• bluGill@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most people have far more km to work every day than the longer trips to visit distant relatives. Thus how often you take the train is a useful metric.

    Plus someone who drives to work.already has a car so the marginal cost of the longer trip is insignificant. While someone who normally doesn’t drive has to make up the costs of a car for rare trips only and that makes the marginal cost of a car very high. So people who don’t drive daily are more likely to figure out how to take those long trips without a car.

    • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This pattern is true and passenger kilometers represent it just fine. There is no need to use the how often you use the train metric. Note that my two examples were there to explain the metric, not actual factual examples.

      As an actual example: I take my bike to work and dont own a car, so my modal split is mostly trains because of longer distance trips, but I use the bike far more often. Frequencies only make sense if each occurrence is very similar (in quantity). For example: How often does one eat meat? Each meal roughly contains the same amount of meat (may be factor two or three difference). Here frequencies make more sense as more detailed statistics dont actually give more insights.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The most useful metric for a transit system is % of people who are on a monthly unlimited rides pass. So long as the pass is priced well that measures who useful transit is.

        Of course for people who bike an unlimited rides pass may not be cost effective, but I still like it as people who are on the pass won’t hesitate to use transit for odd trips.