Tag Archives: public transportation

Tokyo train stations

I have never been to Tokyo, unfortunately. I had a trip planned there in 2011, but the earthquake and nuclear meltdown that year intervened. My condolences to everyone who lost loved ones or was otherwise directly impacted by that event, and I am not suggesting the minor disruption to my vacation plans that year was comparatively important.

Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing Tokyo firsthand and I didn’t get to. But I guess pictures are the next best thing. This article has some nice pictures of railway stations. Now, I spent some time in Singapore recently, and the railway stations there are pretty new and very modern looking. The first thing that strikes me about these Tokyo stations is they are not brand new, and they look pretty similar to older train stations here in the U.S. But the comparison ends there, because they are clean, well maintained, the service is reliable and the population is proud of their public transportation system. I also note that these older stations have been successfully retrofit with barriers so that people can’t fall/be pushed/intentionally jump onto the tracks and die. In the United States, at least here in my home city of Philadelphia, we “can’t afford” these barriers. Meaning of course that human life is not worth enough to us to make this a priority compared to other things we spend enormous amounts of money on, like highways and bombs.

https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/b11302/
https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/b11302/

problems with electric buses

Electric cars might have arrived, technologically speaking, but electric buses are having some problems. The Austin metro area recently committed to going to an all-electric bus fleet, but the early results are that the buses are breaking down and just generally not as reliable as the proven diesel technology. Suppliers are limited, having supply chain issues, and financial problems.

This just sounds like a technology having growing pains in the early implementation stage. Implementation of an emerging technology is a chicken-and-egg problem, where issues need to be solved through “learning by doing”, but if nobody is willing to take the risk to work through those issues the technology never gets scaled up. If you really want it to happen, the federal government might need to share some of the risk in the early stages. Or here’s an idea: pilot the technology with school buses?

SEPTA tries micro-transit

The Philadelphia-area Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) is experimenting with micro-transit. I have heard that the idea of micro-transit, including semi-fixed but flexible bus routes people can schedule with apps, has not worked all that well in trials elsewhere. And SEPTA has a history and tendency of underwhelming. Nonetheless, I think that if the U.S. remains committed to its low-density sprawl land use preferences, traditional fixed bus and rail routes are just not going to work. Something more flexible is needed, and if public agencies can find ways to do it more efficiently or cost-effectively than the private sector then it’s worth a try. If we are tempted to say it is unfair for a subsidized government agency to compete with the private sector in this area, we should remember the enormous public funding that has gone into building and maintaining our enormous public road network over the past 70 or so years at the expense of nearly all other types of public infrastructure.

I’m still skeptical of you though SEPTA. You have never exceeded my low and steadily declining expectations. Prove me wrong.

what we think about paying for transportation

Is this hypocrisy or ignorance?

Bettina Jarasch, a Green party politician who also serves as the city’s deputy mayor, suggested the implementation of the measure after the apparent success of a recent summer scheme that saw Germans charged only €9 per month for public transport in order to help curb the impact of inflation during the summer months.

According to a report by Bild, Jarasch believes that a mandatory charge of between €15 and €20 ($16-$21) for public transport will further to bump revenue for public transport services while keeping prices low for individual users.

“I’m increasingly thinking about a solidarity levy of 15 to 20 euros a month for all Berliners,” the politician remarked, while also noting that the reduction in the price of public transport has seen a significant uptick in usage across the country.

Breitbart

Meanwhile, here in the USA, we are all forced to pay a fortune for driving and parking infrastructure, whether we use it or not. We accept this partly because it has been the status quo for so long we don’t remember anything different, and partly because of the endless propaganda hurled at us by the auto-highway-oil industrial complex.

Meanwhile, we have a double standard for transit for some reason where we expect it to be paid for 100% by user fees. Then we disincentivize people from actually using it by providing heavily subsidized car infrastructure.

There may be a few corporate executives and marketing types that understand the hypocrisy of this arrangement, but overall I’m going to go with ignorance.

micro-transit

A number of public transportation agencies have been experimenting with micro-transit, where buses (or sometimes smaller vehicles) operate on-demand and are dispatched by algorithms. I like the idea – it seems like a possible way to provide service in low-density suburbs, unless we are going to start building differently. However, this op-ed from WHYY says it hasn’t gone well. Keep in mind the author is an advocate for transit riders and transit unions. It’s possible the person is cherry-picking examples or that the pilots in question for poorly implemented and managed.

On average, microtransit pilots across the U.S. have a ridership of zero to three riders per hour, with most pilots operating much closer to zero than three. For comparison, the Route 127, one of the most confusing and infrequent buses in SEPTA’s network, still moves an average of 13.9 passengers per revenue hour. When AC Transit in Oakland, Cal. replaced one of its  low-performing fixed-routes with microtransit, the per passenger subsidy more than doubled. And when Kansas City attempted microtransit, the ridership was so low that by the end of the pilot, they ended up paying $1,000 per passenger to operate the service.

WHYY

To be fair, this article is specifically arguing against implementation of this option by SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Agency), which is not known for above-average implementation or management. The currently have an app which provides real-time data on bus and train arrival, but the data seems to be supplied by a random number generator. So I would not be too hopeful that they would be the first to pull this off successfully. Maybe they should just give everybody a pre-paid card to use Uber, or hire small-time taxi drivers who lost their life savings when that industry was upended a few years ago.

driverless taxis in San Francisco and Arlington, Texas

Driverless taxis are already operating on public streets in these two places, although for now their range is limited and they still have “safety operators”. Once this catches on, I have a hard time imagining how fixed-route bus services could continue to compete. If I ran a public transportation system I would be trying to get innovative on flexible routes right away.

the stats on Uber and Lyft

A new report provides interesting data on ride sharing nationwide. We all knew they were shifting rides away from the traditional taxi industry, but they are also resulting in more traffic on the road for a few reasons. First, they are taking trips away from traditional public transportation and from walking in major, high-density cities. And second, people are taking trips they otherwise wouldn’t have taken. The evidence that they are putting downward pressure on car ownership rates does not appear to be strong, at least so far.

I have a few reactions. From a purist economic perspective, if people are choosing to take trips that were too expensive or too inconvenient before, that is a positive improvement in those people’s lives. If the traditional taxi and public transportation models are too slow, dirty, inconvenient and/or expensive to compete, they need to figure out how to step up their games. My sympathy is limited, but I would rather see traditional public transportation adapt than disappear. I have no love for taxi dispatch companies, but I do have sympathy for the small-time owner operators that borrowed large sums of money to invest in a regulated taxi medallion. Governments really ought to buy those medallions back at the market price before Uber and Lyft came on the scene (and then throw them away forever). Fewer walking and/or biking trips is not good for people’s health for both physical activity and air quality reasons, but there city governments need to step up their infrastructure and planning games if they want walking and biking to be truly safe and inviting ways to get around. A final note is that even if traffic does not go down in the near term, any decrease in parking demand will be a positive for dense cities.

Ride sharing has improved my life immeasurably. I choose to live in a dense city and choose not to own a car. Before ride sharing was available, I often had trouble getting a taxi home from certain neighborhoods when I needed it, got cheated by drivers who pretended not to understand where I was going or refused to give change for cash-only payments (which were the only option). Taxi service has improved a lot now that they have some competition. Buses and commuter trains too are slow, dirty, and unreliable, although they too have improved recently. So I think a lot of people’s lives are better and I think the public will continue to demand this technology.

RethinkX

this private think tank report on the future of transportation claims to have used a system dynamics approach and to have reached some radical conclusions, like the collapse of private car ownership, the oil industry, and major decreases in the cost of getting around within a decade or so. The buzz phrase is “transportation as a service”.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf

Lyft v. parking

I seem to be on a safe streets, anti-car roll this week so I’ll keep rolling. This article quotes a Lyft spokesman and drivers about how people are using ride sharing services to avoid having to deal with parking.

“They say, ‘I can’t afford to park down there,’” Gregory Goodman said. “And if they end up parking down there they end up with a $75 ticket.”

Lyft Philly GM Andrew Woolf confirmed that a significant portion of Lyft’s business comes from people who don’t want to park their cars. This has become a trend for commuters elsewhere, too, so much so that office landlords in New Jersey are beginning to offer Lyft and Uber subsidies.

Much of the time, these trips to avoid parking are to the airport or SEPTA stations, but Lyft is used for far more routine parking jobs.

I think this is slightly missing the point. The point of transportation is to get where you need to go, when you need to go there, at a reasonable financial price. People in relatively compact cities have always had more options in this regard than everyone else – walking, biking, public transportation, and taxis. On any given day, someone may decide one of these options is cheaper and/or more convenient than driving and parking their private vehicle. Others are going to decide that having a private vehicle is no longer worth the trouble (count me in this camp, since 2004). But Uber and Lyft are game changing because they are a much better option in many cases than these older options, and in less dense communities they are providing the first viable alternative to private vehicles that people have ever had access to. So people are making their choices.

Like I said, I haven’t owned a private vehicle since 2004. But I used to rent cars and use share cars (the kind you sign out and drive yourself) frequently, but lately I hardly ever do either of these things. I take Uber and Lyft instead. Here in Philadelphia, our public transportation agency is set to raise fares yet again to a minimum of $2.50, and they need to be careful because Uber Pool and the Lyft equivalent (I forget what it’s called) are going to be competitive for some rides. So it could be the beginnings of a public transportation death spiral. What they need to do, of course, is adopt the Uber Pool type technology to public transportation, and offer flexible routes and timing. All is not quite perfect in corporate Uber land, of course, and public transportation agencies could actually take advantage of this if they are smart and flexible enough. But I wouldn’t put my money on that.

There is still an irony when we talk about parking. Gradually, fewer private cars will mean less parking demand and less competition for the parking spaces we have already built, or that we will continue to build through misguided policies in some places. That will mean less angst about parking and actually provide some counter-incentive to giving up your private vehicle, so at some point it will settle into some kind of equilibrium, at least until the next technological disruption or in a few progressive places that realize they can use all that land for something better than parking.