Re: Mass Transit
David Harmon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say in this thread. If
>there was a bus every five minutes on every major road in every urban
>and suburban area,
OMG, the hemorrhage of tax money would be like slicing _everyone's_
wrists at the same time.
Jette
Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
profit.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David Harmon wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2009 19:44:12 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F. Lynch"
>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>> Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say in this thread. If
>>> there was a bus every five minutes on every major road in every urban
>>> and suburban area,
>>
>> OMG, the hemorrhage of tax money would be like slicing _everyone's_
>> wrists at the same time.
>
>Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
>buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
>profit.
As I pointed out in another post, to implement Keith's "every five
minutes" plan on the existing routes of St. Louis Metro, with every
assumption going Keith's way (half-price busses due to economies of
scale and faster route running to cut down on the number of busses
needed), would require a capital outlay of greater than $145 million.
One wonders where that money would come from - especially since Keith
contemplates eliminating the subsidies for both Mass Transit and
cars/roads in order to have the market forces play out.
--
"Quote! Quote! Young man, the barbarians are hammering at
the gates of our civilization, and you stand there saying
'quote' when you mean 'quotation'."
- Prof. Charles Lloyd of Davidson College, circa 1968
Andre Lieven
> David Harmon wrote:
> > On 15 Apr 2009 19:44:12 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F. Lynch"
> > <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
> >> Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say in this thread. If
> >> there was a bus every five minutes on every major road in every urban
> >> and suburban area,
>
> > OMG, the hemorrhage of tax money would be like slicing _everyone's_
> > wrists at the same time.
>
> Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
> buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
> profit.
Since even the most heavily used North American transit systems don't
make any profits, and require significant public $$$ subsidies, this
statement is meaningless and devoid of actual facts.
"The TTC is the most efficient transit system in North America, with
the
rider paying more than 80 per cent of the cost, and the subsidy being
a
modest 35 cents a ride."
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200103011248.shtml
Andre
David Friedman
<07db9a21-c92d-4022...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
> > buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
> > profit.
>
> Since even the most heavily used North American transit systems don't
> make any profits, and require significant public $$$ subsidies, this
> statement is meaningless and devoid of actual facts.
It isn't meaningless, although it might be false. Do you know (I don't)
whether the "most heavily used North American transit systems" actually
operate at capacity, which is the point at which additional ridership no
longer improves profits?
Also, the discussion so far has been entirely about publicly owned
transit system. I assume Greyhound makes a profit, and it's a transit
system in some sense. I don't know if there are private local bus lines
running at a profit anywhere in the North America or not.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
>> > buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
>> > profit.
>>
>> Since even the most heavily used North American transit systems don't
>> make any profits, and require significant public $$$ subsidies, this
>> statement is meaningless and devoid of actual facts.
>
>It isn't meaningless, although it might be false. Do you know (I don't)
>whether the "most heavily used North American transit systems" actually
>operate at capacity, which is the point at which additional ridership no
>longer improves profits?
It would be hard for them *to* operate "at capacity." At least not on a
full time basis. Demand fluctuates during the day. You have to have
available space to accommodate the number of passengers during peak
times. The system would not run at capacity most other times.
>Also, the discussion so far has been entirely about publicly owned
>transit system. I assume Greyhound makes a profit, and it's a transit
>system in some sense. I don't know if there are private local bus lines
>running at a profit anywhere in the North America or not.
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article
> <07db9a21-c92d-4022-a4ae-3ab19c49b...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Well, not if enough folk started switching over and actually using the
> > > buses. If they did, the bus company might break even or even make a
> > > profit.
>
> > Since even the most heavily used North American transit systems don't
> > make any profits, and require significant public $$$ subsidies, this
> > statement is meaningless and devoid of actual facts.
>
> It isn't meaningless, although it might be false. Do you know (I don't)
> whether the "most heavily used North American transit systems" actually
> operate at capacity, which is the point at which additional ridership no
> longer improves profits?
No, I don't, but I do know that for a transit system to "operate at
capacity" is an impossible thing, for if a system is built to carry
the
load common to times outside of rush hour, then it MUST operate
at beyond capacity at such a time of maximum utilisation, or, if it
is built to carry it's maximum demand-load (Rush hour, again.), then
it cannot help but operate at below capacity, often well below, at
times other than rush hour.
The same point applies to roads, of course; A road that jams up
at rush hour very likely will be clear enough to allow for maximum
speed traffic at other times of much less demand.
Now, if you could arrange society such that your buses were always
stuffed to the max, most if not all hours of the day, then perhaps
such
a system would be able to generate the maximum per bus and driver
revenue that is possible to attain.
However, basic human factors would come into play, and no doubt
many people would very soon cease to use such an uncomfortable
system, thus ruining the whole exercise.
> Also, the discussion so far has been entirely about publicly owned
> transit system. I assume Greyhound makes a profit, and it's a transit
> system in some sense.
No more than Amtrak is, if that. Inter-city transport is not
"transit".
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=transit&search=search
tran⋅sit
/ˈtrænsɪt, -zɪt/ [tran-sit, -zit] noun, verb, -sit⋅ed, -sit⋅ing.
2. conveyance or transportation from one place to another, as of
persons or goods, esp., local public transportation: city transit.
Compare mass transit.
The "local" part eliminates inter-city transportation. If not
for that, one might as well call an airline a "transit system",
while you're at it.
> I don't know if there are private local bus lines
> running at a profit anywhere in the North America or not.
The lack of any clamour on the part of such businesses to
want to take over city transit systems, without the operating
subsidies that presently exist, would seem to suggest that
there are none.
As well, the cited quote that I provided earlier about the TTC
being 1) the most efficient transit system in North America,
and 2) still needing a subsidy, strongly suggests that there
ain't no such private animal.
Andre
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It isn't meaningless, although it might be false. Do you know (I don't)
> >whether the "most heavily used North American transit systems" actually
> >operate at capacity, which is the point at which additional ridership no
> >longer improves profits?
>
> It would be hard for them *to* operate "at capacity." At least not on a
> full time basis. Demand fluctuates during the day. You have to have
> available space to accommodate the number of passengers during peak
> times. The system would not run at capacity most other times.
Yes.
But it might run at capacity in the sense of having all the buses or
trains that are actually in use at any instant be full. It wouldn't be
fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you (and Andre) point
out--at three in the morning lots of buses would be parked. But it would
be fully utilizing variable costs such as fuel and labor.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> It isn't meaningless, although it might be false. Do you know (I don't)
>> >whether the "most heavily used North American transit systems" actually
>> >operate at capacity, which is the point at which additional ridership no
>> >longer improves profits?
>>
>> It would be hard for them *to* operate "at capacity." At least not on a
>> full time basis. Demand fluctuates during the day. You have to have
>> available space to accommodate the number of passengers during peak
>> times. The system would not run at capacity most other times.
>
>Yes.
>
>But it might run at capacity in the sense of having all the buses or
>trains that are actually in use at any instant be full. It wouldn't be
>fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you (and Andre) point
>out--at three in the morning lots of buses would be parked. But it would
>be fully utilizing variable costs such as fuel and labor.
I wonder if Keith contemplates running a service equivalent to Lothian
Buses' (the Edinburgh transit system that Jette uses) Night Bus service?
--
"Oh now feel it comin' back again
Like a rollin' thunder chasing the wind
Forces pullin' from the center of the earth again
I can feel it."
- Ed Kowalczyk,Chad Taylor,Patrick Dahlheimer
& Chad Gracey
Keith F. Lynch
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> It would be hard for them *to* operate "at capacity." At least not
>> on a full time basis. Demand fluctuates during the day. You have
>> to have available space to accommodate the number of passengers
>> during peak times. The system would not run at capacity most other
>> times.
> Yes.
> But it might run at capacity in the sense of having all the buses or
> trains that are actually in use at any instant be full.
True. Of course this is likely to mean extremely long waits for the
next bus or train late at night.
> It wouldn't be fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you
> (and Andre) point out--at three in the morning lots of buses would
> be parked.
True. But the useful lifetime of vehicles is measured in miles, not
in years, so there's little actual loss. (Cue the peanut gallery to
tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to motor
vehicles.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > It wouldn't be fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you
> > (and Andre) point out--at three in the morning lots of buses would
> > be parked.
>
> True. But the useful lifetime of vehicles is measured in miles, not
> in years, so there's little actual loss. (Cue the peanut gallery to
> tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to motor
> vehicles.)
Actually, to point out that tying up capital is costly, quite aside from
costs of wearing it out or not wearing it out.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> > It wouldn't be fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you
>> > (and Andre) point out--at three in the morning lots of buses would
>> > be parked.
>>
>> True. But the useful lifetime of vehicles is measured in miles, not
>> in years, so there's little actual loss. (Cue the peanut gallery to
>> tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to motor
>> vehicles.)
>
>Actually, to point out that tying up capital is costly, quite aside from
>costs of wearing it out or not wearing it out.
Which is the point of why I researched the cost of obtaining the rolling
stock needed to implement the Lynch Transit Plan.
--
"If I told you, I'd have to kill you first..."
Legendary Retort of Sailors To Requests For
'Sensitive' Information
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> It would be hard for them *to* operate "at capacity." At least not
>>> on a full time basis. Demand fluctuates during the day. You have
>>> to have available space to accommodate the number of passengers
>>> during peak times. The system would not run at capacity most other
>>> times.
>
>> Yes.
>
>> But it might run at capacity in the sense of having all the buses or
>> trains that are actually in use at any instant be full.
>
>True. Of course this is likely to mean extremely long waits for the
>next bus or train late at night.
Tradeoffs.
Longer waits versus higher capital and operating costs.
>> It wouldn't be fully utilizing its capital stock, for the reason you
>> (and Andre) point out--at three in the morning lots of buses would
>> be parked.
>
>True. But the useful lifetime of vehicles is measured in miles, not
>in years, so there's little actual loss. (Cue the peanut gallery to
>tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to motor
>vehicles.)
Research indicates that the average life of a city bus is 500,000 miles.
This seems to translate to 12 years at current usage rates. With the
increased usage Keith contemplates, it would be less.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
James Nicoll
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>Research indicates that the average life of a city bus is 500,000 miles.
>This seems to translate to 12 years at current usage rates.
I note in passing that the oldest bus in the Grand River Transit
fleet seems to be about 15 years old. Unfortunately I've never noticed
how old the second oldest bus is but I know that one is unusually old
because its somewhat dated design stands out and is what made me ask how
to tell the age of the buses.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
David Loewe, Jr.
Nicoll) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Research indicates that the average life of a city bus is 500,000 miles.
>>This seems to translate to 12 years at current usage rates.
>
> I note in passing that the oldest bus in the Grand River Transit
>fleet seems to be about 15 years old. Unfortunately I've never noticed
>how old the second oldest bus is but I know that one is unusually old
>because its somewhat dated design stands out and is what made me ask how
>to tell the age of the buses.
I got that figure of 12 years by inputting something like transit bus
life span into Google and looking at the first 20 or so results. One
gave a life span of 20 years. The rest, that named a figure, seemed to
all be right around half a million miles and 12 years.
--
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public."
- H. L. Mencken