İstanbul İETT Hat Sohbetleri

Routewatcher' Alıntı:

146F Şehir Hastanesinin tamamını dolaşmayacaksa ne anlamı kaldıki?

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

alperen465' Alıntı:

146F’ye asla binmem ben mesela laf olsun diye hat uzatılmaz bomboş işler heryeri dolaşıyo otobüs HS2 ye gidip binerim yine niye buna bineyim böyle bi saçmalık yerine esenkentten devam edecekti yine seferleri çoğaltılacaktı

142B zaten geliyo haki arasa kadar aynı yolu

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

𝔼𝕄𝔹𝔼ℝ' Alıntı:

Ben depardaki gibi tüm hastaneyi dolaşıp öyle gider diye düşünüyordum onun yerine 11. bölge turu attırmaya devam ediyormuş. Böyle bir yolcu talebi var mı merak ediyorum.

Şu haliyle HS2’nin geçmediği yerlerden geçtiği için görünürde verimli iyi gibi duruyor. Bahçeşehir halkı ise Esenyurt’tan gelecek kalabalık sebebiyle eleştiriyor.

Ben olsaydım da bu hattı Bahçeşehir içerisinde bırakırdım. Yolcunun aktarma yapmaya da bir şekilde alışması lazım.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

Biniş oranı-kapsama takasına üçüncü bir boyut katanlar da olmuş (hız)

1. asdf2 February 28, 2018 at 12:07 am #
   Besides ridership and coverage, there is a 3rd dimension to think about, and that’s speed.
   
   To give an example of this, let’s consider route “I” in the maximum coverage network. Most of route I’s ridership is probably going to come from people traveling between where it intersects the main north/south road and the main east/west road. For those people, route “I” is going to be a straight shot between the two corridors, almost as fast as driving, because the bus will hardly make any stops, due to limited activity centers along the way.
   
   Now, consider the alternative under the “maximum ridership” network, if route “I” doesn’t exist. You get to ride all the way into the center of town on one excruciatingly slow bus that constantly stops to load and unload passengers, then ride back out again to another equally slow bus. (Basically, the more time a bus spends loading and unloading passengers vs. actually moving, the more productive route is, from the agency perspective) (Yani 147 gibi güzergahlar)
   
   Basically, a 10-15 minute drive down the back road now because something like 5 minutes (wait) + 20 minutes (ride first bus) + 5 minutes (wait) + 20 minutes (ride second bus) = 50 minutes (grand total). Even with everything running frequently, transit has utterly failed for trips in the high-ridership area, due to the lack of the “coverage” route – not because of the actual “coverage” per-say, but because of it’s speed.
   • * Georgist Economist February 28, 2018 at 12:14 pm #
     While your concern is valid, it’s not a problem in practice for several reasons.
     
     First off, there are several articles on this site about stop spacing and other issues of transit speed. Most notably, this article: http://humantransit.org/2013/03/abundant-access-a-map-of-the-key-transit-choices.html (istenirse atarım)
     
     Thus in the maximum ridership example, you can safely assume that both lines are going to be something of a BRT, with their own lane (and signal priority, etc.) and 4-500 m stop spacing (as is entirely usual in Europe). As such, protected from congestion, it could easily have an average speed close of 30 km/h (20 mph) or so, doing no worse than cars (indeed, beating them during rush hour). (Note: *average* speed. Due to traffic lights and various other causes, cars with a top speed of 50 km/h get somewhere around 30 km/h average for the whole route. Distance traveled over elapsed time.)
     
     In fact, there is a multitude of “fancy” solutions beyond BRT. If crosstown trips are still too slow — perhaps because transit must compete with an urban free-flow motorway — and sufficient budget is available, a single route can be split into an express/local overlaid pair. The express would have stops perhaps 1 km apart, while the frequent local would gather and scatter passengers from its colinear stops to the stops of the express. (There are minor problems with this arrangement, such as the fact that the express has far higher ridership than the local, and consequently — if using buses — a much higher frequency, which is wasted to some degree.) However, it is quite common for the express to be implemented with some form of rail vehicle, e.g. a metro. In this case, a frequent grade-separated (i.e. completely protected from congestion) vehicle with 1 mile (or longer) stop spacing afforded by the colinear collector-distributor bus can easily beat the car for the majority of trips. Look at London or Moscow for great examples of bus+metro systems.
     Obviously, the above only apply if the city is large enough to warrant such a “fancy” solution. Most don’t, and simply a 4-500 m (quarter mile) stop spacing frequent bus with a car-free lane does the job just fine.
     
     On the other hand, in the maximum coverage example, it is a virtual certainty that transit would have no protection from car-caused congestion, and that stop spacing would be extremely close — though it wouldn’t matter much, if lots of them are skipped. Consequently, the average speed of transit would be perhaps 15-20 km/h (10-12 mph), and during times where the bus gets stuck in congestion, 5 km/h (3 mph) or walking speed.
     
     Putting the two together, the more frequent service is also faster. This is not a surprise — a service used by lots of passengers makes it politically feasible to speed it up, by taking one lane away from cars and eliminating superfluous stops. As a side effect, buses cycle the route faster, thus each unit of budget becomes even more useful!
     
     On the other hand, a service that is infrequent, and is run due to political compromises in the first place (pretend to provide service for constituents, even though they won’t use it much, because it’s next to useless due to its low frequency) won’t get that sort of streamlining, not least because its speed doesn’t actually matter to the politician making the decision. Taking a lane away from cars for a bus that only runs every 20-30 minutes is not popular, and making stops sparser is entirely counterproductive. When the constituents ask for a stop that they are never going to use to be close to them, a smart politician tells the transit agency to put down lots of stops.
     
     
     
   • Mike February 28, 2018 at 12:46 pm #
     asdf2: I’m not sure about your assumptions. A straight crosstown coverage route doesn’t sound like a typical coverage route, or even a coverage route at all. The coverage routes are in your second example: long milk runs to downtown, sometimes five blocks parallel to a similar route or to a frequent route. Those are the bad coverage routes. The good coverage routes go to the nearest transit/shopping center from an area that’s considered too far from other routes and too essential to leave out of the network. These routes often turn and run on non-arterials because that’s the only way to reach their target endpoint and serve people in between. (TM3 ve TM2 bence buna güzel bir örnek) Some coverage routes may have two anchors (a good transfer/destination point at both ends), (TM15 bence) but that’s more due to a lucky happenstance that both anchors are available, or it’s an interlining of two theoretical routes (e.g., an L-shaped route) for efficiency or usefulness.

1. asdf2 February 28, 2018 at 7:37 pm #
   So, there are a lot of cities out there where the fastest road between two major activity centers is “fastest” because there’s not a lot of stuff along the way – so less stoplights and traffic to deal with. When you drive between the two points, this is the road you take.
   
   But buses, as a rule tend to avoid such roads for reasons illustrated in this post – the more activity centers the bus passes by, the more trip pairs it serves, hence the more riders it can serve. This is all great from an agency productivity standpoint, but from a passenger experience standpoint, it means you’re taking a road with more stoplights and congestion to begin with, plus slightly longer distance, all so that the bus can stop at more bus stops (rather than blowing past them because nobody needs to get on or off), rendering the trip even slower. (Esenyurt otobüsleri)
   
   Of course, in the ideal world, the “bus” along the two major roads would be an underground subway, completely immune to stoplights and traffic jams, and built to load and unload massive quantities of riders very quickly. When building a subway, you *have* to do “maximum ridership network”, or it’s too much money in construction cost chasing too few riders.
   
   Even with buses, it is theoretically possible to achieve similar effects by setting up dedicated bus lanes and transit signal pre-emption. But, in practice (at least in the U.S.), all the roads are going to be designed first and foremost for cars, and the only choice the transit agency has is to throw buses on those roads to sit in the same traffic and wait at the same red lights as the cars do, on top of all the passenger loading at the bus stops.
   
   Again, in such a practical network, the only way to get decent speeds is establish at least a few key crosstown routes, even if the intermediate ridership is weak, so it’s purpose becomes quasi-coverage, quasi-express-between-high-ridership areas.
   
   As an example of what I’m talking about in a real city, consider the following trip:
   Google Maps.
   
   For this trip, the “direct” car road is Lake Washington Blvd. This is the equivalent of route “I” in the fictitious city. By car, the drive is a straight shot, and takes about 10 minutes.
   
   But, the transit network, on the other hand, has no buses that use Lake Washington Blvd. because that road mostly bisects a park, so very few actual homes and businesses to serve between the start and end points of the sample trip in the above link. So, you have to take one bus southwest, then transfer to another bus going north (or stay on the first bus a bit longer and ride the light rail, instead). So, in order to ride transit, you basically have to detour out of the way in order to follow streets where the bus can pick up more passengers along the way, so that the bus spends more time loading/unloading passengers, further slowing things down. The end result is that the 10-minute drive takes about 30 minutes by transit.
   
   In many cases, (and this is one of them) the root cause of the problem may not be so much the transit network, but the fact that the “shortcut” road exists for cars in the first place. For example, if the “shortcut” road were, instead, a bike trail, closed to cars (which would dramatically improve the atmosphere and connectivity of the park), suddenly that 30-minute bus ride looks a lot more appealing, simply because the competing car option becomes less appealing.
   
   In a sense, by creating these “bypass” roads, the road department is creating an unfunded mandate on the transit department, to run buses on them, in order to keep transit travel times from getting out of control compared to drive times.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

𝔼𝕄𝔹𝔼ℝ' Alıntı:

Ben depardaki gibi tüm hastaneyi dolaşıp öyle gider diye düşünüyordum onun yerine 11. bölge turu attırmaya devam ediyormuş. Böyle bir yolcu talebi var mı merak ediyorum.

Şu haliyle HS2’nin geçmediği yerlerden geçtiği için görünürde verimli iyi gibi duruyor. Bahçeşehir halkı ise Esenyurt’tan gelecek kalabalık sebebiyle eleştiriyor.

Ben olsaydım da bu hattı Bahçeşehir içerisinde bırakırdım. Yolcunun aktarma yapmaya da bir şekilde alışması lazım.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

Umarım kendi reklamımı yapmıyorumdur fakat Toplu taşımayla alakalı yazılar paylaştığım başlıkta son mesaj tam da buna değiniyordu. Alıntılayayım

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

İstanbulun toplu taşımasını hiç bir ülkeyle kıyaslamayın

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

Kıyaslanır. Kıyaslanamayacak olan Metrobüs. Ben burada düz İETT’yi kastettim.

“Aktarma demek, halkın cebinden ek ücret almak demek bunu kimse kabul etmez”

Alibeyköy Aktarma Merkezi

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

Hayır kıyaslanamaz, günün 24 saati aktif olarak çalışan, günlük kullanım minimum 8-9 milyon olan, her sokakta durak olan,express hattı olan toplu taşıma hiç bir yerde yok.
Alibeykoyden kim memnun? Halka olan her ücret şikayet demek

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

Rick Grimes' Alıntı:

Yetmezmiş gibi Savaş Petrol araçları da 76O bölgesinden gidince bölge araçsız kaldı. 89/89S/97M/76O'da Savaş'ın araç sayısı fazlaydı. Bunun sonucunda 76O'da araç eksiği olmasın diye bölgedeki diğer hat olan 97M'den İOAŞ araçları çekildi ve Bölge 89/89S/76O'ya döndü

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

her sokakta durak yok. otobüsler caddelerden ilerliyor genelde anadolu'da. sokaklara besleme hatlar giriyor. düz iett'yle gelişmiş ülkelerdeki toplu taşıma kıyaslanabilir.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

Istanbulda 2 sokağın en az birinde bir durak vardır, iett kurumu olarak hiç bir ülkede kıyaslanamaz, yolcu yoğunluğu,sefer sıklığı, dakiklik, hizmet kalitesi sayarim.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

kıyaslayamayacağız da ne yapacağız? daha ileriye götürmek için her şey yapılabilir. benim alıntıladığım önerilere bakmanızı rica ederim.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

Aktarma demek, halkın cebinden ek ücret almak demek bunu kimse kabul etmez, yakında bu hatta köklü değişiklikler gelebilir

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

𝔼𝕄𝔹𝔼ℝ' Alıntı:

@deividcollardo

Elbette kimse istemez. Ama kısa mesafeler için 60-70 duraklık hatlar verimli değil. Bunu sadece 146F için de söylemiyorum.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

Bunun verimli olmadığını herkes biliyor da halka kulak vermek gerekli, yarım saat git, in tekrar 10dk bekle tekrar farklı araca bin doluysa diğer aracı bekle falan bunlar şikayet meselesi neticede kamu kurumu kâr gözetmiyor. Verimsizlige bakarsak nice hatlar sayarim verimsizlige rağmen araçların çalıştığını biliyorum

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

marmaray bağımlısı' Alıntı:

Aktarmasız ulaşım olacak diye 8-10 KM’lik güzergahlara 60-70 durak etrafında daire çizen rotalar mantıksız.
Misal Portland otobüs sistemi insanlar iyi hizmet için 400~ metreye kadar yürümeyi göze alabilir felsefesiyle hareket ediyordu. 147 veya Esenyurt’taki diğer şikayetçi olunan hatlar mesela böyle düzenlenip çok yakın duraklar iptal edilebilir. Aktarma eğer çok vakit kaybettirmeyecek şekilde planlanırsa (en en fazla 5 dakika beklemeli yolun ikinci kısmı için insanlar) ve ücretsiz olursa o zaman millet aktarmadan çekinmez. Yeter ki hızlı ulaştırsın.

Genişletmek için tıkla ...

deividcollardo' Alıntı:

Burası İstanbul, ne o kadar araç alınabilir ne de ücretsiz aktarmanin maddi külfeti karşılanabilir. Maalesef bizde otobüs kültürü çok yüksek seviyede, metro ile aynı güzergah giden bir kişi, metro yerine otobüs tercih ediyor, buda süreci mantıksız hale getiriyor

Genişletmek için tıkla ...