From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (Alert)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:42:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.000033.5796@pbhya.PacBell.COM>, whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
|> I've seen freeways run at or near capacity a lot more often than I've
|> seen (or read) of rail lines doing the same...

BART runs *at* capacity through the tube during peak periods.  I've heard
that many peak period BART trains are standing-room only (that's what I'm
calling "capacity" here, by the way) for a large part of their runs.

I'm told that there are some CalTrain runs that it's difficult to find a
seat on.  On the day after Thanksgiving, some CalTrains were reportedly
so full that you could hardly get in the door!  I've seen some of the
special 10-car special-event CalTrains that had damn-near *every* seat
taken.

I rode the Amtrak Capitols when they were running their special 2-for-1
coupon promotion.  They had to hook 4 or 5 CalTrain coaches on the end
of the 5 car Amtrak train to handle the extra passenger load on weekends.
I observed the train fill up *completely* (standing-room only) by the
time we reached Berkeley (we were Sacramento-bound).  On the way back,
the train filled up in Sacramento (its origination station).

In Europe I've ridden many, many trains that were full--very full.  The
Paris Metro is always very full during peaks and sometimes even at
seemingly off-peak hours.

But, yes, full freeways are a far more common sight--especially in and
around the major conurbations of California.


|> I'm glad you agree that the trains *don't* run full.

Actually, that's the idea.  If you can help it, it's kind of nice to run
a system that is never really *full*.  For obvious reasons, *full* trains
aren't exactly something you'd want to ride as much as 50 or 75% full
trains.  But remember, we were just playing a little game of maximum
practical capacity--and yes, some assumptions were made...


|> > So people don't/won't share an auto much.  Besides, it generally not
|> > easy to do, even if you want to.  So forget 5(!) per car.  I doubt
|> > we'll ever even see 2 per car (average, of course).

|> There is actually quite a bit of informally filling cars up in the Bay
|> Area.

No single Bay Area county has anything even approaching 1.3 and as an
aggregate we're somewhere around 1.15, at best--let alone the 4 or 5
you were (quite correctly) suggesting are *possible*, but in theory only.
Certainly, it's highly doubtful we're going to see trains running every
5 minutes that are full all day long, but it isn't all that unlikely a
scenario for peak periods.


|> trying to attract riders.  However, I *do* object to their attempting
|> to force people to abandon other transport modes to do it.  Simply
|> put--carrots are fine, but leave the sticks home.

Be careful, a lot of those so-called sticks are just a matter of making
motorists pay their fair share.  The trouble is that for so long they
haven't been made to, so naturally, some of the proposals we've been
hearing about sound like some pretty draconian "stick-type" measures.
The American motorist has been spoiled.  Of all industrialized nations,
it is by *far* the cheapest to operate a motor vehicle in the USA.


|> > |> In addition, the need to run trains back to the start point empty in
|> > |> many real-world scenarios ties up rolling stock, uses energy, wastes
|> > |> crew time and has to be accounted for in the headways.
|> > 
|> > Oh, really?  Since we were talking about CalTrain, why don't you describe
|> > this in a little more detail for me--especially the part about how it
|> > "has to be accounted for in the headways".  Be as specific as you can.
|> 
|> Unless there is a near-balance in the number of riders going both ways
|> on a given line (and given a finite amount of rolling stock) there
|> will be a need to move empty or near-empty trains in the low-traffic
|> direction.  Even if there is no one but the crew on the train, it
|> still takes up a 'slot' in the available schedule.  A car parked by
|> it's sole occupant isn't occupying a similar 'slot' on the freeway.

You didn't answer my question.  Specifically, answer it for CalTrain.
(Hint: there aren't a bunch of "dead-head" (non-revenue) runs, as your
postulating might suggest.)  I mean, hey, I'll take a shot at lame
criticism in the same vein and style as yours was: in addition, the
need for car owners to procure and have their vehicles maintained and
serviced ties up their car, uses energy, wastes their time and has to
be accounted for in their lives...  

|> > |> At least with the car--the don't 'dead head' half the time.
|> > 
|> > Well, it seems that since cars typically have no passengers and only
|> > have *the* crew-member aboard, that they're "dead-heading" damn near
|> > 100% of the time :-)  Or to view it another way, we could say the
|> > typical SOV keeps it's single "passenger" so busy doing the "crewing",
|> > that it renders him/her a dead head for the duration of the trip...
|> 
|> That's another apples-and-oranges comparison. [...defense deleted...]

Of course it is!  I was just havin' a little fun.  (See the smiley face
in there?  Maybe I should have put more of them in there...)


|> If there is that much demand--what's keeping CalTrain from running
|> more trains?  (On the other hand--you *did* agree that the existing
|> trains aren't full--so one has to cast some doubt on the claim that
|> there is that much demand for additional service out there...)

I said: politics.  If BART (or light rail) was on that same right of
way right now, there's little doubt in anyone's mind they'd run it more
frequently than CalTrain.   The corridor is a great (under-exploited)
market.  Studies have shown that if CalTrain frequency is increased so 
will ridership--dramatically.  Too high an operating cost can't be the
problem either (as some might suggest/think) since CalTrain's cost per
passenger mile (at *today's* ridership levels) is lower than BARTs.
But, BART charges much higher fares and so is only subsidized ~50% vs.
CalTrain's ~60%.

The "well-the-trains-aren't-full-so-there's-no-demand-for-more" school
of thought is really lame; it's just fallacious reasoning.  Let me play
devil's advocate with this for a minute:  What do you think will happen
if BART ran a train every hour?  It is almost certain their ridership
per train would drop off dramatically as the perceived convenience of
the system drops off.  If they ran trains every 2 hours they'd have even
more trouble filling up their trains (provided they don't make them
one-car trains or something like that).  Would non-full trains accurately
imply or suggest that there's no demand for additional service?  Of
course not!  There are many potential riders who are not riding a
particular transit service (bus, train, boat, whatever) because it isn't
frequent enough or doesn't operate early or late enough.

Hal's transit optimum transit frequency determination system: 

Vehicles full      ---> add service
Vehicles not full  ---> cut service; repeat until full or until no
                        service remains :-)

This, of course, will lead to rapid abandonment of all mass transit.

Yes, *sometimes* a non-full train or bus or boat is an indication that
there isn't demand for more service.  But, as usual, things aren't just
isn't as simple as all that.

--   

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov