11-20-2014, 09:20 PM
(11-20-2014, 05:58 PM)zanate Wrote: That's a good point. I'm trying to say that we can't just dismissively discard low ridership routes because our transit system still has the defined goal of providing a coverage standard. Changing that goal means talking to council, not the transit agency. And in a conversation like that, we will have to talk about how much of our transit system's role should be to provide coverage even with lower ridership growth potential, or higher cost.
I think we're due to have that conversation. The way the coverage standard is structured is an impediment to restructuring the system to a higher frequency grid network. There are tools like MobilityPlus that can supplement our regular transit system, and maybe we can acknowledge that not everybody needs a symphony hall transit stop within 450m, if a stop slightly further away provides a service frequency of better than 2 concerts per month.
But while I strongly support restructuring our transit system in search of higher utility for everyone, I can't agree that we should discard transit's role as providing the level of mobility it does in less-easily served areas for people whose lives are dependent on it.
Normally I would agree, but the "service everywhere, once every hour" has been such a total and utter failure whenever and wherever it has been tried that I think this is beyond the level of policy discussion.
We are not comparing two different alternatives each with its own virtues, we are talking a total failure against a service so successful it has to leave riders behind because buses are too full.