This very revealing line explains why they (and American transit planning in general) failed: "CTDOT is requesting that all customers making optional trips, to change their plans so there is room on trains for customers to get home."
-
Show this thread
-
I've tweeted at length in the past about the tendency for transit planning to focus on 9-5 weekday office job commuters, regardless of the actual transportation needs of area residents. But more generally, it is a focus on what are considered "necessary" trips, vs "optional"
3 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
According to Gov Malloy, about 10,300 trips were made on the new line on opening day. This is just over 2,000 fewer trips than are made every day at Davis Square, a single station on the Red Line in Boston--but the Hartford Line could barely process the load, and turned many away
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Now granted, the Hartford Line was *free* when it experienced its overloads--ridership will certainly be lower during regular service, when only "necessary" trips are being made. From top to bottom, the line was designed with only what is "necessary" in mind--nothing more.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
But people have *all kinds* of reasons for traveling, and a great deal of travel (certainly any ENJOYABLE travel) is done just for fun. Not all trips are commutes (and not all commutes are for 9-5 office jobs), and thank God for that!
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
CTDOT planned and built the rail line to be *incapable* of carrying many more passengers than they expected would "need" to use it--and for that matter, *incapable* of actually carrying enough riders to earn a profit, EVEN IF THE RIDERS ARE THERE AND WANT TO USE IT!
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
What has to change? Higher capacity could be accomplished by adding cars onto existing trains--but then you run into problems with platform lengths at stations (already, trains are too long for some stations on the line), and you do nothing about the long waits between trains...
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @380kmh
Is there a reason that ridership expectations are often set so low? Some estimates looks almost ridiculous.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think they try to be conservative, especially after some ewell publicized failures. Plus, it makes it easier to say that they've exceeded expectations and should get more funding.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattRobare
good points--but low expectations shouldn't be hardwired into the design itself!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Or, alternately--to delay useful work (eg West Station)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.