|
|
| Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall (602709) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Apr 17 13:51:34 2008, in response to Re: G Train Hearing at City Hall, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 16 17:57:43 2008. From a previous message: "Brooklyn does not need the service Queens and Manhattan do. The turnstile counts are what you go by. Brooklyn does not justify as much service."Beware that such a argument using "turnstyle counts" can lead to situations where anyone can say that service should NOT be increased, especially when increasing the service offers intangible benefits besides an increase in ridership. For example, the "turnstyle counts" could suggest that only 6-car trains should be used to "fill up the cars" - which then leaves many riders running for the train, etc. Why use 8 and 10-car trains when the "turnstyle counts" only show enough riders for six full-crush-loaded-cars the bean counters would say. Why pay for extra cars on the train so the folks can sit down for the ride? If one wants to argue that a certain line needs more service (to make the rider better, increase the frequency of service, etc.) somebody somewhere will pull out the "turnstyle counts" argument. On Staten Island they used the "turnstyle counts method" to argue that the boats are not filled to the brim at certain times - so why provide service more frequent than 30 minutes or 60 minutes for a boat. Of course they forget that waiting 30 minutes and 60 minutes for a boat is something that REDUCES RIDERSHIP, it does not offer an incentive to use the system. Then of course they will argue that since ridership is not "increasing" let's reduce the service!!! Are the R-trains that serve Queens Blvd on the day-evening portions of the weekend - filled to the brim with riders? Are passengers left in the stations after a train departs because they simply could not fit inside the train? Is there is no room left on the trains to handle the loads of riders? Or is it a case where the riders simply do not like to wait long times for a train? How does one "weigh" intangible benefits such as available seats on the train? Or shorter waiting times with less than full-cars (or boats). When the MTA used to run 5-car trains in the 1980's - they simply said that the cost of cutting cars and coupling cars was simply too much for the supposed benefits. Or is running 8 and 10-car trains 24/7/365 just a waste of equipment, equipment that is not fully used to capacity at certain times? Just making a point. Mike |
|
|
|