<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Transit Overload</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:43:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicholas</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-274075</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicholas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:56:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-274075</guid>
		<description>The SF bay area is not a mess! I love that their is like 5 different ways to get to my house from sanfrancisco. Tgeir is B.A.R.T, Cal Train, Muni Metro, Taxi, and busses preferebly Sam Trans or Muni.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The SF bay area is not a mess! I love that their is like 5 different ways to get to my house from sanfrancisco. Tgeir is B.A.R.T, Cal Train, Muni Metro, Taxi, and busses preferebly Sam Trans or Muni.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max Wyss</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-18067</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Wyss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:09:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-18067</guid>
		<description>I got to this article only today, and I am glad to see a confirmation that the term &quot;Verkehrsverbund&quot; is kind of known in English speaking areas... I had in the past quite some problems to describe it; I ended up with things like &quot;consolidated transit system&quot;...

Anyway, It is very important to point out that a Verkehrsverbund is a political construct, and that a Verkehrsverbund requires the political will to create a viable transit system, independent of the kind and number of operators.

One Verkehrsverbund I know pretty well (ZVV; Zürich, Switzerladn) comprises around 40 operators, including the Swiss Federal Railways, the Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (transit of the city of Zürich), but also cableways and the car ferry across Lake Zürich. 

Schedules are coordinated under the umbrella of the Verkehrsverbund; the operators don&#039;t have that much freedom over their schedules. The base is an hourly interval on weekdays and mainly saturdays; less on sundays, but the core lines have 30 minutes or 15 minutes intervals, coordinated at nodes, allowing a fast transfer between different operators and transportation modes.

Ticketing is based on zone fares; a ticket gives you the permission to use any mean of transportation within the specified zones for the specified time... a rather simple concept. 

The Verkehrsverbund collects the fares, and, together with the payments from the towns, distributes it to the operators. This ensures a fair distribution of the fares. 

As said, building up such a system requires the political will, and it might be an advantage of the Swiss political structures that it allows for long-term projects.

Not knowing much about the political structures around the Bay area, it might be rather difficult to build up a Verkehrsverbund. However, from the above descriptions, it appears as if it were rather useful to implement such a system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got to this article only today, and I am glad to see a confirmation that the term &#8220;Verkehrsverbund&#8221; is kind of known in English speaking areas&#8230; I had in the past quite some problems to describe it; I ended up with things like &#8220;consolidated transit system&#8221;&#8230;</p>
<p>Anyway, It is very important to point out that a Verkehrsverbund is a political construct, and that a Verkehrsverbund requires the political will to create a viable transit system, independent of the kind and number of operators.</p>
<p>One Verkehrsverbund I know pretty well (ZVV; Zürich, Switzerladn) comprises around 40 operators, including the Swiss Federal Railways, the Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (transit of the city of Zürich), but also cableways and the car ferry across Lake Zürich. </p>
<p>Schedules are coordinated under the umbrella of the Verkehrsverbund; the operators don&#8217;t have that much freedom over their schedules. The base is an hourly interval on weekdays and mainly saturdays; less on sundays, but the core lines have 30 minutes or 15 minutes intervals, coordinated at nodes, allowing a fast transfer between different operators and transportation modes.</p>
<p>Ticketing is based on zone fares; a ticket gives you the permission to use any mean of transportation within the specified zones for the specified time&#8230; a rather simple concept. </p>
<p>The Verkehrsverbund collects the fares, and, together with the payments from the towns, distributes it to the operators. This ensures a fair distribution of the fares. </p>
<p>As said, building up such a system requires the political will, and it might be an advantage of the Swiss political structures that it allows for long-term projects.</p>
<p>Not knowing much about the political structures around the Bay area, it might be rather difficult to build up a Verkehrsverbund. However, from the above descriptions, it appears as if it were rather useful to implement such a system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ocean Railroader</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-15871</link>
		<dc:creator>Ocean Railroader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-15871</guid>
		<description>The city of Richmond and it&#039;s vast suburbs are run by GRTC which is a public bus venture between the City of Richmond and Chesterfield with buses going into most of the counties around it. The story behind GRTC is that Chesterfield county owns half of it but dosen&#039;t use it that much while Richmond runs the bulk of it. Strangely though now Chesterfield is wanting to add more bus stops in their counties and other suburbs next to Richmond are thinking about adding routes and might even want Light rail routes along the former streetcar routes one day going out into their suburbs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The city of Richmond and it&#8217;s vast suburbs are run by GRTC which is a public bus venture between the City of Richmond and Chesterfield with buses going into most of the counties around it. The story behind GRTC is that Chesterfield county owns half of it but dosen&#8217;t use it that much while Richmond runs the bulk of it. Strangely though now Chesterfield is wanting to add more bus stops in their counties and other suburbs next to Richmond are thinking about adding routes and might even want Light rail routes along the former streetcar routes one day going out into their suburbs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Woody</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-9466</link>
		<dc:creator>Woody</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-9466</guid>
		<description>Second Avenue Sagas reported that
&quot;When the MTA Board approved the 2010-2014 capital plan last week, they killed the MetroCard. ... If all goes according to plan, Jay Walder will oversee the debut of a contact-less fare system sans the MetroCard by 2014.&quot;

A more sophisticated payment system would seem to have the potential to make fare integration more feasible. We&#039;ll see.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Second Avenue Sagas reported that<br />
&#8220;When the MTA Board approved the 2010-2014 capital plan last week, they killed the MetroCard. &#8230; If all goes according to plan, Jay Walder will oversee the debut of a contact-less fare system sans the MetroCard by 2014.&#8221;</p>
<p>A more sophisticated payment system would seem to have the potential to make fare integration more feasible. We&#8217;ll see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-9440</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-9440</guid>
		<description>For PATH/LIRR/NJT/Metro-North/NYC Subway, the biggest issue is fare integration.

The second biggest is the failure to do run-through services at Penn Station, which unnecessarily limits the capacity of the station.  This is an *old* failure; they didn&#039;t do run-through services back when the whole mess was owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad.  Now, trains which run on both third rail DC and overhead AC are used fairly regularly in London, so it&#039;s not like they couldn&#039;t buy them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For PATH/LIRR/NJT/Metro-North/NYC Subway, the biggest issue is fare integration.</p>
<p>The second biggest is the failure to do run-through services at Penn Station, which unnecessarily limits the capacity of the station.  This is an *old* failure; they didn&#8217;t do run-through services back when the whole mess was owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad.  Now, trains which run on both third rail DC and overhead AC are used fairly regularly in London, so it&#8217;s not like they couldn&#8217;t buy them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ian</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-488</guid>
		<description>for the PATH/LIRR/MTA issues above

i think it doesn&#039;t really matter to riders whether or not the trains are compatible with each other&#039;s tracks — yes, this would provide better flexibility in routes and operations, but the more important thing is that their &quot;user experience&quot; is consistent the whole way.

BART made a bad decision by going with wide-gauge 5&#039; 6&quot; rails, instead of the standard, which comes with cheaper equipment and higher flexibility with other tracks around the bay area. i would propose that in the future, BART lines be built with standard gauge rails, and could even have different trainsets. as long as you still call it BART and have the same fare structure, no one will care.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>for the PATH/LIRR/MTA issues above</p>
<p>i think it doesn&#8217;t really matter to riders whether or not the trains are compatible with each other&#8217;s tracks — yes, this would provide better flexibility in routes and operations, but the more important thing is that their &#8220;user experience&#8221; is consistent the whole way.</p>
<p>BART made a bad decision by going with wide-gauge 5&#8242; 6&#8243; rails, instead of the standard, which comes with cheaper equipment and higher flexibility with other tracks around the bay area. i would propose that in the future, BART lines be built with standard gauge rails, and could even have different trainsets. as long as you still call it BART and have the same fare structure, no one will care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adirondacker</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>Adirondacker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-487</guid>
		<description>PATH runs at or near capacity during rush hours. I don&#039;t know about the Sixth Ave IND but I&#039;m sure it doesn&#039;t have lots of capacity. ... I don&#039;t know if you could squeeze all the rush hour traffic on Sixth into a four track system, not to mention platform issues. . . assuming they were compatible. IND trains are too big for PATH tunnels, PATH trains are too narrow to reach BMT/IND platforms.


NJ Transit uses catenary, LIRR uses third rail. So you&#039;d either have to extend catenary out onto the Island or third rail into New Jersey. Both railroads, the LIRR past Jamaica and NJ Transit past Newark,  branch out.
Lets say NJT and the MTA decide to run trains between New Brunswick and Mineola. That&#039;s great if you want to get from Queens Village to Rahway. Not so great if you want to get from Lynbrook to Maplewood.

You can get from select Metro North stations to select NJ Transit stations - on Amtrak. I doubt many people do it because it&#039;s expensive. . . any way to dig up numbers on that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PATH runs at or near capacity during rush hours. I don&#8217;t know about the Sixth Ave IND but I&#8217;m sure it doesn&#8217;t have lots of capacity. &#8230; I don&#8217;t know if you could squeeze all the rush hour traffic on Sixth into a four track system, not to mention platform issues. . . assuming they were compatible. IND trains are too big for PATH tunnels, PATH trains are too narrow to reach BMT/IND platforms.</p>
<p>NJ Transit uses catenary, LIRR uses third rail. So you&#8217;d either have to extend catenary out onto the Island or third rail into New Jersey. Both railroads, the LIRR past Jamaica and NJ Transit past Newark,  branch out.<br />
Lets say NJT and the MTA decide to run trains between New Brunswick and Mineola. That&#8217;s great if you want to get from Queens Village to Rahway. Not so great if you want to get from Lynbrook to Maplewood.</p>
<p>You can get from select Metro North stations to select NJ Transit stations &#8211; on Amtrak. I doubt many people do it because it&#8217;s expensive. . . any way to dig up numbers on that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ian</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator>ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-486</guid>
		<description>frnace still proves to be a good lesson, as does London&#039;s TfL... though there may be many operators, the user experience is uniform... in Paris the metro and rer are consistent, and London has done an especially good job of pretending to be one entity through branding, while there are actually multiple operators of the underground lines alone.

if we are too concerned with a giant transit merger in the bay area, which I think could be done with the proper oversight, what would be more practical and important would be MTA&#039;s taking a larger role in mandating a more uniform user experience across all agencies... this would mostly mean a normalization of fare structures, which translink would help with, but more importantly, consistent information graphics and branding on par with the famous roundel of the london tube.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>frnace still proves to be a good lesson, as does London&#8217;s TfL&#8230; though there may be many operators, the user experience is uniform&#8230; in Paris the metro and rer are consistent, and London has done an especially good job of pretending to be one entity through branding, while there are actually multiple operators of the underground lines alone.</p>
<p>if we are too concerned with a giant transit merger in the bay area, which I think could be done with the proper oversight, what would be more practical and important would be MTA&#8217;s taking a larger role in mandating a more uniform user experience across all agencies&#8230; this would mostly mean a normalization of fare structures, which translink would help with, but more importantly, consistent information graphics and branding on par with the famous roundel of the london tube.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-485</guid>
		<description>Also, thanks to Steve for the notion of &lt;i&gt;verkersbund&lt;/i&gt; and the reference to &lt;i&gt;The Transit Metropolis&lt;/i&gt;.  That book actually uses the term &lt;i&gt;verkehrsverbund&lt;/i&gt; instead, and if you search on it, Google will show you the relevant pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, thanks to Steve for the notion of <i>verkersbund</i> and the reference to <i>The Transit Metropolis</i>.  That book actually uses the term <i>verkehrsverbund</i> instead, and if you search on it, Google will show you the relevant pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/02/20/transit-overload/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=1291#comment-484</guid>
		<description>What do you mean by &quot;a long period of time&quot; on the RER B?  According to the current schedule, It takes eight minutes to get from Châtelet - Les Halles to La Plaine - Saint Denis.  The RER A leaves Châtelet at the same time and covers a slightly shorter distance to Etoile in six minutes.  That means that the personnel change takes all of two minutes.

Yes, it&#039;d be nice not to have to sit there for those two minutes, but it sure beats changing trains.  I used to have a commute that involved taking a Long Island Rail Road train to Penn Station and transferring to a New Jersey Transit train.  I could make the transfer in under five minutes if I had my ticket ahead of time, but I had to give it at least fifteen minutes just to be safe.  Even then, there were times when the LIRR train was running so late that I missed the NJ Transit train - and of course there&#039;s no guaranteed connection.  Fortunately there was redundant bus service, so I didn&#039;t have to wait an hour for the next train.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you mean by &#8220;a long period of time&#8221; on the RER B?  According to the current schedule, It takes eight minutes to get from Châtelet &#8211; Les Halles to La Plaine &#8211; Saint Denis.  The RER A leaves Châtelet at the same time and covers a slightly shorter distance to Etoile in six minutes.  That means that the personnel change takes all of two minutes.</p>
<p>Yes, it&#8217;d be nice not to have to sit there for those two minutes, but it sure beats changing trains.  I used to have a commute that involved taking a Long Island Rail Road train to Penn Station and transferring to a New Jersey Transit train.  I could make the transfer in under five minutes if I had my ticket ahead of time, but I had to give it at least fifteen minutes just to be safe.  Even then, there were times when the LIRR train was running so late that I missed the NJ Transit train &#8211; and of course there&#8217;s no guaranteed connection.  Fortunately there was redundant bus service, so I didn&#8217;t have to wait an hour for the next train.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

