Thursday, March 02, 2006
How to Make a Failed Light-Rail Line Seem Successful
First, cancel all the express buses that compete with the light-rail line.
Second, reroute all the nearby bus lines that go to the same downtown destination as the light-rail line to a light-rail station instead, thus forcing bus passengers to transfer to the light rail.
Finally, cut back rail service from six times per hour to only four times per hour to make the trains seem especially crowded.
My reviews of rail transit lines, such as this one (download the Excel spreadsheet), regularly find that Portland has some of the highest numbers of passengers per rail car of any light-rail system in the country. Now we know why!
Second, reroute all the nearby bus lines that go to the same downtown destination as the light-rail line to a light-rail station instead, thus forcing bus passengers to transfer to the light rail.
Finally, cut back rail service from six times per hour to only four times per hour to make the trains seem especially crowded.
My reviews of rail transit lines, such as this one (download the Excel spreadsheet), regularly find that Portland has some of the highest numbers of passengers per rail car of any light-rail system in the country. Now we know why!
Comments:
>>>>>First, cancel all the express buses that compete with the light-rail line.<<<<<
I don't see anything wrong with cancelling redundant express bus service. This is costly and unnecessary.
>>>>>>Second, reroute all the nearby bus lines that go to the same downtown destination as the light-rail line to a light-rail station instead, thus forcing bus passengers to transfer to the light rail.<<<<<
I don't see anything wrong with this strategy. By rerouting the other bus lines to transfer to the lightrail, the city is saving money by NOT having these local buses do redundant work.
>>>>Finally, cut back rail service from six times per hour to only four times per hour to make the trains seem especially crowded.<<<<<
This is clearly a mistake. I agree. If they expand the service to six times an hour, the problems dissapeear. The funds to expand lightrail service should come from any major highway development.
I don't see anything wrong with cancelling redundant express bus service. This is costly and unnecessary.
>>>>>>Second, reroute all the nearby bus lines that go to the same downtown destination as the light-rail line to a light-rail station instead, thus forcing bus passengers to transfer to the light rail.<<<<<
I don't see anything wrong with this strategy. By rerouting the other bus lines to transfer to the lightrail, the city is saving money by NOT having these local buses do redundant work.
>>>>Finally, cut back rail service from six times per hour to only four times per hour to make the trains seem especially crowded.<<<<<
This is clearly a mistake. I agree. If they expand the service to six times an hour, the problems dissapeear. The funds to expand lightrail service should come from any major highway development.
> I don't see anything wrong with
> cancelling redundant express
> bus service. This is costly
> and unnecessary.
Have you considered that it might
have been less-expensive to not
build the rail line and just leave
the buses running?
Post a Comment
> cancelling redundant express
> bus service. This is costly
> and unnecessary.
Have you considered that it might
have been less-expensive to not
build the rail line and just leave
the buses running?
