08-16-2024, 07:30 PM
(08-15-2024, 07:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's ultimately a zero-sum game, though. I you decide to run more buses when utilization is low, you'll need to run fewer buses somewhere else.
It's not a zero-sum game. That's a bankrupt mentality, giving into the "no new taxes" of neoliberalism. Every dollar of invested in public transit results in $5 of economic growth. Lowered publution which translates into better public health outcomes. I'm sure that you know all the benefits of public transit as well as I do.
(08-15-2024, 07:11 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Unless you get more budget--but, even then, you'll need to decide the same thing and prioritize a uniform schedule vs more buses elsewhere (or another route).
We're not in that situation here with respect to summer schedules. When GRT pares stuff back for the summer schedule there are no routes that get more buses from the pool of those taken away from others. We've clearly got all the drivers, buses, mechanics and other staff to operate at the "full" fall & winter schedules, so why not keep them running on the full schedules all summer? Service drives ridership and we all know what would happen to summer ridership if fall & winter schedules were maintained all year long.
It's a fricking PITA to have to relearn your schedule in June and September and it encourages the perception to all non-students that public transit is not a reliable and practical method of getting to work or other trips around town.
Further, though, when it is about an increased budget, prioritization of where to "spend" new service hours is still not zero-sum. GRT is not going to get the exact same increase in ridership if they added all new service hours to the major routes like 7, 8, 12, and 16 and the iXpress routes than if they added those hours to the neighbourhood routes.
The neighbourhood routes all filter and concentrate to the major and iXpress routes so enhancing any one of them, like extending 15-minute headways, makes that route more attractive to not only those who would ride just it but also makes all the neighbourhood routes that connect to it more attractive to all of their potential riders as well. By enhancing service on that one route you've also effectively enhanced service a bit on a whole bunch of neighbourhood routes as well without needing to change them at all.
Allocating those same service hours to a neighbourhood route doesn't have an equal reverse effect, though. That neighbourhood route only connects to a couple of major routes and any attractiveness it passes on is only to some potential riders, those who would transfer, rather than all riders.
Of course, assigning all the new service hours only to the main routes year after year would eventually have the growth stall out because the main lines depend on those neighbourhood routes as feeders, but GRT is nowhere near that point with any of the iXpress routes or the major route like 7, 16,12, 8, etc…
The best long-term strategy has two parts.
First, give the larger portion of new service hours to the major routes because of the bigger network effect spread to other routes.
Second, give the smaller portion to the neighbourhood routes mostly through infill (a neighbourhood with two routes has better connectivity than a neighbourhood with one route) but don't neglect decreasing the headways as ridership grows. Neighbourhood routes can sometimes evolve into major routes, especially if the service area is growing, and in urban cores you often need multiple parallel major routes because of infrastructure restrictions.