 |
Re: SMART's problems are entirely due to poor service levels.
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-05-2019 - 17:17
Failure to provide sufficient service levels is the main thing I see wrong. The demand in the corridor is clearly reflected in the traffic congestion and travel demand patterns on the 101.
This is a relatively geographically compact linear corridor, with several major housing centers "up stream" and a fairly dense set of employment centers, and special generators like the colleges, airport, and now the ferry connection. There is a very "linear" employment, commerce, housing travel pattern.
Poor service levels, due to a failure to provide adequate frequency of service, and often mention peak service gap, explains most of the low ridership figures.
As frequencies drop, the wait time, or the failure to have a train available when "you" want to go to where "you" need to be, increases exponentially. And, conversely when you increase frequencies, and you aren't expected to stand around waiting, or it now does go, when "you" need to get somewhere, then ridership "rises" exponentially... So say you double the frequencies, and you get 4 times as many riders....
Reducing wait time and increasing service frequencies lowers the (implicit "hassle" and "time" penalty)"costs" of using SMART to the user, increasing the "demand" for the use of SMART.
Poor finances, problematic management, and dubious Board decision making has been a problem with this project throughout its political history. The ferry connection does suck, as reducing the transfer penalty significantly increases that ridership "multiplier". However, the ferry connection problem can be easily "corrected", with probably #70 million in funding. SMART could always have been done SMARTER, with better leadership, and more funding, I've never doubted that. But this critique is not at all interested in fixing any
of that.
Filling the peak "service gap" with more service will increase ridership, because as I write this, I see that the 101 still sucks, and this will lower the "costs" of using SMART, as a potential alternative.
Ideally, and probably ultimately, for the potential demand in this corridor, this line should be fully double tracked, electrified, and run a minimum of 15 minute peak and 30 minute off peak bi directional service. This kind of service level would allow SMART to achieve the kind of results you see, for the higher service levels offered, that are up with the higher end of that somewhat "incomplete" performance measures chart Mr. Arnold is showing folks.
Mike Arnold has always opposed and hated the project, and now opposes moving it forward, with several clever arguments, based on a factoid or two, and a fair amount of creative assumption, (as though his crystal ball is better?), and of course, the conclusion will always be that "evil" Thomas must be stopped...
It's almost like Mouse had a day job...?
This is a relatively geographically compact linear corridor, with several major housing centers "up stream" and a fairly dense set of employment centers, and special generators like the colleges, airport, and now the ferry connection. There is a very "linear" employment, commerce, housing travel pattern.
Poor service levels, due to a failure to provide adequate frequency of service, and often mention peak service gap, explains most of the low ridership figures.
As frequencies drop, the wait time, or the failure to have a train available when "you" want to go to where "you" need to be, increases exponentially. And, conversely when you increase frequencies, and you aren't expected to stand around waiting, or it now does go, when "you" need to get somewhere, then ridership "rises" exponentially... So say you double the frequencies, and you get 4 times as many riders....
Reducing wait time and increasing service frequencies lowers the (implicit "hassle" and "time" penalty)"costs" of using SMART to the user, increasing the "demand" for the use of SMART.
Poor finances, problematic management, and dubious Board decision making has been a problem with this project throughout its political history. The ferry connection does suck, as reducing the transfer penalty significantly increases that ridership "multiplier". However, the ferry connection problem can be easily "corrected", with probably #70 million in funding. SMART could always have been done SMARTER, with better leadership, and more funding, I've never doubted that. But this critique is not at all interested in fixing any
of that.
Filling the peak "service gap" with more service will increase ridership, because as I write this, I see that the 101 still sucks, and this will lower the "costs" of using SMART, as a potential alternative.
Ideally, and probably ultimately, for the potential demand in this corridor, this line should be fully double tracked, electrified, and run a minimum of 15 minute peak and 30 minute off peak bi directional service. This kind of service level would allow SMART to achieve the kind of results you see, for the higher service levels offered, that are up with the higher end of that somewhat "incomplete" performance measures chart Mr. Arnold is showing folks.
Mike Arnold has always opposed and hated the project, and now opposes moving it forward, with several clever arguments, based on a factoid or two, and a fair amount of creative assumption, (as though his crystal ball is better?), and of course, the conclusion will always be that "evil" Thomas must be stopped...
It's almost like Mouse had a day job...?
