I’ve been in Vancouver for the past week, and it’s been an excellent reminder of the power of transit frequency, particularly on rail systems. This won't be a usual length post since I'm on vacation, but it will probably be the first of a few on this topic!
We often talk about transit frequency in terms of it being a basic necessity for good transit services (unless you're on a good schedule based model). I have a sense that too often frequency is only really considered within the dichotomy of frequent or infrequent, and that's usually along the popular line of "a vehicle every 15 minutes". But growing up in Vancouver, I really do think this model fails to capture so much of the nuance of the rider experience and how it relates to transit’s frequency.
While in Vancouver, I usually ride highway buses like the 555 a lot (these routes, while somewhat limited, are awesome especially with double-decker buses), and even though many of these routes only operate every 15 minutes, the comparatively long trips with few if any stops and probably the highest average speeds in Translink's network still feel rapid and convenient.
What I find even more interesting — perhaps unsurprisingly if you've followed me for a long time — is rail frequencies and the SkyTrain network.
Achieving high frequencies with rail is actually a really interesting problem to discuss, and as with many other issues, my interest in it is heightened by constant claims I see online that super high frequencies (<100s headway) are not actually possible. If you don't follow me on Twitter (you should), I tweeted out a video I shot of Expo Line trains in Vancouver casually running 90 seconds apart in the middle of the day — without any frantic madness or employees blowing whistles and the like.
I mentioned a lot of factors that go into being able to achieve very high frequencies, and this can be anything from the traction system on the train (rubber tires? Linear Induction Motors? etc.), to the signalling, to how passenger flow is managed, to (and this one will get another piece written about it) how things like track and especially terminal layout can help with operating more service! My quick example of that for the day would be how the Canada Line operates a consistent 3 minute headway despite using only one of its two northern terminal tracks (the other stores an out of service train).
Of course, the question you can ask when you actually have a system like this, is how does increasing frequency beyond the basic every 15 minutes impact things? The sense I get is that 90 second headways are much more attractive than 5 minute headways, which themselves are much more attractive than 15. A discourse that evolves to not only encourage a basic level of frequency but also an aspirational one might be more helpful!
I think that it is also important to add the area in which you are waiting for the next bus or train. When coming home from school, I usually wait 5-10 minutes or even up to 15 for the bus. However, I have to stand outside in the cold and there are no benches. This makes the experience more uncomfortable. So it a route cannot be made more frequent I guess they should at least try to have better waiting areas.