Quote:
Originally Posted by santak003
Translink and I disagree with you. I mentioned before that I read several papers about TSP and it's an old field. There are useful simulators that everyone uses and in fact reliability is a very important factor for all transportation operators like translink (that is my understanding).:
Translink (as of 2020) is now putting up reliability metrics. Reliability is the missing piece in many arguments about transit. It can be quantified. From their bus reliability whitepaper they post what I found out about TSP after a few hours of reading on the internet.
|
You're missing the point: it's
better for bus flow, but
worse for everybody else. Again,
five to fifteen-minute headways like in TransLink's study, no problem. Every two minutes? Not going to work.
A reminder that what's good for a bus isn't always good for a tram. The bus can detour around the occasional accident or stalled vehicle up ahead, but a tram has to sit there until it's cleared up; not hard data, but nevertheless a hit to reliability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by santak003
It is not exponential capacity for the same stops. The overall design will add scaling, but for the same stops, segregated vs non-segregated...it is not exponential.
|
Fully upgraded, BRT = 3,000, LRT = 7,000,* RRT = 25,000. Pretty exponential to me.
*As Rico mentioned, the studies point out that ~7,000 pphpd is max capacity before it starts negatively impacting cross traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by santak003
This is super easy for someone to simulate and see and my understanding of the documents out there suggest it is possible with limited side street impacts. This is an argument to go a three car train btw. Since boarding time for wheelchairs and having 4-5 times as many doors and level floors and less time looking for a seat..all add up to large time savings where you don't have to run as frequent. At some frequency, segregation is required, but this is very easy to test in a mature industry. But first an accurate model that other industry players are using would be beneficial since it doesn't cost that much.
|
Not sure how Toronto likes it, but most Vancouverites consider low frequency to be a bug, not a feature. Waiting —.
Quote:
Originally Posted by santak003
Hey scryer. Sorry about the double..triple posts, but I struggle with communications sometimes. I read a hundred documents..and then have to explain them as succinctly as I can. I agree with most of your last post, but for measuring this volume I'm not sure it's so accurate. A light rail is more reliable (or should be) and for that reason there is uptake on it as well. I agree with the sentiment of measuring, but a bus is not appropriate measurement for a number of reasons to do with psychology. The reliability of light rail is underestimated. It can also run more frequently than the 50 and be more punctual and can deal with crush volumes better. If we do non-segregated light rail...it better be reliable....and that means all aspects of reliability. The average transfers per trip in Vancouver is 1.65. That is because people will only take one bus..but will take rail based transit as well, but ask them to take 2 buses and it's too much (because of reliability).
50 is just another bus..and people won't go to it I don't think. It's not apples to apples. It's not just outside with great wayfinding either. Light rail..would be something special..not just another bus.
|
The "prettiness" of a transit mode is a selling point, but more for tourists and fair-weather riders, not regular riders or drivers wanting to switch.
For most passengers, speed, reliability and frequency matter a whole lot more. One of my current commutes involved a bus, a SeaBus, and two more buses; I've wished for less traffic or more frequent buses, but not once have I wished for a tram all the way there.
Threaded Mode