Yes, this is a terrible transfer, so what's new?
Author: ron
Date: 11-20-2019 - 09:38
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The extra walk and/or wait time for a bus will
> seriously deter ridership, all other things being
> considered. We actually "know" from behavioral
> data we've collected, and "on average" that folks
> consider that time to count against travel time,
> at 3 times the "cost" time spent moving to their
> destination in the transit vehicle. But, the same
> folks whining about this problem, discussed
> numerous times on AP.
>
> Since the "on average", on which this negative
> "disutility" multiplier is composed of very short
> waits, walks, and transfers, and very long waits,
> walks, or transfers, and Lark Spur Ferry to SMART
> being "very long" that they might be out on the
> "negative" tail of that bimodal average
> distribution. But, since this is actually a
> "demand" function, and thus ad demand "curve" (not
> two supply and demand lines making the "average"
> cost, but the intercept of two supply and demand
> curves), the effects on the "tails" of this
> distribution of (riders turned off by the hassles
> of this inconvenience...) effect, it would likely
> be more than the "on average" 3 times the
> hassle.... A walk and transfer time might cause
> folks to perceive it as 6 times the hassle, or 9
> times the hassle (depending on what the "data" we
> observe from that part of the curve tells us.
>
> However, since this is a train/ferry transfer,
> involving longer distances traveled, in a very
> congested travel time corridor, it will offset the
> implicit "hassle" "cost" penalty of the long walk
> and transfer time a slight amount, because this is
> less of a factor between what are perceived to be
> "higher quality" (more comfortable, more
> reliable...) transit modes.
>
> SMART should go right on to the ferry dock, out
> over the parking lot, right up to the damned boat,
> as close to the gangplank as possible for he
> shortest fricking transfer. And, with better
> leadership and better management, and more support
> for that kind of more effective investment by the
> Board, management, and voters/taxpayers (who have
> to pony up the money), it can still be done, in
> the future.
>
> As I used to tell my clients who were interested
> in doing choo-choo as a mode....all it takes is
> money. I also told them there were tradeoffs,
> between expenditures choices, and outcomes, like
> ridership... For now, this is the choice SMART
> has made.
>
> This is your introduction to urban transit
> planning 101 class for today. This will be on the
> final exam.
Here's what is new. SMART is asking voters to refinance their loan with a new tax in March.The Larkspur extension set to open before March becomes another example of poor decisions and an inability to provide seamless connections to the ferry . Critics have often called SMART the train to nowhere. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars extending to Larkspur with a transfer to the ferries that hardly works only reinforces that notion. Yes it could be fixed in time and with more money. That requires the support of taxpayers who feel they have been misled by SMART and it's promise to provide rail service and a bike path to Cloverdale.
Speaking of urban transit planning. I was told the current Larkspur ferries are at capacity now. Can they even accommodate the additional riders of SMART once they figure out how to get to the GD terminal?