From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Viable auto alternative system? (long)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:23:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.164336.1040@Veritas.COM>, joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
> [ As part of John C's GUT (Grand Unifing Transit) system, he want to
>   schedual everything so that pick ups are guaranteed (sp?).  I posted
>   that I thought this was impossible in the case of multiple transit
>   lines, because if some pick ups were guaranteed, others would not
>   be, and if you tried the guarantee the second set, the first set
>   would not work.  I was saying that the system could not be schedualed. ]
> 
> 
> In article <qrlmrks@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> >It's not as hard as you might think.  With a hub-and-spoke transit
> >system, you can get pretty reliable transfers.  And late at night,
> >when this is especially useful, traffic is least likely to cause
> >lateness.
> 
> I don't think hub-and-spoke will solve the problem for several reasons:
>     1. One hub-and-spoke system is unlikely to cover the entire area.
>     2. Multiple hub-and spoke systems, connected only at the hubs,
>        will be too slow.  Real desitinations will require three trips 
>        and two transfers.  One of these trips will likely be pretty
>        long, since hubs close together would be a waste.
>     3. Multiple hub-and-spoke systems, connected by multiple routines,
>        can not be scheduled in the way John wants.

You can have trunklines that go through many hubs.  For example,
the Santa Clara and Sunnyvale Caltrain stations could be hubs, where
buses would be scheduled to arrive, say, 3 minutes before the train
and leave 2 minutes after the train.  At night, you might want the
train to wait for the buses, if they were late.  Obviously, there
would be some sort of cutoff where you would not wait if the bus
or train were too late.  But at least, with proper radio control,
you would avoid one of the most frustrating transit experiences,
where you watch your connecting bus/train leave just as yours is
pulling in.

Vancouver, BC has a good hub and spoke system implemented.  There
are a number of transit centers (or exchages, in their terminology)
spread around the region, with timed transfers.

> The end result is that hub-and-spoke make it easy(er) to get from
> one part of one spoke to another part of a spoke on the same hub,
> but they do not help get from one arbtrary place to another.  Cars
> can do this, and since your goal is to make transit more attractive
> than cars, I don't think hub-and-spoke will do it.

My goal is to make transit better.  I think it's pretty clear that
cars are here to stay, and will remain the dominant form of transport
in this country, for quite a while (maybe forever, but that's a long
time).

> Note that even in the case of a single hub, you are requiring people
> to take two rides and one transfer.  John's system tries to minimize
> the damage by postulating really good schedualling to minimize the
> cost of the transfer.  Will this work in real life?  Will it be
> better than the single trip, no transfer car?

It might be cheaper or easier.

> Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)

jeremy