Human Transit

singapore: bbc profiles new frontiers in transit denial

This just in from the BBC:  Technology giant Philips corporation sent some people to the extremely busy Singapore bus system to imagine an alternative to typical fixed-route bus service.  The researchers' definition of the problem:

We discussed the benefits and limitations of the fixed-route system – it's clear such a system provided consistency in time and place (to get on and off), and to a certain extent convenience, but not completely. Flexibility is not what a fixed-route and fixed-time bus service system can offer. We have all experienced times when the bus is very empty or extremely packed, which means efficiency is best optimised at the bus-route level, but not individual bus level, since that bus is unable to respond to dynamic demand and traffic situations immediately. We all have all been in situations when there are only a few passengers in the bus and yet, the bus still has to plough through the entire fixed route, picking up no passengers along the way. The motivation was how to optimise the bus service by allowing the passengers and bus drivers to respond immediately to dynamic demand and traffic situations, not unlike a taxi that you can flag anywhere, anytime, and it will take you directly to your destination.

Needless to say, they came up with a massively all-demand-reponsive system identical to the one promoted last year by Gensler Associates, to which I responded (perhaps too colorfully) here. The idea is that now that you have a smartphone, the transit line should twist and turn to meet chase everyone's speciic need and that somehow this will be more efficient.  As I said in response to Gensler, there's little to fear from this dystopian vision beause it's mathematically impossible.  

In a place as crowded as Singapore, well-designed scheduled fixed routes are not just efficient but liberating.  They're efficient on a large scale despite routine under- and overcrowding because they follow straight paths that thousands of people find useful at the same time.  They're efficient because people gather at major stops where they board and alight in large numbers that are impossible in any demand-responsive form.  Frequent fixed routes are liberating because they're there for you when you need them, just as subways are, so that you don't have to wonder whether some automated system will approve your request for transport.  

The all-demand-responsive vision can mean one of two things:  (1) large buses that carry large numbers of people on complex variable routes, changing its route in response to every beep of desire from each of 5 million phones, or (2) fleets of very small vehicles each serving a few people on a more direct path.  Vision (1) is a hellishly circuitous system to ride any distance on, while (2) is a vision of vastly more wasteful use of urban space,  as people who are now carried in a space-efficient way are converted to a space-wasteful one.  Vision (2) also requires either driverless technology or extremely cheap labor, which is why it only happens at scale in low-wage developing countries.

No, Singapore has built its success on subways, and is developing fixed, infrastructural bus lines that work more like subways.

Please don't call yourself a transit visionary until you've grappled with the facts and possibilities of transit network design, by reading a book, say, or taking a course!

how urbanist visionaries can muck up transit

Architects and urban visionaries play an incredibly important role in a leadership-hungry culture.  They have to know a little bit about almost everything, which is hard to do.  But for some reason, certain segments of the profession have decided that the basic math and geometry of transit isn't one of those things they need to know, even when they present themselves as transit experts.

To see what I mean, I encourage you to watch this short video from Gensler Architects in Los Angeles.  It's a concise summary of all the crucial mistakes that you'll need to confront in much "visionary thinking" about transit.  (If Gensler takes down the video, read on.  I've inserted enough screenshots from it that you can follow.)

 

NETWORK_LA transit from tam thien tran on Vimeo.

The five most common "visionary" mistakes about transit, all on display in the video, are:

• Disinterest in costs and efficiency.   Visionaries do need to set aside cost and efficiency for part of their brainstorming phase, because by doing so they might come upon an idea that's efficient and affordable in a completely new way.  But they don't have a coherent idea until they've brought those factors back in, at least at the level of order-of-magnitude reasonableness. Sadly, some urbanists scoff when I use the word efficiency, assuming that this means I've lost touch with human needs, aspirations, aesthetics and values.  In reality, efficiency means how much of those good things you can have in a world of limited resources.  Even in the arts, we speak often of the efficiency or economy with which an artist achieves an aesthetic effect.  (The Gensler video, for example, is efficient in displaying all five of these fallacies in only five minutes.)


• Fixation on transit technologies as though they were the essential distinction between different  mobility outcomes.  For more on this, see here.


• Confusion about scale.  Because visionary thinking often focuses first on a prototype - a tiny example of the hoped-for transformation -- it often goes too far without thinking about scalability.  Sure, this cool idea works in one suburb or in one cool building, but that says very little about whether it would work in a whole city.  Gensler's particular error about scale is ...


• Confusion about "flexibility," a dangerous slippery word.  Gensler imagines that a demand-responsive style of transit, in which you make a request on your phone and the transit system somehow deviates to meet your personal needs, is scalable to a vast, dense city where the transit system is already very crowded much of the time.  More on this below.


• Ignorance about what's already working, leading to premature demolition fantasies.  Gensler seems unaware of very high ridership and efficiency of the existing transit system across the core of Los Angeles. This allows them to jump to the conclusion that the system should be replaced instead of incrementally improved.

So watch the Gensler video if you can, but you can also follow along via my screenshots and comments below.  You'll see these mistakes again and again in the urban visioning business.

0:27 Gensler states the question as "Get LA on transit HOW?"  No argument with the question.

0:51  Transit is divided into a set of vehicle types, and these types (light rail, metro, bus) are confused with "methods" of transport.  For more on the absurdity of treating bus/rail distinctions as primary, see here.

0:53  "We have only these methods.  What if we added more?"  An interesting question to which transit experts (and economists, and engineers) have a very good answer.  The more competing systems you establish in the same market trying to do the same thing, the less well any of them will function, and the less investment any one of them will justify.

0:56  They now begin to analyze vehicles in terms of distance, sustainability, flexibility.  What's missing?   Cost!  Efficiency!  Some things are just wildly expensive relative to what they deliver.  Darrin Nordahl has already been down this path, evaluating technologies by discussing only their supposed benefits.  That's not evaluation, it's either aesthetic rumination or marketing.  (Neither of those are bad things, but they have to be identified as what they are.)



1:20.  They talk about distances but their graphic is talking about speeds.  These are fair for personal modes but absurd generalizations for the transit modes. When your notion of "rail" conflates light rail, heavy metro rail subways, and 70 mile-long infrequent commuter rail, the word "rail" means nothing relevant about speed or travel distance, or any other transit outcome apart from capacity.  (Note that the earlier claim "we have only these methods" implies that these three kinds of rail are the same thing in every way that matters.) 

Likewise, if you think buses have an ideal distance, you're unclear on the role of local buses vs Bus Rapid Transit vs long-haul expresses, all of which are very successful in Los Angeles.  Gensler imposes a "technology first" frame on the data, thereby concealing almost everything that matters about how transit gets people where they're going.

In transit, the real speed distinctions within transit are usually not direct results of technology.  Speed is the result of how often you stop and what can get in your way.  See here.

2:00.  Staggering incoherence in comparing input (bus service) to an unrelated output (total ridership including rail).  What's more, the numbers are misleading.  Per the 2011 APTA Fact Book, Los Angeles MTA has America's 3rd highest total boardings and 2nd highest total bus boardings.   In the context of its starved resources and the vagueness of public support for it, the Los Angeles bus system is working brilliantly.

2:26.  Here is Gensler's biggest mistake:

Which of these two networks would you rather travel on?

Gensler has mistaken metaphor for logic.  They think that "liberating" bus routes has something to do with liberating or enabling people.  The idea is barely explained and totally incoherent. 

Today, in our supposedly "inflexible" system, you'll find a bus going down a major boulevard with maybe 60 people on it.  Some of them want to go somewhere straight ahead, some want to go to somewhere ahead and to the left, some want to to somewhere ahead and to the right.  Fortunately, they are in a high frequency grid system, which will take all of them to their destination, either directly or via a connection to a north-south line, probably by a path similar to what they'd have followed if driving.  So this huge number of diverse people making diverse trips are all moving toward their destinations on a reasonably direct path.  This is the extraordinary power of the high-frequency grid.  So instead, Gensler proposes bus lines should twist and turn just because somebody with an iPhone wants them to?

Personal technology has great opportunity to better inform us about all transit services, and it can transform the convenience of transit at low-demand places and times, by influencing the operations of low-ridership, low-capacity services, such as demand-responsive buses and taxis. 

Quite possibly, personal apps will allow demand-responsive service to replace some low-demand fixed-route buses, which is fine with most transit planners.  Those low-ridership buses run mostly for social-service or "equity" reasons, and if there's a more efficient way to do that, I expect many transit experts would be all for it.  It would let them concentrate on the high-ridership, high-capacity services that can achieve a great deal of personal mobility and sustainability, very efficiently. 

Successful high-capacity frequent transit needs to take on more of the rigidity of subways, in order to spread the benefits of subways (which we can't afford everywhere) more widely.  That means it needs to be even more frequent, reliable, legible, permanent, and reinforced with infrastructure investment.  Fortunately, within limited resources, many transit agencies are now trying to do that.

The video is full of entirely laudable and familiar green ideas, but then we get to this ...

• 3:23  In Gensler's Los Angeles, every transit trip must be reserved.  Do you really want to have to make an appointment with a single vehicle and driver, because that's the only way to make any use of all the buses swarming around you on unpredictable paths?  Or might you prefer a simple frequent transit corridor where so many buses are coming all the time, in such a predictable pattern, that you can take any of them, and are thus almost guaranteed a vehicle soon even if one breaks down?


• 4:20  "What if we had PERSONAL service?" they ask?  Well, the extreme of personal service would be low-ridership system in a tiny town, where the driver has time to learn everyone's name.  Is that what Los Angeles wants to be?   Or would you rather live in a city where you can get anywhere you want to go easily, starting right now, without making a reservation, and even with the option of spontaneously changing your path or destination, just like motorists do?  

To me as someone who values my personal freedom, flexibility, spontaneity, human dignity, and travel time, Gensler's Los Angeles would be a hell-world worse than Blade Runner.  Fortunately, it's also mathematically impossible.

We've blown up transit networks before, of course, and Gensler's vision should remind us of what was thought about cars vs. transit in the 1940s.  Like personal technology today, cars were just so wonderful for the individual that we just assumed the world could be made in their image.  (The technical term for this idea -- that the world will bend to reflect my emotional needs and enthusiasms -- is narcissism.)  So we made a deep investment in a car-and-highway technology that could not possibly scale to big cities.  Gensler proposes the same mistake:  Because our iPhones are so cool, they assume that the city, at every scale, can be reinvented around them.

For a more positive vision of the future of Los Angeles, one that begins by noticing the city's strengths and looking at how to build on them, see here and especially toward the end of an interview here.

 

can dial-a-ride get high ridership from low density?

In this post, I argued transit can't be judged on the low ridership of services where ridership isn't the goal, and explained that every transit system has "Coverage" services, designed to achieve a perception of equity and/or to meet the severe needs of small numbers of people.  Coverage services generally cover low-density areas where ridership will always be relatively low.

In the comments, David Marcus asked a really important clarifying question, one that I hear often from elected officials in low-density places:

Could the empty-running coverage-oriented buses be replaced with some sort of dial-a-ride system running full?

Yes, where you have a low-density and therefore low-ridership market, you can often replace empty fixed route buses with Dial-a-Ride systems.  Dial-a-Ride in this context means a form of demand-responsive service, usually run with small buses or vans, where the route followed through its territory is different on each trip based on who calls and asks for the service.  Dial-a-Rides can be ordered by phone or website, just like taxis but with less flexibility.  Pickup times may not be ideal, and unlike a taxi your Dial-a-Ride van will make other stops to carry other passengers along the way.

But Dial-a-Ride systems rarely have many more riders than the fixed routes they replaced.  More commonly, these transitions increase productivity (riders/unit of service cost) by acting mainly on the bottom of that ratio, i.e. they serve the same small numbers of people with service that's less expensive to operate.

In a typical big urban region, the highest-performing all-day routes -- the ones that run high frequency through dense parts of the city -- usually score over 30 boardings per revenue hour and often closer to 50.  (A revenue hour is one transit vehicle operating for one hour.)  Physically, it's almost impossible for a Dial-a-Ride style of operation to serve more than 10 boardings per revenue hour.  Now if you have a  low-density area where empty fixed bus routes are running around scoring 5 boardings per revenue hour, I may be able to replace those buses by half as many Dial-a-Ride vans serving basically the same people, and thus scoring 10 boardings per revenue hour.  That's an improvement, but it doesn't begin to bring these low-density places into the performance league of high-density ones, where 20 boardings per revenue hour is considered disappointing. 

In other words, Dial-a-Ride can be a great option for optimizing Coverage service, but we're still talking about Coverage service in either case.  Dial-a-Ride can't raise a low-density area's productivity into a league that would match service in high-density areas.  Again, the very nature of Dial-a-Ride caps its productivity at around 10 boardings/hour, because that's about the maximum number of times in an hour that a van can get to a specific address or street-corner where someone has called for it.  (Remember that when talking about low density we're usually also talking about labyrinthine street patterns that are designed to make it hard to get quickly in and out.) 

I should clarify, too, that when I say Dial-a-Rides usually don't attract a lot of new riders, I'm talking narrowly about a case where a bunch of empty-bus fixed routes are replaced by Dial-a-Ride vans.  I'm also talking about Dial-a-Ride in the transit context, where multiple passengers are consolidated into one vehicle by making multiple stops, and thus often following a circuitous path.  There are higher-end forms of Dial-a-Ride, such as door-to-door airport shuttles, but these are another matter.

UPDATE:  Anonymouse kicks off with a good, concise statement of a common comment:

It seems like dial-a-ride systems could benefit massively from the improved dispatching that computers make possible, and things like smartphones could greatly improve the user interface as well. You could have an app that lets you order a ride from "here" (determined by GPS) to a point that you pick on a map, letting you know how long it will be until you are picked up and how long the trip will likely take, and how much it will cost. Very different, and likely to be much more popular, than the earlier model of "schedule your ride at least 24 hours in advance".

Dial-a-Ride is an area of great technological ferment.  There are lots of opportunities to improve the ways that Dial-a-Ride can be dispatched, making more spontaneous use possible.  These improvements could vastly expand the demand for Dial-a-Ride, but they don't change the physical limits of supply.

Look at it from the perspective of the driver, who sees the calls pop up on the screen.  Regardless of the dispatch method, Dial-a-Ride means each passenger requires her own bit of routing and a separate stop.  In this style of operation, will you really be able to pick up a passenger every three minutes, on average, all day?  That's what it means to achieve 20 boardings per revenue hour, an astronomical performance for a Dial-a-Ride but still very low for an urban fixed route.  The only way to get higher performance is if you get lots of people traveling as groups, i.e. not requiring the individual responsiveness that is the whole point of Dial-a-Ride.

This whole issue is important because it's common to hear talk of Dial-a-Ride innovation as though it somehow changes the fundamentals of service to low-density areas.  It does not.  Labor remains the dominant element of transit cost in developed countries, so ridership per revenue hour remains a good unit for assessing performance.  Dial-a-Rides can do wonderful things, but they're still Coverage services, and in any large urban area, you wouldn't run them if maximum ridership were your only goal.