities. Some due to political challenges (see WMATA funding woes). Some are
due to older technologies that lead to lower capacities (see MTA signals), or
sluggish transit agencies that have networks that have not kept up with
changes to the city (see Dublin Bus).

Public transport needs to work better for the public too.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>political challenges (see WMATA funding woes)

See also: why BART doesn't go further south than Millbrae (hint: NIMBYs and
thinly-veiled racist worries that it'd bring in "undesirable" folks)

~~~
StudentStuff
Ah, Vantucky just north of Portland, OR has the same BS "concerns". Ditto for
the rich part of Bellevue, they've blocked Eastlink Light Rail from using any
of the existing rail that is already government owned, cause "oh dear it'll
bring the baddies!". They're still pissed off by the rails to trails project
though...

------
srsly_ft_wtf
Hmmm... i have an FT subscription but i STILL need to turn off ad blocking..
sub cancelled.

This is a real shame as the FT is a good paper.. damn they need to modernise!

