The reason I find your figures unconvincing is that I am not aware of any place with the typical density of North American suburbs where such a public transit network exists. How do you explain that?
You can’t assume a 100% market penetration of public transit as long as private vehicles exist as an alternative. This further reduces your ridership and thus the economic feasibility of the network, because it forces you to either increase fares or reduce frequency, and when frequency is reduced ridership falls as well.
By the way, how have you estimated the ridership in every bus? You can’t assume every bus will be full to the brim every time. In turn, this would reduce ridership in your transit network and would force you to either reduce frequency (which further reduces ridership) or increase your cost per passenger.
Big edit: Americans may not be used to units per sq km. 50 units per sq km = 5 acres per lot, or 0.2 units per acre. This photo is 4 units per acre, or 20 times more dense than the example calculation
This is a collective economic analysis only.
These don’t exist because, while no one would bat an eye at spending $24,000+ on private transit a year per household, no one would spend $24,000 a household in public transit; no matter how it is divided.
Your assumption was that collective transit could not work in suburbs. I offer that is can work.
I fully agree due to socio-political reasons, it would not work.
The ridership calculation, based on car hours to bus hours, is 5 passengers per bus; this calculation is for all applications (based on the data assumptions I stated). This is the economic equality point.
This is also a point to put system, that relies on this single-stop suburb bus dropping off at places people want to be, or transfering to a transit spine. You can double the frequency of busses by adding a second stop in the suburbs before heading to the spine. You reduce frequency by adding more destination/spine stops.
Public transit doesn’t work in sparsely populated suburbs
You said:
Your assumption was that collective transit could not work in suburbs.
As you can plainly see, that is not what I said. Also, it is not an assumption but an observation of the real world.
I offer that is can work. I fully agree due to socio-political reasons, it would not work.
Notice how the second sentence is a stronger assertion than what I said, but I’m willing to concede that it may be true. What is plainly obvious is that it does not work in practice, whether it would or would not work hypothetically.
In the real world, neighborhoods with economically viable frequent public transit require more density than the typical North American suburb. So we can start by fixing density, as the only reason these suburbs are so prevalent are dumb zoning laws that prevent anything other than single family homes to be built.
I apologize, I must have unpacked my own personal assumptions in what doesn’t work means.
My point remains that the total cost of transit of the presented option iis the the exact same as personal cars. Therefore it is economically viable.
It’s not politically viable because people want cars. That’s what stops it in practice. I’m trying to highlight how much people wanting cars fucks all transit equations. 5 car hours is one bus hour.
I’m in full agreement of unfucking zoning laws, parking minimums, and traffic service standard definitions.
We’re absolutely in agreement, I just think suburban (even rural) transit can work. We just need to ban the cars and recapture those costs as transit.
while no one would bat an eye at spending $24,000+ on private transit a year per household
The disabled in Ontario are given 13k a year to live on. My transportation budget is literally zero. I wear Xero sandals because they are cheaper than shoes and wear out less, which matters since I walk everywhere.
Average total cost of a car is $12,000 a year in Canada. So a 2 car household spends $24,000 on transit. Honestly it’s probably higher for 50 units/sq km density, but that just my anecdotal evidence from people I know in that density.
I get it, it’s an insane number. But that is the average, so it’s what I used to the case study. Also remember that your $0/year transit budget is dragging that number down. I am surprised Ontario doesn’t have free transit for those receiving disability. Reduced mobility and (recently) anyone over 65 has free transit in Montréal. I think are fees for the paratransit system, but I can’t figure it out with a quick search.
The economic point for a bus to be cheaper, per running hour, than a car is only 5 cars.
I mention because people need to know, not because it necessarily has a lot to do with the conversation, except that the conversation places the figure into sharp contrast.
I am surprised Ontario doesn’t have free transit for those receiving disability.
Ontario hates Bob Rae more than it hates Mike Harris. One of them fought tooth and nail to preserve essential government services, and one to eviscerate them. I’m so disgusted.
The reason I find your figures unconvincing is that I am not aware of any place with the typical density of North American suburbs where such a public transit network exists. How do you explain that?
You can’t assume a 100% market penetration of public transit as long as private vehicles exist as an alternative. This further reduces your ridership and thus the economic feasibility of the network, because it forces you to either increase fares or reduce frequency, and when frequency is reduced ridership falls as well.
By the way, how have you estimated the ridership in every bus? You can’t assume every bus will be full to the brim every time. In turn, this would reduce ridership in your transit network and would force you to either reduce frequency (which further reduces ridership) or increase your cost per passenger.
Big edit: Americans may not be used to units per sq km. 50 units per sq km = 5 acres per lot, or 0.2 units per acre. This photo is 4 units per acre, or 20 times more dense than the example calculation
This is a collective economic analysis only.
These don’t exist because, while no one would bat an eye at spending $24,000+ on private transit a year per household, no one would spend $24,000 a household in public transit; no matter how it is divided.
Your assumption was that collective transit could not work in suburbs. I offer that is can work.
I fully agree due to socio-political reasons, it would not work.
The ridership calculation, based on car hours to bus hours, is 5 passengers per bus; this calculation is for all applications (based on the data assumptions I stated). This is the economic equality point.
This is also a point to put system, that relies on this single-stop suburb bus dropping off at places people want to be, or transfering to a transit spine. You can double the frequency of busses by adding a second stop in the suburbs before heading to the spine. You reduce frequency by adding more destination/spine stops.
I said:
You said:
As you can plainly see, that is not what I said. Also, it is not an assumption but an observation of the real world.
Notice how the second sentence is a stronger assertion than what I said, but I’m willing to concede that it may be true. What is plainly obvious is that it does not work in practice, whether it would or would not work hypothetically.
In the real world, neighborhoods with economically viable frequent public transit require more density than the typical North American suburb. So we can start by fixing density, as the only reason these suburbs are so prevalent are dumb zoning laws that prevent anything other than single family homes to be built.
I apologize, I must have unpacked my own personal assumptions in what doesn’t work means.
My point remains that the total cost of transit of the presented option iis the the exact same as personal cars. Therefore it is economically viable.
It’s not politically viable because people want cars. That’s what stops it in practice. I’m trying to highlight how much people wanting cars fucks all transit equations. 5 car hours is one bus hour.
I’m in full agreement of unfucking zoning laws, parking minimums, and traffic service standard definitions.
We’re absolutely in agreement, I just think suburban (even rural) transit can work. We just need to ban the cars and recapture those costs as transit.
The disabled in Ontario are given 13k a year to live on. My transportation budget is literally zero. I wear Xero sandals because they are cheaper than shoes and wear out less, which matters since I walk everywhere.
Fuck, that is rough. I’m so sorry. That is a raw deal. It’s not fair.
Average total cost of a car is $12,000 a year in Canada. So a 2 car household spends $24,000 on transit. Honestly it’s probably higher for 50 units/sq km density, but that just my anecdotal evidence from people I know in that density.
I get it, it’s an insane number. But that is the average, so it’s what I used to the case study. Also remember that your $0/year transit budget is dragging that number down. I am surprised Ontario doesn’t have free transit for those receiving disability. Reduced mobility and (recently) anyone over 65 has free transit in Montréal. I think are fees for the paratransit system, but I can’t figure it out with a quick search.
The economic point for a bus to be cheaper, per running hour, than a car is only 5 cars.
I mention because people need to know, not because it necessarily has a lot to do with the conversation, except that the conversation places the figure into sharp contrast.
Have you MET Ontario?!
I left Ontario just after Douggie boy got elected, so that’s got a lot to do with it.
Ontario hates Bob Rae more than it hates Mike Harris. One of them fought tooth and nail to preserve essential government services, and one to eviscerate them. I’m so disgusted.
I didn’t leave because Doug Ford was elected, but the timing worked out so perfectly I get to say it was!