BIKE: observations from home on tri-rail

[Mike Dahmus]

whoops, I responded in private to Alan and didn't notice this had gone 
to the list too.

alan_drake wrote:

>-- Mike Dahmus <mdahmus> wrote:
>roughly the second half of this posting to my blog:
>
>http://mdahmus.thebaba.com/blog/archives/000107.html
>
>(I know we talked a bit about Tri-Rail here; see the article for what I 
>saw during my 2-week trip home for Xmas).
>
>- MD
>
>One technical adjustment.  AFAIK, the US transit planning rule is that no pax are lost if they have to walk 1/4 mile (~1250' = 1') and there is a progressive loss from 1/4 to 1/2 mile.  Some % will walk .4 mile for example.
>
>The EU rule is that each stop will draw walkers from 500 m away (with no   grey area), except in Iceland where they use 400 m (due to climatic factors :-).
>  
>
Yes, I understand that. I would walk a mile to ride the train to work, 
personally, but most people won't - that's the critical thing to 
understand here, and the 1/4 mile radius around the Convention Center 
isn't even remotely close to the parts of downtown where most people 
work (6th/Congress).

>Also, the incomplete double tracking of S. Florida Tri-Rail has improved on-time perfromance significantly (from dismal to OK) BUT has not had much impact on schedules yet (last N-bound train leaves Miami ~7:30 PM, frequency, etc as of June, 04).  On-Time performamce is supposed to be better still (OK to Good ?) with complete doubletracking.
>  
>
Those schedules are a lot like the ones proposed for Austin, though, so 
it's not exactly fair hanging your hat on future supposed frequency 
improvements and extending the service hours. In fact, Tri-Rail already 
runs a lot more trains a day than Austin's line will in its first few years.

>Thus, only a fraction of the benefits of doubletracking are in place.  And there is a well known time delay (couple of years likely) before the public is aware of substantially improved service and adjusts their travel patterns accordingly.  Thus your condemnation of the improved, double tracked Tri-Rail is premature.
>  
>
Much of the double-tracking in earlier phases was done prior to my last 
couple of visits home - so it's been in place long enough for its 
benefits to become apparent to the public. Additionally, most of the 
criticism of Tri-Rail has not centered around "the train goes slower 
than my car on I-95", since it's obvious that the train moves faster, at 
least during the worst parts of rush hour. The criticism has, instead, 
centered around "it doesn't go anywhere I want to go" with an implied 
"and shuttle buses suck so bad that I won't even consider using them".

>Per my limited understanding, the original Tri-Rail models were off significantly, for the reasons that you stated.  
>
>Have the flaws from that model been corrected in the Austin model ?  (Transit modeling is not a static art).  
>
>It is my understanding that they have been for the Tri-Rail doubletracking model.
>  
>
I doubt very much that the more realistic assumptions about willingness 
to take shuttle-bus transfers have been built into the Austin model, or 
the initial ridership wouldn't be so high compared to existing express 
bus numbers (where people get a much more direct ride to their office on 
one seat). Certainly for people at UT and the Capitol, the existing 98x 
buses present a far more attractive ride than will be commuter rail + 
shuttle.

(I spent the majority of my last workweek of 2004 taking the 98x buses 
to/from work, by the way - they are stuck in traffic for a stretch on 
Mopac but their average speed is still high enough to beat the 
rail+shuttle combo, I think).

- MD