Public Transport Must Be Frequent

As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!

=ATTRIBUTION=

=PATREON & YOUTUBE MEMBERSHIPS=

If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on YouTube! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.

=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=

(Not officially affiliated with the channel)

=MERCH=

Check out the RMTransit Merch Store here!

=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=

=ABOUT ME=

Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!

[RMTransit]

What topics should I cover next? Let me know in the comments!

[XmarkedSpot]

5:22 I once heard someone say "A rich country isn't one where everyone has a car but where even the wealthy use public transport."

[redesignforall]

The point about transfers really hits this point home. It's one type of annoyance to have to plan your trip around a low frequency line, but having to transfer to a low frequency line is a nightmare. It's almost impossible to time the transfers even when systems try so you are transferring essentially at a random time. And since most transit trips involve at least one transfer, this problem is a reality for most riders. If the line has 30 min frequency, you're waiting on average 15 min, and maximum 30 min IN ADDITION to your regular travel time! If 30 min is maximum then you basically have to plan around 30 min, and I personally don't like to show up to work 30 min early every day.

[jerry]

I have a good example of the importance of frequency. I live about 200 miles from London, and a few years ago I was at a work meeting in West London (i.e. on the same side as Heathrow Airport). My colleague flew, while I took the train. But there were only there or four flights a day, whereas the InterCity train service ran every half hour. He had to wait at the airport for his flight home, whereas I got the train into central London and caught the first InterCity train home. I was sitting at home before his aircraft took off!

[disco_beard]

I love the fact I never have to wait for a Victoria line train in London. With trains every 100 seconds I’d happily skip one or two if they are too crowded.

[tsguy-hq]

The frequency-ridership relation is very useful, I think to measure the successs of a transit system. When my city's metro opened, they ran every twenty minutes. Once demand picked up, they doubled frequency and I'm happy to say that passenger numbers were more than doubled. I am quite happy in saying, I can't always find a seat. I'm happy with a four car train every ten minutes instead of an eight car train every twenty minutes.

[Black_Forest_Julez]

Frequency is very important for a transit system, but not everything. It is also important that the departure times are regularly and easy to remember. A frequency of two trains per hour doesn't automatically mean that the train comes every 30 minutes. It is also possible that the trains comes with a 20/40min-frequency which is not that customer-friendly.

[natalienatcromancer]

Having waited 45 mins twice to take 2 buses, maintaining good frequency, especially on weekends and off peak hours, is something I wish my local transit operator tried to do

[fernbedek]

The freedom of biking when I choose is nice.And then sometimes walking beats bussing for speed when buses are uncommon enough.

[plazasta]

If you want an example of awful frequency: my high school was 4 km away from my house and walking there took about 50 minutes. However, for most of the day, walking there was quicker than waiting for the bus that went between Montreal and Laval because it passed once an hour

[LukeRichardson]

I love the frequency on the Shanghai Metro. Almost every line has headways of 5 minutes or less, so you're almost never waiting for a train for longer than a couple of minutes. On the busiest lines (Line 1 and 2 in particular) headways are as low as 2 minutes at peak hours. Makes taking the subway anywhere in the system really convenient. And of course, being a huge city, new lines get immediate frequency (similar headways to existing lines) and big trains (most lines are 120m+ / 6 cars; some are 160m+ /8 cars in the most heavily used areas). Shanghai has also moved heavily toward automation, with the last three major lines to open (14, 15, and 18) all fully automated, so increasing frequency on these lines in particular will be simply a matter of adding more trains as the signalling is already fully capable of very short headways.

[AaronTheHarris]

This video confirms my suspicion on why Public Transportation is really successful in Seattle and really lacking in Los Angeles. While buses travel faster / cover more distance in LA, a ton of corridors only run every 20 minutes most of the day (at best). Seattle on the other hand has 10 minutes or better for most of the working hours of the day, not just rush hour (at rush hour it can be like every 2-3 minutes on the most heavily used routes -- pre pandemic of course). In my experience lots of people in Seattle use the bus that aren't transit dependent or transit enthusiasts - they're just picking the most convenient option.

[klikkolee]

as an American: any kind of transit that comes once every 10 minutes would be amazing. The best I have ever seen is once every 30.

[MartinHoeckerMartinez]

Looking through a recent climate change adaptation study by Metrolink (southern California, march 11 executive committee) I was struck by the increased need for shade and shelter. A video about what constitutes sufficient station amenities in extreme weather (too hot, too wet, too cold, etc.) might be interesting. When is it worth building a shelter? When should a shelter be upgraded with powered signage? At what point is a climate controlled space justified?

[marsgal]

I used to have a 15 minute bus service at my front door. When they cut it back to 30 minutes they crossed a psychological boundary and it became a lot less appealing. Now I have a bus every half hour one way (two different routes), then the same two buses together every hour the other way. Even less appealing...

[lesumsi]

Frequency is super important as a transit user. When I lived next to a subway station, I know the subway will come every 4-5min. And so, I never checked the plan, I just went out of my apartment to the station. Now I live near a bus station only, and now I have to plan ahead or wait.

[chrissexton]

In Orange County, California the transit runs hourly at the most. I frequently have to travel about four miles to a shopping center and it is faster to walk than take the bus. It’s just shows how infrequent transit is useless.

[RainStorm]

as someone who spent 17 years living in Singapore, my first source of frustration is either Buses arriving too early (far before the supposed arrival time) or insanely delayed to the point that 2 buses serving the exact same route is arriving almost one after another. Frequency is usually not the biggest beef i had with buses over there. sometimes the board said the next bus should be arriving in 5 minutes but it took longer than that.

in my opinion, tracking needs to be implemented properly for buses. for trains, this isn't much of an issue. knowing when your bus is arriving might make or break the experience, especially when weather can be unbearable sometimes. moreso if the country you live in is both hot and humid during the day.

[MattWhitehorn]

Operating hours is probably second to frequency on importance. For a while I used to do a daily commute via a bus and a train - with the bus I left on being the first of the day from near my house, and only having a tiny window of trains to take home to ensure I made the last bus of the day home.

The saving grace was that at least most of the time the bus was synchronised with the train arrival - so usually even if there was a delay I'd still get home, but they don't run the buses up until the last train.

I could have driven to the station, but I was never going to be awake enough at 6:30am to drive, the extra nap time made the slight inconvenience of those buses worthwhile.

[justalonelypoteto]

absolutely 100% agree, frequency is essential. There's a bus line that stops literally 100m away from my home but I've used it once in the last 3 years for my daily commute (2-4 trips a day), it's literally faster to walk for 20min (also probably healthier but that's not the main reason) than wait for a bus that comes around twice an hour, is almost always at least 10 minutes late (so you miss most connections) and is practically useless for when I'd like to use it. It only comes around from 6.30 to 9 and on the weekend it only goes from 9 to 8, so I can't even use it the few times it's pitch black and I would prefer an infrequent bus to the long uphill walk without a single street lamp