08-22-2016, 04:35 PM
(08-22-2016, 11:54 AM)Markster Wrote: You may rebut that rush hour isn't so spread out, and that you could just put the 2-pack on the busiest time, but keep in mind that the 2-pack can't be everywhere at the peak. At best, they can try to aim it at one specific bottleneck, but our LRT will have multiple major destinations on it, and so it will arrive at other destinations at the wrong time to serve peak there. At worst, the LRT will have unpredictable running time at rush hour, and the 2-pack will get delayed and miss the peak point crunch entirely.
It's just much more effective and reliable to increase frequency.
You're not going to get any argument from me that more frequent service is better, both in the regard you messaged, but also because more frequent service is better on face value.
But I don't necessarily think that argument will compel a private company to forego the additional savings of two more operators, especially if those trains are only needed at peak hours, which would mean more expensive shifts. Seems like rarely in our society is quality preferred over...lets call it quantity--which I think is a serious, but rather more general, problem in society.
Regardless, I'm glad that there is a good argument that the agreement requires frequency first, like I said, I had only *heard* from unqualified sources that trains may be doubled first, I hope that that individual is wrong.