[sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus

[Chris Bradshaw]

The article actually ignored Todd's core user group: those who, without 
transit, would be on the roads behind the wheels of an owned car.  It 
looked at what is usually ignored by almost all transportation people: 
those who can't make use of an owned car -- due to income or some 
physical, emotion, or sensory challenge -- and find transit either 
inappropriate to their needs or simply non-existent in their area.

The ITN America option is the most intriguing to me as a retired 
carshare enterpreneur and community relations professional (and 
vice-chair of my city's seniors transportation committee).  I have 
talked with its founder several times.

"Transit correctness" needs to be broken through to allow us to get back 
to basics on transportation to meet both current individual needs as 
well as the quite-different one of road congestion.  The /Times/ 
reporter correctly pointed out that there is no shortage of public money 
going into capital improvements for transit, but little of it focuses on 
the needs of these other users (usually referred to in the /biz/ as 
"transit captive" vs. "transit choice"); low-floor buses is one 
exception -- but it is motivated by disability-rights legislation and 
the high cost of special transit services for the disabled.  The capital 
expenditures focus on making transit faster, thus inadvertently 1) 
supporting far-flung suburban development and b) a lifestyle based on 
privately owned cars for everything but commuting to a regular-hours, 
full-time job within walking distance of a rapid-transit station (less 
than 10% of most cities' job market).

Rather, transit needs to be focused a,gain, on serving households 
without cars ("car-lite"), where transit is /the/ main mode for the 
trips over 2 km in length (walking, cycling for shorter distances) 
within a rather compact area (the car is rented/shared for the odd trip 
into the hinterlands or when special "cargo" needs to be moved).  That 
means supporting the suite of initiatives that make that way of living 
practical.  In return, cities will get a transit system that will pretty 
much pay its own way, thanks to a) shorter trips, b) more even demand 
over more of the service week, and c) no need for one-direction peak 
service, split shifts, and transit corridors that cut the urban/natural 
fabric up as much as freeways do.  It also means stopping people from 
assuming they can commute to a job from just about anywhere, instead 
practicing "location efficiency" practices.

That means also that we need to stop with the transit systems that are 
bifurcations of different systems, reflecting a camel designed by a 
committee.  This has created a population that embraces the car as the 
only form of integrated mobility.

Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa




On 29/05/2012 1:27 PM, Todd Alexander Litman wrote:
> There certainly is a role for demand response transit services, and in some
> cases such services can be provided efficiently by private firms, but I
> caution against assuming that unregulated privitazation is necessarily
> desirable.
>
> My study "Contrasting Visions of Urban Transport: Critique of 'Fixing
> Transit: The Case For Privatization'" (http://www.vtpi.org/cont_vis.pdf )
> evaluates the service quality and efficiency of public and private transit.
> Contrary to frequent claims, purely private transit is generally inferior
> and inefficient. It may be profitable on a few corridors and may be
> appropriate in some niche markets, but it cannot provide integrated,
> cost-effective service throughout a region, and so fails to achieve
> strategic planning objectives, such as reducing traffic congestion,
> improving traffic safety and providing basic mobility for non-drivers.
>
> The New York Times blog fails to understand the difference between demand
> response services that can provide basic mobility in lower-density areas,
> with high costs per trip, and grade-separated bus or rail transit, which can
> provide high quality (integrated, frequent, cost effective) service on major
> urban corridors. They are totally different services with different goals,
> service requirements and cost profiles. They are not substitutes for each
> other. An efficient urban transport system requires both.
>
> For information on demand response transit, and the role it should play, see
> Reconnecting America's new report, "Putting Transit to Work in Main Street
> America: How Smaller Cities and Rural Places Are Using Transit and Mobility
> Investments to Strengthen Their Economies and Communities"
> (http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/PDFs/201205ruralfinal.pdf ).
>
> I am a strong supporter of both BRT and rail transit, because their high
> service quality can attract travelers who would otherwise drive, which
> provides a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits. BRT is
> often operated by private companies, but with a high degree of central
> planning and regulation. Without that, service quality deteriorates, forcing
> all households that can afford it to purchase cars and rely on automobile
> travel, even for trips that are best made by public transit.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Todd Litman
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
> litman at vtpi.org
> facebook.com/todd.litman
> Phone&  Fax 250-360-1560
> 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Richmond
> Sent: May-29-12 9:23 AM
> To: Paul Barter
> Cc: sustran-discuss
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus
>
>
>
> I wrote a book, "The Private Provision of Public Transport" about
> alternative ways of offering transit services, that included case-studies of
> both the New York and Miami jitney services and I agree with the
> brilliantly-written New York Times article. It is not misleading at all, but
> dead on target.
>
> I disagree about the advantage of a "connective network" in locations where
> there is low demand. Such a system runs empty buses all day and forces
> people to make unnecessary changes along their route. The Brunswick example
> shows imagination in instead creating a service that has both fixed
> characteristics that cater to primary demands (the route may be circuitous,
> but it hits all major points people without cars need to go
> to) but also offers flexibility.
>
> As to the jitneys, they are an example of the advantages of private
> enterprise. The drivers are offering this service because they are able to
> earn more than in alternative occupations available to them. Certainly, they
> are making less than in regular transit jobs, but that is not the point.
> They are might not qualify to be regular bus drivers -- and they might even
> prefer to do small-scale community oriented enterprise. The service provided
> is terrific and meets local needs far better than the conventional transit
> alternative.
>
>                                          --Jonathan
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2012, Paul Barter wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 2012 14:26, Sujit Patwardhan<patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Conventional wisdom says that the way to create or improve public
>>> transit is to invest billions to engineer rails, trains and buses.
>>> But the Brunswick Explorer is one of many innovators that are seeing
>>> transit as more than an engineering problem and trying to  build
>>> transit that meets the needs of its residents.
>>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-
>>> bus/
>>> ...
>>
>> Yes, it is an interesting item. But be careful! It is misleading (at
>> least for places with high labour costs).
>>
>> See http://www.humantransit.org/2011/11/new-york-times-how-to-be-co
>> nfused-about-transit.html for a thoughtful critique of this NYT article.
>> Jarrett Walker writes:
>>
>> "Brunswick's local buses, in short, are geared to people with special
>> needs, as small-town transit systems often are. ... These systems are
>> absolutely laudable. ... But they are intrinsically inefficient, in
>> terms of passengers service per unit of public cost... Serving special
>> needs is a good thing to do, but it requires lots of staff time per
>> passenger, so it will always have a very high cost per passenger.
>>
>> Unless ... you pay the drivers less. Margonelli's next story is about
>> the emerging minibuses of New York, an important private sector initiative
> ...
>> The genius of these buses is that they tolerate lower ridership
>> (mandated in fact by their small size) but they can do this because
>> the drivers make much less than unionized transit agency labor. ...
>>
>> So is Margonelli really a ferocious right-wing union-busting capitalist?
>> No, she's just unclear on transit's basic geometry and economics."
>>
>>>  From the same source (Human Transit blog) here is a better example of
>>> how
>> to do surprisingly well with public transport even in a very
>> transit-unfriendly suburban environment with high labour costs (
>>
> http://www.humantransit.org/2012/05/fort-lauderdale-yet-another-triumph-for-
> multi-destinational-networks.html).
>> The key is a 'connective network' with regular service in a grid (for
>> example) and making connections between services attractive and easy.
>>
>> Paul
>> --
>> Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and
>> harm us all less.
>> paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org
>> http://www.reinventingtransport.org  http://www.reinventingparking.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
> -----
> Jonathan Richmond
> +1 617 395-4360
> e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
> http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').