Dylan Reid of Spacing was recently at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, Germany and has been publishing some interesting posts related to transit. Here is one about what makes transit systems succeed and fail.
I really like the point that we too often think about transit projects as culminating with a big opening, while overlooking the importance of operations. It’s a bit like focusing on the wedding ceremony and forgetting that the ceremony is only really there to (hopefully) mark the beginning of a lifelong union.
One of the reasons why this is important is because, as Reid points out, “fares need to provide a strong and consistent proportion of the agency’s funding.” So you need bums in seats, which means you need to build the right transit in the right locations. In other words, a new subway line through a low density suburb will probably result in an abysmal farebox recovery ratio.
At the same time:
“…fares will rarely cover all of an agency’s costs. Hong Kong’s Kam noted that, to be truly autonomous, an operator needs an additional dedicated, independent source of revenue. This cannot be based on additional transit-related non-fare revenue (e.g. advertising) – such revenue is helpful but never significant. It needs to be an external source. In Hong Kong, it is based on the agency’s extensive property ownership, but in other cities it could be a congestion charge, a dedicated sales or income tax, or other mechanism. Only with such a source can the agency have the independence to make its own choices for reinvestment and improvements.”
This is one of the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of road pricing.
Another point that Reid makes is that transit agencies should always have a consistent pipeline of new projects, rather than erratic periods of expansion. This makes a lot of sense given what it takes to ramp up for a large infrastructure project. But it’s obviously contingent on having sustainable funding sources.
Click here if you’d like to read the rest of Dylan Reid’s post.
I couldn’t sleep last night, so I got up and pulled out an old issue of Monocle magazine from my nightstand. I then stumbled upon the following article by Taras Grescoe.
The MIT Senseable City Lab recently looked at which cities are the most “shareable” when it comes to ride sharing services such as UberPOOL. Their goal was determine what fraction of individual trips (inefficient) could be shared or pooled (more efficient). To do this, they developed a single “shareability curve.” Full research paper, here.
Not surprisingly, New York City does very well in this analysis. Its shareability is well above 95% for a delta of 5 minutes. That’s because the city has a large population, a small geographic area, enormous density, and lots of taxi traffic. (They used taxi data in their research.)
But New York City also does very well when it comes to transit ridership. Highest in North America. So it strikes me that the characteristics that make a city “shareable” also apply to transit – which is effectively another form of ride sharing. Might we see the distinction between these 2 forms of mobility blur in the future? I think so.
Dylan Reid of Spacing was recently at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, Germany and has been publishing some interesting posts related to transit. Here is one about what makes transit systems succeed and fail.
I really like the point that we too often think about transit projects as culminating with a big opening, while overlooking the importance of operations. It’s a bit like focusing on the wedding ceremony and forgetting that the ceremony is only really there to (hopefully) mark the beginning of a lifelong union.
One of the reasons why this is important is because, as Reid points out, “fares need to provide a strong and consistent proportion of the agency’s funding.” So you need bums in seats, which means you need to build the right transit in the right locations. In other words, a new subway line through a low density suburb will probably result in an abysmal farebox recovery ratio.
At the same time:
“…fares will rarely cover all of an agency’s costs. Hong Kong’s Kam noted that, to be truly autonomous, an operator needs an additional dedicated, independent source of revenue. This cannot be based on additional transit-related non-fare revenue (e.g. advertising) – such revenue is helpful but never significant. It needs to be an external source. In Hong Kong, it is based on the agency’s extensive property ownership, but in other cities it could be a congestion charge, a dedicated sales or income tax, or other mechanism. Only with such a source can the agency have the independence to make its own choices for reinvestment and improvements.”
This is one of the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of road pricing.
Another point that Reid makes is that transit agencies should always have a consistent pipeline of new projects, rather than erratic periods of expansion. This makes a lot of sense given what it takes to ramp up for a large infrastructure project. But it’s obviously contingent on having sustainable funding sources.
Click here if you’d like to read the rest of Dylan Reid’s post.
I couldn’t sleep last night, so I got up and pulled out an old issue of Monocle magazine from my nightstand. I then stumbled upon the following article by Taras Grescoe.
The MIT Senseable City Lab recently looked at which cities are the most “shareable” when it comes to ride sharing services such as UberPOOL. Their goal was determine what fraction of individual trips (inefficient) could be shared or pooled (more efficient). To do this, they developed a single “shareability curve.” Full research paper, here.
Not surprisingly, New York City does very well in this analysis. Its shareability is well above 95% for a delta of 5 minutes. That’s because the city has a large population, a small geographic area, enormous density, and lots of taxi traffic. (They used taxi data in their research.)
But New York City also does very well when it comes to transit ridership. Highest in North America. So it strikes me that the characteristics that make a city “shareable” also apply to transit – which is effectively another form of ride sharing. Might we see the distinction between these 2 forms of mobility blur in the future? I think so.
What really stood out for me was this line:
“Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers, compacted amid neighbourhoods of single-family houses, have led to congestion nightmares in Toronto and notoriously out-of-hand housing costs in Vancouver.”
It bothered me for a few reasons:
- The frame of reference is the single-family house. It perpetuates the cultural bias that what matters most in cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, is low-rise housing.
- I don’t get the “haphazardly planned” comment. New tower development has been heavily concentrated in the downtown core, growth centers, along the Yonge subway corridor, and so on. Their built form is also significantly influenced by their relationship to these low-rise “Neighbourhoods.”
- I believe that building up, as opposed to out, is the way to address congestion nightmares. Though I will concede that our ability to plan and execute on transit in this city is positively deplorable.
- How did thickets of condos create an affordability problem in Vancouver? Many factors at play in this city, including a powerful geographic supply constraint.
Those are just a few of my thoughts from early this morning. What are yours?
What really stood out for me was this line:
“Thickets of haphazardly planned condo towers, compacted amid neighbourhoods of single-family houses, have led to congestion nightmares in Toronto and notoriously out-of-hand housing costs in Vancouver.”
It bothered me for a few reasons:
- The frame of reference is the single-family house. It perpetuates the cultural bias that what matters most in cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, is low-rise housing.
- I don’t get the “haphazardly planned” comment. New tower development has been heavily concentrated in the downtown core, growth centers, along the Yonge subway corridor, and so on. Their built form is also significantly influenced by their relationship to these low-rise “Neighbourhoods.”
- I believe that building up, as opposed to out, is the way to address congestion nightmares. Though I will concede that our ability to plan and execute on transit in this city is positively deplorable.
- How did thickets of condos create an affordability problem in Vancouver? Many factors at play in this city, including a powerful geographic supply constraint.
Those are just a few of my thoughts from early this morning. What are yours?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
