tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post7493021672780745204..comments2024-02-01T04:37:41.878-05:00Comments on Cap'n Transit Rides Again: Tactical Transit Strike Force!Cap'n Transithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-8656217777358919762013-12-29T09:55:09.947-05:002013-12-29T09:55:09.947-05:00I've started a petition regarding one of the m...I've started a petition regarding one of the more shortsighted actions by the NYCTA. <br /><br />https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/provide-nycta-sufficient-money-enable-double-tracking-entire-franklin-ave-shuttle-line/Jk1JZklQGrahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885769183690278872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-46917092042300297522012-12-11T17:54:08.289-05:002012-12-11T17:54:08.289-05:00You can have usable circumferentials. The G isn...You can have usable circumferentials. The G isn't one of them, mainly because of bad alignment decisions: it doesn't connect at the Brooklyn end to non-IND service, and has a difficult connection at the Queens end. The IND was too cool for a line from QBP to Atlantic-Pacific.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-49988591917109843732012-12-10T14:33:45.983-05:002012-12-10T14:33:45.983-05:00Cap'n, I went back and read your old post, and...Cap'n, I went back and read your old post, and I congratulate you for taking the time to enunciate what you actually mean in your blog posts. You are always enlightening because you always build from the known to the unknown. <br />I used to live down the block from the Greenpoint Ave G train station. What I realized about the G train by living there was that because it was a second (or third) train line, it needed to run much more frequently to be of any use. Basically, I would have as much waiting time as someone who lived on the E or F train, and then another 5-10 minutes of waiting time for the G train. That's what made it a second-class train right there.<br />That's not going to change unless the train somehow makes its way to Manhattan, and until that time, the G train watershed will always be at a disadvantage compared to the L train or A train watershed. <br />Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08520811734907587902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-25322248171813530662012-12-10T08:42:06.008-05:002012-12-10T08:42:06.008-05:00Jonathan, you're right that pricing discounts ...Jonathan, you're right that pricing discounts aren't the same as better service. But you're acting like the only <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/08/selling-transit-with-glamour-or-value.html" rel="nofollow">mode choice</a> that matters is the Single Trip. Habit decisions are sticky by definition, and people are likely to form habits based on a one-year commitment of better service. People probably won't make Investment decisions based on a one-year commitment, but if the higher frequencies are made permanent they might.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-81710764977976880662012-12-10T08:27:53.795-05:002012-12-10T08:27:53.795-05:00The other example of penetration pricing is the tr...The other example of penetration pricing is the traditional happy hour, where drinks at bars are half price for the first part of the evening.<br /><br />I don't think penetration pricing is exactly the metaphor for adding service. Here's why: customers don't make an investment in the service in your example. Credit card teasers are low so that borrowers will rack up big balances that will be paid back at higher, normal-level interest rates. Happy hours entice drinkers by lowering their reasoning skills and running a tab. <br /><br />With transit, if there is frequent service on some line, riders will use it, and if there is no longer frequent service, riders will no longer use it. There's no "stickiness" there.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08520811734907587902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-64418935972679586332012-12-09T23:05:03.643-05:002012-12-09T23:05:03.643-05:00I really don't think the G is competing with t...I really don't think the G is competing with the BQE. For individual trips, if you have a car you'll probably drive and if you don't then you probably won't. In the inner parts of Brooklyn and Queens, car ownership is low and the streets are walkable enough that short trips are done on foot. On top of that, the G is such a terrible circumferential, due to unfixable IND-era alignment decisions, that it's not useful for trips not originating or ending on the G itself, so it's not competing for the kind of trips that highways serve. That said:<br /><br />1. I do think Triboro RX would compete with the BQE: at that radius out of Manhattan, car ownership is much higher, especially in Queens. (In Brooklyn, Triboro is best thought of as railstitution of the B6 and B35.)<br /><br />2. Car ownership in inner Brooklyn could go up, though this depends on residential parking availability more than on highway capacity.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-79037660762419591822012-12-09T21:50:55.472-05:002012-12-09T21:50:55.472-05:00Busplanner, I think you're right that we shoul...Busplanner, I think you're right that we should only try increasing the capacity if the frequency is high enough that we're getting bunching.<br /><br />Plaws, what I'm saying is that the MTA should have a fund set aside for experiments like this. Off the top of my head, I have no idea how much doubling the frequency of the G train is, but <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdFpZajNOUnNmRkpTSGl2UjRjS2x4eEE#gid=6" rel="nofollow">as of 2010</a> the Q88 costs $130,000 a week or $7 million a year, and had a 74% farebox recovery ratio. Doubling the frequency on the Q88 for a year would cost at most $7 million, but probably much less because some portion of it would be covered by an increase in ridership.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-4753151032365081012012-12-09T20:27:30.634-05:002012-12-09T20:27:30.634-05:00From a transit planning perspective and given the ...From a transit planning perspective and given the budget constraints with which almost all transit agencies have to deal, it makes no sense to ask for BOTH longer trains and increased frequency.<br /><br />If the trains are crowded during certain time periods, one either increases the frequency OR increases the length of the train (if not at maximum length already).<br /><br />Personally, I'm a strong believer in using frequency to test the market potential, as my experience suggests that if there is a latent market, frequency begets more frequency. Of course, at some point, if the ridership supports it (let's say five minute frequencies), you should switch to a longer train set to avoid excess labor costs.<br /><br />The danger in all this: What if the ridership does not support a more frequent service (or longer trains)after a reasonable test? Then you may see less frequent service over most of the day.busplannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02927124679758449424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-5230618275724313612012-12-09T16:38:06.381-05:002012-12-09T16:38:06.381-05:00Nice theory. I'd adjust it slightly--say, 8-ca...Nice theory. I'd adjust it slightly--say, 8-car trains every 8 minutes--but I like the thinking. <br /><br />My concern with the Riders Alliance is that the list of improvements they came up with for the G train demonstrate a lack of understanding in how to talk to the MTA. Demanding 8-car G trains because they are so crowded people can't get on is only going to generate internal eye-rolling at the MTA, because it's just not true. <br /><br />Also, the G doesn't run 6-car train sets any longer. It's 4-car at all times.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08926061647105837705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-29822208055354713632012-12-09T15:09:15.223-05:002012-12-09T15:09:15.223-05:0010-minute headway = 6 TPH x 6 cars/train = 36 cars...10-minute headway = 6 TPH x 6 cars/train = 36 cars/h<br /><br />5-minute headway = 12 TPH x 10 cars/train = 120 cars/h<br /><br />Where do you propose that the MTA come up with a 233% increase in vehicles and a 67% increase in operating personnel?plawshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15456499491316855895noreply@blogger.com