 |
Re: SMART Slammed for Withholding Ridership? As I said Ron, so can you answer my questions? No. ....
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-20-2019 - 13:21
Yeah, some trains at some times have less riders, the late trains as they empty our don't have many folks left on board.
And, that tells you nothing about overall SMART ridership.
I see no evidence of any conspiracy to hide that some trains are lightly used.
And, from the data I've seen, which isn't being "hidden" from anyone, it's my best professional opinion, that the SMART ridership does SUCK, Ron.
And, as a taxpayer myself, I am extremely disappointed in how SMART's management and Board have chosen to operate it's trains, and provide service, since the crappy ridership is completely "predictable", with the level of lousy service they have run thus far.
So, yeah, this is terrible, given the linear nature of jobs and housing in that corridor, and the level of gridlocked congestion on 101. It is a very poor ridership result, given the clear amount of potential demand, and it is based entirely on what has been a substandard "level of service" to most effectively and efficiently serve a corridor like that.
It can be fixed, and if congestion keeps growing (as ,I notice where the construction has been completed on the 101 in the last few years, congestion really isn't any better) and the SMART management and Board really "want" SMART to provide a much more cost effective and viable alternative to users, they need to provide at least double, and probably ultimately triple in peaks, the current frequency of service that they have only "now" begun to finally operate.
And, guess what, the last train to the Airport at night will still be lucky to carry 12 folks... So maybe, newspaper reporters and some taxpayers who read that will still be outraged? How outraged do folks get when the freeways are so underutilized and empty after midnight?
And, that tells you nothing about overall SMART ridership.
I see no evidence of any conspiracy to hide that some trains are lightly used.
And, from the data I've seen, which isn't being "hidden" from anyone, it's my best professional opinion, that the SMART ridership does SUCK, Ron.
And, as a taxpayer myself, I am extremely disappointed in how SMART's management and Board have chosen to operate it's trains, and provide service, since the crappy ridership is completely "predictable", with the level of lousy service they have run thus far.
So, yeah, this is terrible, given the linear nature of jobs and housing in that corridor, and the level of gridlocked congestion on 101. It is a very poor ridership result, given the clear amount of potential demand, and it is based entirely on what has been a substandard "level of service" to most effectively and efficiently serve a corridor like that.
It can be fixed, and if congestion keeps growing (as ,I notice where the construction has been completed on the 101 in the last few years, congestion really isn't any better) and the SMART management and Board really "want" SMART to provide a much more cost effective and viable alternative to users, they need to provide at least double, and probably ultimately triple in peaks, the current frequency of service that they have only "now" begun to finally operate.
And, guess what, the last train to the Airport at night will still be lucky to carry 12 folks... So maybe, newspaper reporters and some taxpayers who read that will still be outraged? How outraged do folks get when the freeways are so underutilized and empty after midnight?
