Frequency is Great, But It Isn't Everything
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2021
- We often focus on frequency of our transit lines as the main aspect to improve and expand, but what other aspects should we also be looking at that'll affect the choices we make regarding transit? Let's talk.
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & RUclips MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on RUclips! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
RUclips Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!
I sure hope we get to meet one day and ride the GO train together. Oh, we can dream 💭
Love your vids!
BAY CONCOURSE MEET UP!!
@@Nik-ny9ue I would 100% come to a meet up. Bay concourse would be cool. Trip to West Harbour??
@@ketch_up No we all meet at the Bay concourse and make our way to the sacred land of bessarion station as foretold by the discord server
That's a Canadian cross-over I'd like to see!
This reminded me of when I lived in London (UK) and commuted to Cambridge (UK). I lived a 5 minute walk from the platforms at King's Cross. The direct trains left every 30 minutes, so as I was getting ready in the morning I would look at the clock and go only if I were about 8 minutes before the train departure time. If I was too late, I'd do something else at home and wait for the next one.
It make the commute so much nicer to be able to just walk to the station and immediately get on a train every time.
I'd love to hear what the trains in Amsterdam are like
Absolutely, as long as you aren't sitting idle on a platform low frequencies aren't actually always the end of the world - especially for longer joruneys!
That’s such a weird commute, normally it would be the other way round.
That's what I've been doing in here in the Netherlands for years too, I know when my train leaves, and how long I need to get there, so if I haven't left by the time I would need to, I'll just wait 10 minutes to be on time for the next train
@@khulhucthulhu9952 so 10 minute head times that sounds GREAT even if you do NOT check your watch and just arrive
This is one of your best video. The observation that a transit exclusive rider has a different perspective than a car owner is valid. Hypothesis: Transit authorities are run by car owners.
Either they're run by car owners or they live in areas with good transit (notably trains) and use those and not buses. My experience is that car owners might be infrastructure minded but it does not strike them how important frequency is, particularly since they take it for granted that the small part of the network they use (ie peak rail services) already have it pretty good.
Thanks Richard!
also remember in America car owners are the MAJORITY making "the car" the prime "competition" to transit and you NEED to "win over" car drivers as once you are car free there is little desire for one MODE of transit to try and "poach" you from a different mode even if it is a different operator IE TTC VS GO
But he's wrong that non-drivers care less about frequency. This is one of the few things I've ever disagreed with Reece on.. I've never had a car, but I don't want to be a second-class citizen waiting 20 or 30 or 60 minutes as my only option. We just need reasonable minimum frequency like 10 minutes, as Reece has said in other videos. 90% of the US doesn't have that yet, or has it only a few routes, which doesn't help you if you're not o those routes..
Frequency is king when it comes to transfers. Time tables will never be perfect, and a slight delay on one route can cause a half hour wait for the next transfer onto another. Regional rail doesn't have this problem because it's usually easier to keep to an exact timetable and most trips don't involve transfers to/from another low-frequency train.
Ideally the best way, if you don't have high frequency service the whole way, is to be able to take dissimilar transfers back such that the low-frequency route is always the first leg of your trip. In particularly dense systems I try to plan my trips this way if it's the next best option to a one-seat ride or two high-frequency routes.
This. TTC"s linearity really makes the frequency on Yonge and Sheppard lines a necessity for me.
This perfectly describes my old commute, which involved two transfers. The first two legs away from home were okay, but the last was the killer. On the way back home there was a sense of relief getting on the first leg because I knew it won't be as painful from then on. I had another option near my destination involving two more frequent services but that added one more transfer to the trip and can be exhausting.
Another important consideration, make your terminals where people might be waiting for those low frequency routes nice! People won't mind waiting as much!
In my experience even infrequent services are usually timed very well at transfer centers with other routes
Well, if there is a dedicated connecting service with such a low frequency, it should wait for incoming trains if they are late. This is a common solution in Europe and it's generally more efficient than just ramping up frequency way over the demand.
For longer distance travel, I agree that frequency isn't as important as it's made out to be. However, on short distance trips on something like a metro or tram, frequency is much more important. When you're making very short trips, just being able to show up at any time is important since planning it out is too much of a hassle for how short of a ride it is. Rapid transit shouldn't have headways greater than 10 mins for that reason.
Tell that to the MTA, which is all too happy to cut weekend 5 service from every 12 minutes (for a short-turn, to boot!) back to every 20 minutes whenever it and the 4 have to share any stretch of track with the 6. Sure, it's ultimately part of a network, but many Bronxites suffer for it -- especially if they live near the Dyre Avenue Line.
The issue's only exacerbated if the weekend 2 is cut back to every 12 minutes (from every 8, which it seems like it only got shortly before work on the Clark Street Tube started, ostensibly as a measure to address the above).
@Cycloid23 I agree!
I agree. This is why I'm more likely to bike for short trips, since that's actually the fastest option I have. Often by the time the bus gets here I could already be at my destination. I live in a part of the city where there's only bus or commuter rail near me (and the latter is far too expensive, which is the biggest reason I never take it, nor is it useful for my short trips anyway). Sometimes I might even walk for 45 minutes one way, because it's consistent as Reece mentioned, and I have time and the weather is nice lol.
yos
Also, if you're taking a 3 hour trip, waiting 20 minutes isn't such a huge deal as when you're taking 10 minutes trip.
For me the length of the trip matters more, public transit shouldn’t take two to three times longer then driving, I’ve never really had an issue waiting half an hour if I’m out of the city center but it’s incredibly difficult to justify a two hour transit trip over a half hour car ride especially with more car centric family or friends
I have this problem with rail in the US northeast, from any random destination rail is double the travel time of just driving, and the one place i actually want to go is a 3hr drive from the closest station (to be fair its also an hr drive from the interstate, or 3hrs on the direct route)
I also just want to take a train because interstate driving is either mind numbingly boring or litteral hell as people try to kill you. (Especially when near cities, or if there's construction or a crash)
All i want is something that i can plan arround and arrive at a reasonable time, trains should always beat the car, at best a car can average 80mph, rail can theoretically go over 200mph but I'd be fine with same speed as a car if I don't have to drive.
My former city has an airport express bus. Unfortunately has the nasty habit of running local service. Runs local in one neighbourhood, hops on the freeway, runs local downtown, back on the freeway, gets on the busway, gets off the busway, back onto the freeway (depending on traffic, would save quite a bit of time just using the freeway), gets off the freeway, looping through an unrelated shopping complex, back onto the freeway, to the airport. Now if it were me, I’d have a couple stops in the aforementioned neighbourhood, a couple stops downtown, and express to the airport. An express bus should not be used for local service, when there are plenty of local routes doing the exact same thing.
Side note, when I drove for another transit agency, we were permitted to use either the busway, or the freeway, at our discretion, to get into town, frequently twenty minutes early.
Where was I going with this. Oh yeah, Express buses should run express, local buses should run local, and only overlap at terminals or very important locations (airport, train station, hospital, courthouse).
Other side note, my aforementioned employer was horrible for frequency. The buses rarely interlined, some only ran twice a day, and there were two towns where you could leave, but couldn’t get back. Allegedly low service due to limited ridership. Who in their right mind would leave their house, knowing full well they couldn’t get home?
This the same company that runs their buses empty out of service 40% of the time. Running out of service should be nipped in the bud. If nothing else, have the buses run express. If only two people ever ride, it’s still not an absolute waste, and cuts down on reportable non revenue mileage.
You've definitely touched on a really important point about reliability here. Any issues with reliability tend to turn people off travelling by a certain mode even if the alternative is more expensive or takes longer
This is why I take Southwestern over the Picadilly and District lines most of the time, Class 450s may arrive far less frequently, but they are much faster at getting me to central london and once in Zone 1, the price difference actually vanishes as the fares are equal once your journey enters central london, it also helps that I have more than 1 or 2 choices of end destination stations due to far better coverage in the suburbs.
I didn't know that the price was the same in central London. Thanks much. I think the same way. Aarre Peltomaa
As far as I can tell, TTC frequency is one of those Toronto 'compromises' that keeps suburban voters at bay. Throwing plenty of buses on busy streets means that TTC does not really require signal priority and bus lanes to be implemented, measures that are a really hard sell somewhere in Scarborough or North Etobicoke. People in the transit community tend to think that freight railroads are big opponents of public transit, but you can deal with them since there are so few of them and they care about profit. Dealing with thousands suburban voters who feel personally attacked by a cycling path is way harder. Express services are important but until GO is considered to be an express versions of TTC subway/express buses there isn't much you can do.
We could always just go for a cultural revolution of some sorts. Send the suburban voters (without their cars) to places like London or St. Catherine's until they learn the truth in the need for reliable public transit infrastructure.
@@gregoryborton6598 this sound more like the Cultural Revolution. Again, since they are voters you can't really do that...
Another benefit of frequency is savings in trip time when you have to transfer.
Yes! Not every trip can easily be done with one route!
For sure, which is why I used the specific example of Regional Rail which is a one seat ride for me. Not every trip can be that way for sure!
Trip time doesnt depend of frequency if the system is well designed
It's a very North American regional transit perspective of the argument, though it does work very well in that context, since the state of most systems requires all aspects to be considered. Living in a city though and being car-free one of the big benefits is being able to just "show up" at the metro station and not really think about planning. Even if a train just completely vanishes it's only a few minutes until the next one.
Being on, say, San Jose's VTA light rail which can have very low frequency can make it frustrating when you're sometimes spending as much time waiting for the train as you will actually riding the train.
VTA is also very slow, which fuels the problem
@@RMTransit It is. But for the downtown core a bit of slower speed is ok. Granted I've never lived in San Jose so I've never used it for longer distances much.
There's definitely a ride length to frequency ratio going on. A 40 minute single seat ride can be somewhat infrequent if it's reliable. Shorter rides and transfers definitely need higher frequencies.
As for pricing, lower ticket prices and higher tax funding is a better idea that higher prices and complicated proof of need based rebate systems.
Yep trip length is another place people are willing to tradeoff, especially if your service is fast!
It also depends on demand - a service running into a small rural area such as the 272 running hourly in Sheffield should naturally be less frequent than a very popular service along a busy corridor such as the 120, the most frequent bus service in Sheffield running every 5 minutes.
I live in a mid-size Finnish town where buses run on most lines with 20 to 30 minute intervals and can be off the planned schedule. My life changed when they installed gps-trackers to the buses. I can look up on my phone when the bus will pass my stop. Now I always know exactly when to leave home and don't have to guess when the bus arrives.
My wife uses her app at all times as she doesn't like to wait. Our bus line always ranks in the bottom 5% in bus speed of NYC's 270+ routes. If I can, I take the subway which runs parallel to it for much of the trip but she hates it.
Next bus GPS tracking is def a game changer
I lived in South London in the 1980s. It was interesting how behaviour changed when the local train frequency improved from every 20 to every 15 minutes. It seemed people would check train departure times if they risked having to wait 20 mins; the risk of having to wait for 15 mins seemed less and people were happy to 'turn up and go'.
I would love to hear more from women, and especially women with children, who are car-free about the impact of the cost of transit on how they use transit. I think too many conversations about transit access and affordability are started by single men talking about their personal experiences. I think we've heard that story from that perspective. Let's branch out and centre other types of riders when we are talking about how the average person uses transit and what they need from transit.
And older riders.
I'm a woman, but I don't have kids. Safety is a concern for most women. I'd be unlikely to go wait for an infrequent bus at night unless it really stuck to a schedule that I could work around, but I would chance it if the bus came frequently. As subways and trains leave from well lit and monitored stations, I'd be less concerned with frequency for them, but would still rather not have to wait tooooo long. Again, if they really stuck to a schedule that would help.
Having babysat a lot though, I'm sure most parents would prefer to use a frequent subway or train service when travelling with young children. Kids and all their paraphernalia are hard to wrangle on schedule or in tight spaces like buses and streetcars.
I guess it depends on the city (and country). If the quality of transit is good, people will be using it. And if people do use it on the daily basis, it tends to become safer. + Public transport vehicles do have inside cameras allowing bus drivers to interveene if there is a need to.
+ Children in my city can use public transport for free, University students, and children which are from outside of the city get a 50% discount. + They are able to buy a a semester pass for public transport which is convenient. This includes buses + trams (and inside the city light railway if you are a citizen -> that’s a bonus. If you are not a citizen or use railway to get to another city you have to get a different pass)
The longest pass for most adults is a month pass. Which is still better than single tickets.
Consistency in transit operations is really underrated. Anyone who's spent countless trips hopelessly checking the Toronto Bus Map app for their supposedly approaching bus would know this lol
I live in an outer part of my city where commuter rail is up to every 2 hours off peak. (I don't own a car.) Leaving home, sure, I could plan around that. But it's getting back home that's the hard part. Because the punishment of missing your train is severe, you don't actually have the freedom to spend as much time as you want. Or, if it's mandatory business and you don't have a say in when to leave, infrequent schedules can really mess you up. Hopefully no transfers to/from inconsistent services are required to get to/from home
For me the wait downtown is much better because theres lots I can do!
In NL, we are upgrading some larger distance intercity connections (100+ km with a few stops) from 4 to 6 trains per direction per hour. Taking into account that a train stops (at least) 2 minutes at a station, you wait just a few minutes on average. I am not planning for connections any more, and do not care about missing connections when my train or bus is delayed. Frequency does matter: more relaxed travel. (On shorter distanced cities, we have up to 14 trains of different kinds)
Isn’t it great to know that there are at least 34.5k other people also thinking about transit in their free time? What would we do without the internet!
Still doesn't seem like enough. I'm not asking for the whole population to think transit but too many have a selfish disdain towards public transportation
Let's make that way more!
I find if you're making a regular trip, such as a commute, speed and reliability matters more and frequency matters less, especially if you can be somewhat flexible with your ETA (as is the case for many office jobs nowadays). An extra 20 minutes per day of commute time adds up quickly, and if you are getting the same service at the same time day in day out, it's easy to get into a convenient rhythm.
Reminds me a lot of the suburb of Chicago that I live in. I have two really good options that trade off between frequency and travel time with the CTA Green Line and the Metra Union Pacific West Line. Metra is fairly infrequent with trains every two hours outside of rush periods but the trip only takes about 15 minutes. On the other hand, the Green Line has trains every 10 minutes but the travel time to downtown is about 30 minutes. I find myself taking the Green Line more often because I am typically transferring to another CTA line.
Transfers are a big differentiator
I definitely agree that there are a variety of different factors at play in determining what is good transit and I'm really glad to see the channel taking this new balanced approach. What I often say is that speed becomes increasingly important the longer the travel distance, while frequency becomes increasingly important the shorter the distance. Same thing with comfort - extremely important for long trips, barely important for quick hops. That's one of the issues I had with the video on bilevel trains. Bilevels are almost exclusively used for longer trips such as suburban/commuter rail where frequency is... important... but not the primary concern. It's generally only the rarest cases like the RER when there is ultra high traffic in the city centre that dwell times due to bilevels are even relevant.
Someone traveling 40km is less interested in a service that runs every 5 minutes and more interested in having a comfortable seat and high travel speed. they may be fine with service every 20-30 minutes if the trip is fast and comfortable. Meanwhile, someone traveling 4km isn't going to be happy waiting more than 5-10 minutes and probably doesn't care if they have to stand. Which is why I laughed at the part where someone who is forced to stand thinking about how bad suburban sprawl is. No, they're thinking about how bad taking transit is and how much better they imagine it would be in a car. 😂
Anyway, it's wonderful to see you grow and evolve on these issues and it's nice to be along for the ride! 🥰
As a public transport user, the most important factor for me, as you suggest, isn't actually frequency, although for me, it's spread of day. I can plan my life around an infrequent timetable, but if there is no flexibility, or opportunity to depart early or arrive back late, then it's not a genuine option in the grand scheme of things.
Span is huge, as you say being not tied to a particular return trip period is awesome
I do agree that frequency isn't everything, but it is still one of the most important aspects, and the GO train would of course be even better if it ran every 30 minutes.
It also depends a lot on what you are planning to do. If you are visiting friends or going to a restaurant, you're rather flexible when it comes to time. It's not a big deal to spend an extra hour with your friends or at a restaurant. But if you have a defined time frame, like with an appointment or your job, these wait times would be completely unacceptable.
Thanks Reece for an absolutely superb video. I am British, but many of your general comments are applicable to my home country. There is a particular problem with buses OUTSIDE LONDON, a problem British cities have had for a very long time. Weekday daytime frequencies are on paper very good, but adherence to the timetable is not! Your point about stations is also very relevant to Britain. Bus stations and bus stops are often very run down with little or no seating. Railway stations are by contrast USUALLY pleasant places to wait..
No surprise when people prefer the train then is there!
I swear this is the most underrated channel on RUclips. Keep it up, Reece!
Real time departure information is a good substitute for frequency. If you know a bus is arriving in exactly 15 minutes, then you know you can do some shopping or other tasks while waiting for it, or leave your house later. Without real time information, it could arrive anywhere between 10 and 20 minutes from now so to be on the safe side, you end up spending a long time waiting at the station.
Thanks for this - interesting thoughts A third angle in the 'Frequency/Reliability' axis is 'Passenger Information', and for a few years now we have had the possibility of real-time details of when our bus/train/tram will arrive - and even of tracking it live. Having good information is also conducive to a comfortable journey - mental comfort is as important as physical!
Absolutely agree
This video reasonates very well with my transit experience in Hong Kong. There was a shopping mall that I go from time to time. I can either take
a) a short 5-mins trip minibus (runs every 3 mins or so) + 30 mins of subway with line transfer (also runs every 3 mins or so);
b) 30-mins trip on a express bus (but runs every 30 mins)
I choose to take the express bus because it is much comfortable and I don't have to do any transfers. I can also enjoy the scenary along the way. The bus comes consistently every 30 minutes (it's the first few stops so bunching rarely occurs) so I can just plan ahead and go out 5 mins before the bus come.
This is a beautiful example of what I am talking about indeed, sometimes a more comfortable ride really is compelling!
Fascinating topic. I can relate because I also live car-free on an hourly, mostly dependable bus route. The dependability of the route is equal to or even outweighs the lower frequency in my opinion. It’s interesting when I’m downtown for a 6 o’clock dinner with friends and many times I’ve had to get up at 6:55 to announce that I need to make my bus ride home. My car-dependent friends are used to that.
I totally agree that consistency is important: if the schedule is easy to remember it also allows for commuting without thinking too much about it - I live in Switzerland, where trains tend to be very punctual (usually within 3') and most run on hourly or half-hourly schedule. This means that departure times are very easy to remember and for trips I make often, I generally just assume when there will be a train & I can leave just in time. Most people I know who commute by public transport here also rely on a fixed departure time they use every day. The problem with connections (mentioned in a few other comments) is (often) solved by having interchange stations where lost trains arrive at the same time & wait long enough to allow for transfers - outside of rush hours, trains sometimes wait for connecting passengers in case of delays. This allows for relatively comfortable travel without train frequencies of less than 15 minutes.
One missing point: Social Status has value. Buses can be seen as being "for plebs". Trains don't have the same issue.
Fortunately, thats something we can change!
I know when a "NEW design" bus is launched it increases ridership
FAMOUSLY the GM "fishbowl" busses in the 50s were "modern" and did a LOT to increase ridership and ELECTRIC busses are reportedly doing the same thing in cities they are being deployed on
Speaking of stations, can you do a video on the color gray? Sounds like a strange suggestion, I get it, but I find that colors have a huge subliminal impact on the attractiveness of spaces, and that includes stations and transit vehicles. My mind was blown away by the Stockholm subway because they had turned their stations into tourist attractions simply by painting their stations with striking colors. A lick of paint can make a massive difference.
Very good point!
Agreed. I used to live in a suburb (abroad, in a country with VERY good public transport) where I could take a bus that would take me to the outer borough of the city (10min commute) from where I could the take a light rail into the city center (another ~25min). The bus would run every ~15-20min and the light rail every ~5-25min. The bus stop was maybe 2-3min away by foot.
Or I could walk 10-15 min (in a very walkable environment) and take the-I believe-hourly regional rail line. It may have been twice an hour, I can’t recall exactly. Either way, the train would get me into the city center in roughly 15-20min and only stop twice. Really nice and I took it regularly because, as you’ve said, it was convenient and very comfortable. Plus the station shelters were larger. The difference was that fares were integrated so there was no difference in price.
Amazing insights; makes me wonder if routes like Line 6 finch West are optimal. It will add capacity and possibly make a smoother ride, but I don't envision travel time and on-time performance to be much better, at least without signal priority. Some separation from roads, like on the hydro corridor, would help. It's also worth mentioning that one seat rides and making less transfers is a great incentive for choosing a transit option.
To be fair Finch West will probably provide better A/C and a more comfortable ride.
It's a fare - speed tradeoff for me. I live near Long Branch GO station (no surprise there), and take it if I need to go downtown or anywhere along the Lake quickly. Otherwise I take the TTC. Both the TTC and GO are reliable for me in the west end. Nonetheless, we really need one 416 transit fare, be it TTC and/or GO, for maximum mobility, and to get more people out of cars.
Yep, I think many are willing to make that tradeoff
Thanks Reece!
This was a very interesting take, thanks for sharing it, this was thought provoking !
If you have metros, which many european/asian cities do, that's the one combined frequency and consistency. And then it's time to compared those two advantage over commute trains' speed.
In my city (Beijing), travel from west to east, you can choose bus, metro, suburban trains. Bus is cheaper and tend to have seats, but very inconsistence (It can be even faster than metro or slower than walk). Metro is very consistence but crowded. Suburban trains are so game changing. Even if you missed one train, the next one is 1h later, it's so fast that even with 1h behind, it can still catch up with other two. And with seats everywhere. Though you have to walk a lot from and to train stations.
BTW, with real-time maps, buses are not that inconsistence if you can choose alternate routes. Also, actually those commuter trains which shared tracks with long distance trains, they can be much more inconsistence then buses. And very prone to geologic hazard.
I think frequency is super important when transfers are involved. When I experimented with riding the local light rail instead of my car, the biggest time vampire was waiting for the green line after getting off the red, and then waiting for the last-mile bus after getting off the light rail. The whole trip took WAY longer than it would have if I'd just gotten into the Friday peak rush-hour traffic. I spent hardly any time actually moving on the transit, which is basically the only way a 55mph route can get beaten by a 5mph traffic jam. So I think the takeaway is to either have very reliably-timed direct routes, OR have fantastic frequency and short headways to reduce the brutality of transfer waiting. If it takes 90 minutes to replace at 30 minute drive, no one is going to use the transit except for the "involuntary car-free". The transit in this city would be abandoned were it not for the aggressive driver's license suspensions the courts hand out like candy. Even at that, I know a guy who drove without a license for years because the driving-while-suspended tickets were cheaper than losing another job to unreliable transit.
The comparison to cars is VERY valid when you're trying to get people out of cars. If you're spit-shining the excellent transit of a European or Asian city, okay fine. But if you're building up LA or Seattle's transit, everyone has a car. If 2% of the people in a city bought groceries and the other 98% ate at restaurants, you don't just want to out-compete the other broke grocery stands, you want to get people out of McDonald's. I agree that fares are not that big if a deal. They matter a lot when your only passengers are the broke and homeless. But if your system is good enough to actually get people out of cars, you can then start to think about competing with them on price. But you can't do that if you're selling welfare trains for the desperate.
This is why my hometown of Austin works pretty well. All we have our buses and one commuter rail line (which I have never used), and the buses have frequencies between 10 and 40 minutes, with my bus being on the less frequent side. That being said, the buses are never more than 5 minutes early or late and operate on a consistent schedule, so it's easy to time my exit from home, my walk to the stop, and then my commute to the city centre.
I think this is spot on - I used to take the Metro-North regional rail from NYC to Connecticut daily. Those routes aren’t run very frequently at all, maybe hourly. But the schedules are exact because Grand Central was one terminus of the line. Knowing it was 100% guaranteed to leave at 8:05am let me plan an entire commuting life around it, which enabled me to live where I wanted in the city.
That is so true. I couldn't care less for a frequent transit option if its always very slow and packed. I'd rather get comfort and speed and plan earlier due to low frequency. There is a middle spot of course. But if im going to choose high frequency that i will always wait for and then be uncomfortable for an hour i would rather plan get 5 minutes before or less and then have a half hour trip in greater comfort.
True.
people only using cars or don't read timetables believe that only the car has speed and comfort and transit can only have one, then say at least give frequency so when you want to get out of the house just get in the bus. But if you have your apps and read the timetable BEFORE you live you will almost never wait.
Frequency is very good don't get me wrong. But frequency is something you can add, while speed isn't speed is something you build for. So speed must come first.
You build a subway line if you make it fast enough more people will choose it especially if it makes it the same time or less compared to cars. Frequency you can add after you see that the trains have high demand.
Quality means so much these days.
As for the price of one mode of transportation being cheaper than the other: over here we have linked transport system usually built up in zones around a core which is usually the city. Travelling distance X it would cost the very same no matter if you take the bus / tram / subway from the municipal public transportation authority or if you take the train, ranging from commuter trains operated by the regional division of the nationwide railway company, to international express trains from other providers. It will always cost the same to go the same distance. With this it comes also much easy to plan a trip with several modes of transport, like e.g. going into the city with bus and subway, moving throughout the city using the tram and then taking the train to go back home again.
As for consistency I was really impressed with the schedule of the long distance bus lines in northern Norway. Some of the bus lines cover several hundred miles of distance on their normal route service, taking up to 7 hours from end to end (at least in my area 7 hours was the longest bus route). But the schedules of the single bus routes going across the area were so well-planned that you were able to count on catching the other bus. Some of the transfer points are literally in the middle of nowhere, especially in the winter you'd basically be lost otherwise. If they didn't met right on time, then the one bus simply waited a couple of minutes
IMHO having ONE fare for ALL access is a big thing for ME EX with a commuter rail + surface transit
as an EX Vancouverite and having one fare for ALL modes inside your zone was great BUT having to cross zones and pay for "upgrade" fares even knowing I have a "bus pass" sucked
Why parking minimums need to be abolished. In transit friendly areas, paying for a parking spot in a new development means vehicle ownership is encouraged, and the owner of said car, has to choose between transit and driving. This means we need to keep building the most expensive and frequent transit in existence to pull car drivers.
I also think nice stations are key even for drivers. Driving is comfortable for many, even in traffic with AC or heat and a nice seat. Yet many transit stops are just out in the rain, snow, or sunny heat leading to discomfort not normally experienced by a car driver. Transit is uncomfortable in North America, and this makes it seem like it's for the lowest rung of society, when it really shouldn't be.
The comfortability factor is one of the most common pieces left out of transit. I needed to use transit while I was staying at an Airbnb for a while (a car rental was not easy to get nor practical), and I had to walk up a hill to get to any bus stops, and they were all unshaded and along a busy street with lots of loud cars. I would have loved to have even a tiny shelter at the bus stop, not to mention a dot-matrix display showing arrival times (the buses were almost always 5-10 minutes late).
I used to commute to and from Hamilton mountain to Toronto for work every day, and i always defaulted to the train whenever i could. I always knew when it would arrive, and i knew it wasnt going to be as affected by variable weather or traffic. I love the go bus and i use it way more than the train overall, but especially in the evening, the time i got home at could vary by over an hour on the Go Bus, if things just didn't line up. Made worse of course by the hamilton city busses, having no idea what busses have arrived ahead/behind schedule, or when the next one is REALLY going to show up, long after rush hour has ended. Now there's a lack of frequency AND a lack of consistency.
I a U.S.-ian who visited Toronto in 1989 - yeah that was ancient history, but the TTC and GO systems were thriving then too. I have not been able to return for any reasonable length of time, but certainly long to. I am honestly pleased to see that Toronto Metro has the same passenger rail systems and even the same emblems on the trains. It's kindling some nostalgia in me.
Best part of the video for me: _No I'm not a normal person I didn't spent the time on vacation thinking about... Idk maybe the meaning of life... I spent my time thinking about transit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I always feel the pain when I wait like half an hour for a bus, and then three show up at the same time.
Station facilities are so important! I used to love Dundas West for a cheeky McDonalds burger, and Bloor-Yonge for a tactical wee!
I live in the home counties surrounding London (UK) and I'm moving to London for university in a few weeks. At the moment, I basically have the hourly timetable memorised so I know when to leave for the 2 trains hourly I like to take- the fastest and most reliable that don't command the High Speed fare- and I haven't waited on the platform for more than 2 minutes in over 2 years. It'll be interesting to see how that compares to London, where I'll have the Northern line running every 2-3 minutes.
High enough frequency can mimic consistency, but it's that consistency that feels much more important to me because it allows me to plan a journey consisting of several trains/trams/metros/buses chained together in the most convenient way without having to wait too long when switching, and being relatively certain that I'll make it in time. Frequency itself is not as important, because I rarely decide last minute that I'm going to take a journey, and instead tend to plan ahead of time and thus know when to leave, even if it goes only every so often, although there needs to be enough frequency that if I need to be somewhere at a certain time, I don't have to choose between being way too early or being late.
Total journey time and cost are something to consider as well, but only when the differences are significant, €1 or 5 minutes difference between options aren't really that important, but a €10 or 30 minute difference is going to be something I'm at least going to weigh in my decision. (although of course there's some relativity in there, e.g. half an hour extra on a 2.5 hour journey is going to be different than half an hour extra on a 1 hour journey)
Connection times are also an important, but odd metric; on the one hand I don't want there to be too long between two connecting parts of my journey, because it feels like a waste of my time when I'm just waiting around, but on the other hand I don't want them to be too short, because then even a little bit of a delay can have me running, and a larger delay can have me miss my connection (and here too, this problem could be minimised by better frequency or better consistency). Just being able to peacefully walk (rather than hurry/run) from one part of your journey to the next (e.g. from the metro part of the station to the train part, or from one train platform to another) is also just far more pleasant, and if you travel around breakfast, lunch, or dinner time, it could also provide you with a chance to buy something to eat at the station (speaking off, having options for buying food at stations is also really valuable) which you could eat at the station, or take with you on your next train and eat whilst on the train.
Comfort is important on longer (parts of) journeys, and having a seat on a longer (part of a) journey will allow me to eat something, read a book, or get some work on my laptop done, whereas not having a seat means that I'll be just as unproductive as when driving a car, but with less comfort.
I also pay attention to the amount of time I spent on each part of a journey: I'd rather spend 1 hour in a single train which allows me to really get some stuff done in the meantime, compared to 45 minutes spread over several buses/trams/metros/trains and layovers where I never really have enough time to get started and do something useful before I need to get off or on. In most cases, this correlates fairly well with the number of transfers/connections, where less transfers/connections tends to mean more time spent on each part of the journey.
One more thing that I think generally can make frequency less important is good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and good zoning to have a lot of what you need close to home; that way you can make most of your journeys without using a car or public transport, and can use public transport just for those journeys which are further away, rather than having to rely for pretty much every part of your life on either a car or public transport, and when it's only the longer journeys that matter, frequency generally becomes less important whilst consistency becomes more important (whereas the opposite is likely true for shorter commutes)
i’ve often had similar thoughts in pretty much every respect here! A 3-minute transfer can be just as hellish as a 2-3 hour one. 15-30 minutes is best. And the only times I’ve not minded longer connections, there’s always been a variety of sit-in restaurants (eg at Aberdeen, waiting for all the infrequent rural services), your point about food is really important too. And I always enjoy multi-hour cross-country train journeys over frequent changeover ones, some of my best reading or Zelda-playing has occurred in multi-hour rides.
Never had a car, 100% public transport person, but I think frequency is still more important, it allows you not to think about schedules. Thinking about them already is an inconvinience. If subway trains come every 45 sec. to 2 min., I really don't need to know their schedule and just pop up at the station any time I want and be sure that train will come momentarily. Moreover, since there are a lot of reasons to commute, there will be different places and time I need to be. Frequent transport is flexible enough to allow me to spend as little time commuting as possible, infrequent one has the potential to waste my time. Consistency is important, when the transport isn't frequent enough, so that you can plan your trip and decrease time wasted waiting for late transport or waiting for the next one if previous one left earlier. Thankfully, here in Moscow we don't have problems with any of those. Subway is extremely frequent, 45 sec to 2 min, trams are on dedicated tracks so they are generally on time with 10-20 min intervals, buses have buslanes, so generally on time as well, but intervals can vary greatly, city and immediate suburban trains are on time with generally 5-15 min intervals. Far suburban trains are the worst for me, they are almost always on time, but have the longest waiting time, up to 1-2 hours, which is very inconvenient and wastes a lot of time
That is an interesting point that i have never thought of. Growing up in Hong Kong where even in off-peak every train arrives within 5 mins and almost every bus within 15; of coz frequency is everything because quality and punctuality are excellently almost by default among all modes of transportation, and the journey time and cost difference between modes are relatively insignificant.
We definitely have different struggles in low density places.
in the Hong Kong side of things cars don't play a thought because EVERYTHING is 100% accessible by NON car methods not to mention them double decker street cars THEY BLEW my mind and I want them in EVERY CITY
I think it depends. I used to live in Guangzhou and frequency is insanely important. It's usually 2 to 5 minutes and during rush hour at the busiest stations it might be less than 30 seconds. The frequencies literally have to be that short on some lines because ats that crowded and you have multiple lines intersecting.
The busiest station had about 1.2 million riders per day. Stations in Tokyo, Seoul, NYC, Hong Kong and other crowded large cities need good frequency. I'd even argue the same for LA but their subway is complete trash for city that size with terrible frequencies that make transfers a living hell. I literally waited for close to 50 minutes in between transfers going from Watts Towers to USC.
For regional transit, the killer feature that's missing is productivity amenities. If you could sit down at a booth in the station and on the train, and get some sort of alert like a flashing light when your train / station is coming up but otherwise be undisturbed, and also some complimentary wifi, the useful time you get back compared to the time vacuum of all other forms of commute would justify doing it.
Reece - some valid insights but I'm not sure if an obsession with frequency is a preserve of car owners. Those who ride bikes or walk for transit also enjoy 'go anytime' freedom that even PT every 10 minutes is only an approximation of (particularly for short trips). It's PT with its timetables and waits which is unusual and takes a bit of getting used to. And even constraining unless PT has some compensating benefits (of which doing stuff while travelling is one).
An important point (which has nothing to do with car ownership) is whether you are time constrained or not. If it's a casual trip and you are not time constrained then a fast hourly service to a location that is inconvenient to drive a car in might be OK. But that same hourly mode might not work on the way home after say a social occasion that finishes when it does. There's a high chance that if it happens to finish 50 minutes before the next train you will get a lift all or partway home, with that trip lost to transit.
This gets to something that's even more critical. Do you have control over your time? If you don't then frequency is EVERYTHING. White collar elites (who often take rail transit if they work in the CBD) often have higher bargaining power in the labour market and flexible hours on their terms. Hence they have more control over their time including finishing at a time that makes the train.
Whereas (say) a fixed shift worker or someone with variable hours has less strength in the labour market. For them hourly frequencies are a curse and can make transit unusable with travel time almost as long as the time they spend at work (in cases where the worker is part-time and needs to transfer once or twice for their trip).
Parenthood can also reduce control. If you've prepared for an hourly train but (say) a nappy needs changing or there's some other hold-up then your plans are shot as you've missed your infrequent train. Parents are also more likely to make 'chained' trips especially in critical morning and evening periods where they are dropping off or picking up things or people at specified times and it's not a simple A to B commute. Again flexibility obtained through frequency is critical. Jarrett Walker describes an infrequent service as like having a gate at the end of your driveway that only opens once an hour (and possibly not on Sundays).
Fares are low for single people but you usually pay more if you travel as a family. Whereas car travel doesn't have that. A small fare difference can multiply. And even though driving is more expensive a lot of those costs are sunk, not running. And only a minority in developed countries, especially families, see themselves as car-free.
As for station amenities, what's more important is what's near your stop. Basic shelter and seating are important in weather extremes and (especially) if service is infrequent. But it doesn't much affect amenity if the shops are right at the bus stop versus being in a stand-alone station complex. Especially if the shops have verandahs that provide shelter from rail etc right near the bus/tram stop.
In a poorly served city PT may be 4 times slower than driving (especially for suburban trips). Most of that is due to a mix of indirect routes and low frequency. Get to a decent frequency and PT might only be twice as slow. Once you're at that point you can think about prioritising PT and building more rights of way for PT to make it nearer to 1:1. You do need to think about door to door speeds as well as in-vehicle speeds including factoring a higher weighting for waiting (even if it's in nice surrounds).
Oh trust me - I think frequency is deeply important. It's just not the ONLY important thing!
@@RMTransit But have frequency and you've solved 95% of the problems with transit. Eg not nice stations: Frequency will make sure you're not there for long. Bad connections: Frequency will fix it. Flaky real-time info: Ditto.
There is possibly a hierarchy of needs. When you fix the basics like operating hours and frequency then other needs (which are like recessive genes) tend to come to the fore. For example the bus user will say how smooth a guided busway like the Adelaide O'Bahn is.
But someone used to well maintained rail will notice the shaking from side to side that the train and even some light rail doesn't have. And roughness/noise from the road surface. So these will rise in importance and even be used by rail advocates as a key reason for rail. And be one explanation for the 'rail effect' where less tangible benefits of rail magnify to make it seem not 20% better but 100% better than bus. (a video suggestion - hint hint!)
Hey, if this is something worth looking into, I would look at the bus system in Knoxville, Tennessee. It’s rather infrequent, but it’s always incredibly consistent with the use of time stops instead of general unbunching. I usually get off my current job at 9pm, and the bus I take home is scheduled to pass by at 9:06pm. Because of this slightly different style of unbunching, this never deviates more than a minute or two, so I almost always manage to make the bus without having to worry at all. Despite this particular route actually being the most frequently serviced route on the whole system, it still is only serviced once every 30 minutes (usually it’s every 15, but the system is currently providing reduced service for *ahem* reasons). I still consider the system to be incredibly reliable, however, because the buses on every single route almost always arrive exactly when the schedule says they will. Idk if that’s enough of a testimonial, but I figure it might be something to look into.
the same "reason" LA metro went FREE for a year in 2020 to KEEP ridership up
We just returned to Madison from Atlanta and on the issue of screen doors, I'm 100% in favor of them. Boarding the Airport trains (with) was less stressful than MARTA (without) with a family...especially with a 3 yr old.
It would be great if you could do an episode on what elements of various transit networks make them a little more family friendly. Such as platform screen doors. Ok, now to continue watching.
4:54 In Japan, the train always shows up within a second or 2 when it is suppose to. 1 min late is late
And anything less then perfect in Japan is bad
Work in Japan is so stressful because you need to be 150% pefect no matter what your doing which is why Japan is one of the most depressive countries
This is a very good video. I'm glad you've come to realise. I watched one of your videos in which you strongly declared that anything less than 10 minutes is unacceptable. And I was like "why would that be a problem? You have the schedule and you know when to go to the station."
If I go to a meeting, I may not have control over the end time. So it's frustrating to wait 10min for the next bus.
@@mixi171 When you rely mainly on public transport, your mentality will change. Instead of thinking "dang I have to wait 10 mins for the next bus" you will become more or less "Oh good I have 5-6 more minutes to linger before I have to start walking to the bus stop."
I would say it's context dependent. Some trips and times can eat a longer wait than others!
@@RMTransit Most of the times, people who depend on public transport will have pattern of travels. They will know what the best bus/train is and what the alternatives before and after that one are. They will time their days around these departures.
Thank you for these incredible videos! Municipal Transit is a fascinating topic and love comparing systems in different cities to here in Toronto. What is your favorite transit system you've used so far?
The system in Tokyo is without equal in my mind
I think for commuter trains at least, a perfect minimum frequency is 4 trains/hour (every 15 min). In my opinion it's the minimum number of trains you can run without really needing to plan your trip. Once you have
To me, it is a balance between frequency, reliability and capacity, and the one-seat ride counts for a big part of it too. I took NJ Transit for many years, connecting at Secaucus, and even if it was a bit of a shorter commute, I much preferred the Deux-Montagnes line commute from both ends, as I didn’t have to run for a connection. I could easily live with the hourly service during the day, as long as it was consistent, unlike the others AMT lines. Having a seat was a big plus, something that the 10 min headway of the REM won’t fix
Very interesting perspective! I have to say I agree..!
Also, does TTC still have monthly pass for uni students? I can't find them in the Presto app..?
It does but it is annoying to get at
I think frequency is super important for shorter trips, but not as much for longer trips and/or those with fewer stops. I'd be perfectly happy with a 15 minute interval between subways or trains that get me further faster such as GO, UP, or express subways that skip all but major stations (which we don't have, but many places do); however, for city-central travel, I'd prefer all buses, subways, and streetcars come every 5min or less (with less being preferred). Similarly, I'm happy with only a few VIA trains per day to Montreal, London, Windsor, etc.
This is also why it's useful to have fixed schedules even for frequent services. The bus in my neighborhood goes every 15 minutes on weekdays, and it still has a fixed, published schedule that's also fairly consistently adhered. So for regular trips like going to work, I can leave with minute-level precision. I live like 50 meters from my nearest bus stop, and if the bus leaves at 6:19 am, I only really have to be on my way at like 6:17. If I run, I can make it at 6:18 too.
When you figure out the timings you know its good!
@@RMTransit 6:19 is the time stated both in the app and the printed timetable. Most of the time, the bus arrives at 6:19, with delays greater than three minutes being very rare. However, this line runs only through minor streets in my suburb (it's mostly a feeder service for the two tram lines serving this area), so it's not affected much by traffic congestion.
In Norway, and probably a lot of other places, public transport vehicles are often tracked to the minute. If a bus is 5 minutes early or late I can see it in Google Maps. Planning is easy and excellent, and I used to get lost on even quite short trips before the system was in place. But when I like to go to the beach it's pretty annoying that the bus to get there only goes once every two hours, so a higher frequency would definitely also be nice. When I used to go to the north for my summer holidays, the local boat to town might go two or three times a day.
I like the subsidized implementation of Via ride share to transit in Seattle
Indeed, comfort is also a valid asset. For instance the metro in Montreal has very high frequency, but it is so painfully loud...
I mean, I’d say this heavily depends on the use case and distance travelled. If you can plan ahead and your schedule is somewhat flexible, checking when the next train is going to be coming in +/- 30min is ok. I wouldn’t say great, but it’s manageable. But in most cases your start time is fixed (now, end of work/ appointment/ event) or you have/ want to be somewhere at a specific time. In those cases, having an 1h service means your going to be waiting an average of 30 minutes on top of your travel time. Now, on a 1,5h trip this is probably fine. But for a 30min trip this easily doubles or even triples your trip time, probably making it lose to basically anything else, if there are other viable options.
Now, if this is basically an express service on top of more frequent options (that’s how I see your example), where you can decide on a case by case basis if it’s convenient, this can be very useful. But in my opinion for trips inside the city a slower, but frequent service is much more important then a fast connection you have to plan your life around.
I did the Kennedy to Kipling run for a few years and it is soul crushing. My but hurt literally and my nose had black dust in it after one ride. The air quality is not good on the Subway. You can see the black dust on the train vents air vents. I wish there was a limited Express bus or GO train operation. There is a GO train there but it is too expensive.
I understand what he’s talking about when he was talking about taking the bus to and from high school. I literally just missed the bus today when usually I have to wait like 30 minutes
Awesome Japanese Star Wars shirt there Reece. 👍
Thanks LOL
Another way to look at it is car-free people don't have as many viable options to avoid using transit compared to car owners. One reason North Americans may care more about frequency is that almost all destinations in North America are more convenient by car, if now more convenient, it is incredibly common for destinations to have accommodations for parking. If you have a car, transit is an option and that option has to provide something the car does not. For most North Americans, transit doesn't offer more benefits than inconveniences. Until that's addressed, until North American transit realizes that it is competing against the private car, things won't get better. In fact, as we switch to EVs, people MAY start to think that there is no environmental penalty for using a private automobile.
Europe may be different because the built form of cities happened before the car AND because frequent transit is more common. People don't worry about the things they already have in abundance.
For me, transit feels way convenient than a car (even when I had one) to go to places in the city center - which imo is where a lot of the best stuff is anyways!
I do pick the hourly train over the once every 5 minutes bus service to get into town, and it is much quicker, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who makes that tradeoff
I am a transit exclusive rider convert from car and motorbike driver. I commute like a total of 120 km per day using commuters, bus rapid transit system, and MRT. Frequency is important for me, but moreover consistency and convenience. I prefer taking train for its punctuality and convenience which I can work or read or even nap during my long commute
I don't know if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but I find in Sydney the government's live tracking of public transport via smartphone apps is a major, major factor when deciding on which mode of transport to take. (Shows delays to the minute, how full the vehicle is, air conditioning status etc.) I would put this tracking above frequency in importance, and perhaps below consistency. I suppose this is only helpful in Sydney's delay-heavy network, and if we had true consistency it wouldn't matter as much.
Frequency being king is just the sort of thing being used there by a lot of people on Discord,
Skyscrapercity and Railpage to push the Sydney metro.
I wonder if the inconsitency you mention is basically boosting the case for expanding the metro and converting parts of the suburban network to metro.
The bus route I take in Vancouver all the time used to have a huge problem with consistently with buses sometimes buses missing
Yeah I had the same issue in Vancouver, very inconsistent buses
Certain areas definitely benefit from having a wide array of transit modes to choose from to the point schedules seem redundant but, even more, infrequent routes tend to prove to be more reliable than ones heavily padded of corridors just to accompany for "phantom" crowds.
It's not to say people should ditch their cars completely but rather revolve around utilizing both options of PT and personal vehicles to their advantage and its even more viable for governments to look at public transportation from a broad perspective. Where do your 9-to-5 commuters travel outside of downtown?... and invest heavily to get said commuters off of the highways for everyone's health & safety benefit
The advantage of modern public transportation apps, is that they "virtually" improve the frequency, without adding buses or trains. When I use my planner, it says "walk X minutes, than bus Y to train Z, total 30 mins" or "walk A to bus B, than bus C". Our planners have real-time (delay) information.
How does more information "virtually improve frequency"?
@@nicolasblume1046 You get options to travel faster, which you did not think of before (or were to lazy to check) Especially when there are multiple bus-stops within a few minutes walk.
It's true, if you can keep the schedule in your mind you have more options and a higher perceived frequency - phones makes this easy!
yos!
Making a reliable, timely transit route is much easier with a train or a subway than is with a bus. The main reason is you don't have to plan around mixed traffic
My gripe has always been with the Barrie line. Its great that the go train runs all the way there from Union and vice-versa, but half of the services don't even go all the way, they just stop in Aurora and you're stuck with a bus the rest of the way to Barrie. I get that there isn't much demand off peak but damn I'd gladly pay a higher fare to not have to switch to a bus.
All day service to Allandale is planned - eventually
On fares vs cars - don't forget that car costs are already 'sunk costs' and they are pretty invisible to most drivers. Hence the push for active road pricing. Local and suburban transit are different. Local transit - buses, trams etc frequency is important due to the waiting time penalty as a proportion of the total generalised cost. In terms of Europe it used to be the case in the 'old days' that transit agencies would advertise things like 'always a tram in sight'. Now that's frequent. In London the most frequent buses have headways of 2 minutes or even less. Anything over 10 minutes is thought of as not frequent by TfL. Obviously the frequencies do vary by route, tod, location etc. In terms of suburban rail commuters frequency and fare (generally better paid commuters) are less important than reliability and possibly overall journey time as well (as long as the service is reliable to start with). Personally I think you are talking about 2 different transit markets. When I lived in Burlington, I would take a train to Toronto but I never used the local buses in Burlington at all. The service just wasn''t either reliable or frequent enough for my needs. Having said all of that, I remember when (as a kid) they electrified our local suburban rail service into central London, and increased the frequency substantially, the growth in ridership was huge. Likewise when we built Manchester Metrolink and Croydon Tramlink - former low end suburban rail services we converted to modern LRT with high frequencies. Tripling the patronage was quite normal moving from a 1 hour to a 7 minute headway.
It certainly depends a LOT on context!
Personally, I think the issue isn't so much consistency, but punctuality. Most streetcar and bus timetables are as consistent in that they pass at stops/stations every same minute after the hour during peak hours with variations in less frequent passes during off-peak times. Problem - at least in my city Brussels (Belgium) - is punctuality. During off-peak hours punctuality is fairly good at 90%-95% and the consistent timetables of buses and trams are therefore excellent guides as well. But during rush hours, punctuality can vary a lot. And so punctuality drops, sometimes as low as 50% for surface traffic.
Psychologically, nobody likes to wait for a tram or bus. And it's a given that most people waiting for a transportation vehicle in a bus shelter or stop without a shelter tend to overestimate the time they have to wait. It's one of the reasons that even tiny public transport stops and stations come with real-time information mini displays. Partly to combat this waiting overestimation. Of course grade-seperated transport like commuter rail, light rail, subways score better in punctuality and therefore consistency then surface or street-sharing public transport.
For me frequency is very important, despite living in a very dense urban environment, in europe and never had a car (or even a driver's license).
I find it very annoying that my local bus only departs every 15 minutes.
But many I'm just so over-served with transit, that it messes with the perception what got frequency is.
I still have 4 light rail line, 2 bus lines and one tram station within a mile or so, with the light-rail having only a 3 minute headway on average.
Me too I also live in Eastern Europe and find that usually I walk 45 min to the subway, 50 min on the subway and then about 50 walk to the office. I could take 3 buses to get almost door to door but because the run on a 45-60 schedule between buses they take forever so either your really early or late for work.
When the GO bus used to go directly to York University, including direct express service (even before the Presto discount) from Scarborough Town Centre, people used to take the TTC to STC, pay extra, and take the GO bus instead of numerous TTC routes (including the 199 Finch Express to Finch West Station when it opened) even though it only came once every half hour. Was faster and way more reliable.
Frankly I do think GO has a role to play for such express services
@@RMTransit Yeah, I remember overhearing two people talking to each other saying it was like paying for limo service with the comfortable/guaranteed seats, air conditioning, and faster/reliable service lol
I'm not sure if this is purely American thing, frequency is a big deal in Europe as well.
I sort of don't have a car (I do own it but I don't use it much, it's just for long distance trips until the covid madness passes over) and it's a huge deal. The thing is, waiting increases the travel time. If you're on a fully flexible schedule (e.g. going from your city home to your holiday home), it's fine. But most of the time, you have a time you need to either leave your origin or arrive to your destination. If you have to wait before you leave, or after you arrive, that time is usually wasted.
Even if it is a leisure trip. Say I'm going to meet my friend for a drink. If one of us has to arrive 15 minutes before the other because of a low frequency, those 15 minutes are lost - and if it is a short trip of 30 minutes for example, that's 50% increase of the travel time compared to the theoretical frequency of 1 second.
Luckily I live in a city where frequencies are great during the day so this is not a problem unless I'm taking a trip to a very remote area (e.g. nature reserve I like to visit, which gets a bus approximately once per hour), but it can be a pain at night when buses and even metro are low frequency and not really coordinated (connecting service are of course timed to match each other, but trains/buses to different areas leave the city center at different times, unlike in my former hometown). This can mean that when we're done with our drinks, one of us has to wait half an hour for their bus.
By the way, are buses in Canada allowed to leave 10 minutes early? 😯 Or was it a 20 minutes late previous bus?
On the tube in London the Victoria line runs a train every 100 seconds, the other tube lines are not far behind. The Overground runs trains every 5 mins in places. The 38 bus runs every 4 minutes at it's peak times. This is all in each direction. The last thing you want to do when encouraging people not to drive is have them need to think about schedules, the lowest frequency transit in London is probably every 15 minutes on metro rail services and every 30 minutes on some night buses at the quietest times.
This allows for transfers to be so quick that you don't need to allow extra time for them, it also allows turn up and go.
Yep! But I am not talking about core services or areas or even times. Sometimes you can't have great frequency, and its ok!
@@RMTransit Only just saw your reply. I wasn't talking about city centre either.
I think the biggest catch here is that if the frequency is high enough, consistency doesn't really matter.
If a service comes every 3 minutes, it really doesn't matter if it's coming on time or not. It's still turn up and go. That's a good service.
If a service comes every 30 minutes, but is always on time, that's also a good service for what it is. It can be planned for.
If a transit agency sorts its lines into one of these categories and plans accordingly, it will probably be providing a good service. If it throws a bus out there every 30 (or even 15) minutes and just hopes for the best reliability wise, it's going to be terrible.
Oh god Sheffield station is so so so cold in winter🥶
When I lived in Beijing, I never once thought about when I need to get to the bus or subway station because of the high frequency. However when living in San Jose, I had to check the bus time table and be sure to time things right because I had to transfer from the light rail to the bus. If I missed the bus that drops me close to home, I'd need to either wait 30min for the next on or 15min for a bus that dropped me about a 10 min walk from home.
There is a point where frequency is an absolute issue. "Fixed" schedule is good when the frequency is "low", say like once an hour. In HK when I lived there busses are scheduled every 20 to 15 mins, and at non-rush hour times come 30 to 60 mins apart. But Apps these days make fixed scheduling pretty meaningless in local transit. I can pull up my phone and know if I can make the walk to the bus stop in time for the next pus or wait a few mins then leave to match "real time" updates.
Also in HK frequency, gives people the relief, well this train is quite full, no worries another one will be here in 1 min. The stress the relieves passengers of is enormous.
Here in Sydney my local station gets a train every 30 minutes because not all of the trains stop which is really frustrating but I guess express trains are good because when I get on a train to the city it skips some stations which is great
This makes me wonder if you know when to turn up at you local station, say by looking at a timetable before you get there.
I take a bus to school, it is here between 2 minutes beforet to 5 minutes after it is supposed to, most of the time it is right there when it is supposed to, I don't see how a bus can get so delayed, I live in Copenhagen denmark
The worst thing that was done here in Melbourne was the de-staffing of most metropolitan stations. As a result, there isn't necessarily going to be a toilet at the start or end of your journey.
This isn't a problem when you're on the Williamstown, Alamein or Sandringham lines, and your journey is likely less than 30 minutes duration, but when you're out further, or transiting across the city on a longer journey, it can be a problem.
Not only that, but with the facilities closed, there is minimal shelter, and with Melbourne regularly having very cold winds most of the year, and baking summers, that's also a disincentive when coupled with very poor frequency in some areas...and that's just touching on the shortcomings of our train network.
I will literally make a twitter for the first time in my life just to hear the prophetic tweets RM will send out
Station comforts need to be drastically overhauled in Toronto, but I don't see why we can't have it all (i.e. frequency too). I'd like washrooms in every subway station within and without the fare paid area and better cleanliness of platforms and inside subway cars.
I have a similar thing in NYC I can take a 1TPH into midtown or a every 10 minutes bus. I always take the train cuz the bus isn’t reliable and if I take the bus I go Into PABT and I don’t want to be anywhere near PABT