 |
WES ridership and train frequency.
Author: J Mann
Date: 08-29-2017 - 09:58
So as not to hijack the SMART thread I'm creating a new one.
Erik H. Wrote in the SMART thread:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just like WES, a very similar operation a few
> hundred miles to the north in the Portland Metro
> area, SMART is confined to a three car,
> single-level vehicle. The only way you can expand
> operations is by adding more trains, or going to
> another vehicle but also having to destroy and
> rebuild every station platform in the process.
> (WES is restricted to two car trains due to
> platform length, PLUS a designed weight limitation
> at the Beaverton Creek bridge at Beaverton Transit
> Center). Fortunately for WES, the ridership after
> eight years is such that one car is overkill and
> the entire ridership could easily fit into a
> regular TriMet bus with space to spare - but we
> MUST cater to the "I won't ever ride a bus!!!"
> crowd despite the operating cost for WES being
> 700% that of a bus rider, and the fuel economy
> half that of a bus.
The biggest problem with WES as I see it is train frequency. It only runs in the commute hours. There are no trains running in the hours in between. So if you don't plan on traveling in those few hours at each end of the day then WES is no good to use. Back in the 1970's the SP Penninsula Commute was also failing for the same reasons. With service cutbacks ridership got as low as 7,000 passengers per day. Now look at Caltrain. With increased service they are getting increased ridership. For 2016 the average weekday ridership was 62,416. They run 92 weekday trains. If you miss a train it is no big deal, another one will be along in a reasonable amount of time. It's a system that is convienent and you can depend on. WES isn't like that so people find alterernate ways to travel.
Erik H. Wrote in the SMART thread:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just like WES, a very similar operation a few
> hundred miles to the north in the Portland Metro
> area, SMART is confined to a three car,
> single-level vehicle. The only way you can expand
> operations is by adding more trains, or going to
> another vehicle but also having to destroy and
> rebuild every station platform in the process.
> (WES is restricted to two car trains due to
> platform length, PLUS a designed weight limitation
> at the Beaverton Creek bridge at Beaverton Transit
> Center). Fortunately for WES, the ridership after
> eight years is such that one car is overkill and
> the entire ridership could easily fit into a
> regular TriMet bus with space to spare - but we
> MUST cater to the "I won't ever ride a bus!!!"
> crowd despite the operating cost for WES being
> 700% that of a bus rider, and the fuel economy
> half that of a bus.
The biggest problem with WES as I see it is train frequency. It only runs in the commute hours. There are no trains running in the hours in between. So if you don't plan on traveling in those few hours at each end of the day then WES is no good to use. Back in the 1970's the SP Penninsula Commute was also failing for the same reasons. With service cutbacks ridership got as low as 7,000 passengers per day. Now look at Caltrain. With increased service they are getting increased ridership. For 2016 the average weekday ridership was 62,416. They run 92 weekday trains. If you miss a train it is no big deal, another one will be along in a reasonable amount of time. It's a system that is convienent and you can depend on. WES isn't like that so people find alterernate ways to travel.
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 WES ridership and train frequency. |
J Mann | 08-29-2017 - 09:58 |
|
Re: WES ridership and train frequency.
|
Erik H. | 08-30-2017 - 19:07 |