Went out last night to Town Hall Seattle (the always-interesting, worthy and thank-god-we-have-it-here-in-Seattle, — thank you founder David Brewster!) to hear Darrin Nordahl and Jarrett Walker: Perspectives on Public Transit. Very stimulating discussion. To boil it down crudely, my take-away in Nordahl v. Walker (and grossly-simplified so I can bring out my point) is sexed-up transit vehicles versus frequency — frequency yields "headways" — how often a vehicle (whether it is car, bus, train or spaceship) passes a stop and thus the amount of time you are waiting to board.
While I agree completely with Darrin Nordahl's call (and it was a very well-preseented call — I look at technique since I do public presentations and so always interested in how to do it better) for better customer service and nicer vehicles (clean, safe, attractive -- maybe comfortable?) I believe that Jarret Walker's emphasis on frequency carried the evening. To me it's no issue. I don't use transit because I don't like to plan; my trips are somewhat spontaneous and I like life that way. The buses in Seattle are physically acceptable; they simply don't run often enough.
(Personal example slightly off the point: Last night I went from my house (Maple Leaf) to quick dinner with friends (Montlake) to Townhall (First Hill) to Queen Anne (dropped off friend and a drink) to home again. Elapsed travel time door-to-door (which is the test) on those 4 legs? Maybe 45 minutes. I can't imagine that I could have done it in less that 3 hours because of the numbers of stops, the need for transfers and time of day. Yes, I should go to Metro link and add up the actual legs in real time at the times I used and of course it's not completely fair as without a car I simply wouldn't have made such a routing — and would life have been very much diminished? Probably not really. Just different. Nevertheless, we middle-class North Americans are attuned to going wherever and whenever and that such psychological state has to be considered as a genuine political constraint.)Do bear in mind that it is precisely those off-peaks are especially efficient for cars (no traffic) and especially ineffecient for transit. The last leg of my trip at 10:30 PM from Queen Anne to Cloud City Coffee (nearby) would take 60 minutes by bus while in the empty streets it was less than 15. Driving safely. Huge difference.
• My basic problem with American transit is that I don't want to plan nor wait. Ideally, the operational test for good transit, so far as I can see, is that if I have to use a bus schedule, I won't use transit.
• So if frequency/headways are the issue — why doesn't every transit system have high frequency/low headways? Money. Pure and simple. Just not enough money. And here's the out-of-control downward spin. "Enough money" for public transit is purely a political issue. Period. Triple stop. Poorly-funded transit is purely a function of lack of political will.
• So why so little political will? Because people don't use transit, so politicians don't feel on-going pulse-pounding pressure to spend more money on transit.
• Part of the conventional wisdom about transit which prevents spending real money on quick headways is that "There's no market. People aren't using that route. Why should we be running empty buses?"
• My quick answer to that old saw is that just as with roads, with transit, supply induces demand. If you offer a rich 'connection pipe" (to garble Walker's terminolgy) then people will use it and people will get used to the service and presto you have political support. People support things (politically) that they use.
• So here is my advice/suggestion to managers of transit systems: experiment. Goose-up the frequency of headways and see what happens. Choose one route (and choose it astutely) and run buses at a level which are not now justified by current traffic. Then make sure people know about it, that they can ride without using a schedule. Is there political risk? Of course. You have to choose your route wisely. You have to understand how long it will take for potential users to realize that they don't have to plan to use transit. You have to budget for running that route at a deep deficit. Your board will look at you and your job is on the line. (Obviously easy for me to say.) But if you are serious about getting people to use your system, people using it as a matter of choice and not because they are poor and without a car, then it's pedal to the metal to show (not cajole through marketing) that the key to system use is frequency.
• Show me all the greatest marketing for a transit system etc etc and if you don't have great headways, I won't use it.
Btw, I think that I once spoke to Walker about this political experiment approach and while we agree on frequency, he thought my suggestion wrong, or impossible or something like that.
Good thoughts. I too enjoyed the talk last night.
It would be interesting to see how people already perceive high volume routes. To see if they believe they essentially using is as an unscheduled route. The example I am thinking of is the one right out my front door. Because to buses stop (3 if you count the express bus) here, I always know that it will only be a few minutes until the next bus comes. In practice then, this route approaches your idea of a schedule-less route.
Posted by: Sid Burgess | Apr 19, 2012 at 09:26 AM
No, it's not impossible or a bad idea. I may have said that we have no shortage of places where planners already think that higher frequency would pay off. Many are identified in the Seattle Transit Plan or the King Co Metro strategic plan, and we'd want to "try" frequency there first.
The problem is not that transit agencies don't think more frequency would be effective. They DO think that, but as I said, it's often hard to get their non-riding masters to "get" why frequency should be a priority in an era of shrinking budgets, as this usually means cutting someone else's service entirely.
Posted by: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org | Apr 19, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Yes that's a fair critique and my only response is that transit managers should frontally discuss the utility of such experiments to induce demand. If I were a transit manager I'd go out and explain the politics to both his/her board and to the political constituencies (various pro-transit groups etc etc). Maybe they have but I guess I have never heard of anyone discussing a deliberate attempt to dramatically increase frequency way ahead of current demand on one strategic route in order to show that supply induces demand. I do emphasize that I have never heard since I am not really into the transit world.
Posted by: David Sucher | Apr 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Yes. My book is about helping them do exactly that, and helping others help them! J
Posted by: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org | Apr 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM
My takeaway from the talk was, Both/And. Let's have frequent, fun transit. Loved the two-story slide beside the stairway in the transit tunnel, and the fruit-shaped bus stops, and the orange, sky-lit buses (oops, turns out "bus" is a bad word). I live in Fremont: A troll stop would so fit in. I took the bus to the talk. To me, riding transit is part of what makes my life urban. It's where I get to experience a little heterogeneity of culture. People talk. It's relaxing. Check it out, City Comforts.
Posted by: Sixty and Single in Seattle | Apr 21, 2012 at 10:31 AM
"My basic problem with American transit is that I don't want to plan nor wait."
Based on this and your personal example, in transit jargon, perhaps you would be considered mostly a 'random passenger rider.' Opposed to a 'non-random passenger rider' that may be more inclined to follow a transit schedule
..
Posted by: QwkDrw | Apr 21, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Sounds about right.
Or in other words I am "retired."
Posted by: David Sucher | Apr 21, 2012 at 09:22 PM
David you are so on top of it! If you watch the video "Taken for a Ride" http://fptvideo.blogspot.com/2010/12/taken-for-ride.html about how the streetcars were deliberately dismantled, you will hear from the actual people who did it, how destroying frequency was the key to destroying the streetcar.
Posted by: Free Transit | Apr 23, 2012 at 03:16 PM
Great post! Built it and they will ride. http://farefreenw.blogspot.com/2012/05/build-it-and-they-will-come.html
Posted by: Chris Leyerle | Jun 15, 2012 at 11:17 PM