Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitAngst
Yeah, they shouldn't take off the comet car. It is worth it for the peak. But what I was trying to get at is there is a reason other commuter/regional rail only runs during peak. If your ridership is entirely commuters (mostly white collar commuters), why run empty trains in the evenings and midday? UTA could cut off-peak FR service and use the money for something else (like buses). Unless I am wrong about that? I figured all operating funds come from the same pot of money.
I know there are significant downsides to running only peak service. You get less for your money, for one thing. But FR is comparatively expensive to run. Like you said, it all comes down to ridership, and I have to wonder how many riders they would lose with only peak service. If the loss is small, that may make the positives outweigh the negatives.
|
Operating funds technically come from the same pot of money, as you say, but how the money is distributed is a highly statistical and political process.
In the
UTA Network study, FrontRunner operating costs are pegged at $0.02 per passenger mile, assuming 390 passengers on the train. 390 passengers is a full train (every seat taken) without a comet car. With the comet car added, the price stands to go down a little further.
TRAX, btw, operates at $0.05 per passenger mile if everyone is seated and $0.02 if operating at a crush standing load.
Buses operate at $0.17-$0.13, based on the same TRAX criteria.
So comparatively, FrontRuner costs are on the low end. It is much better, from UTA's point of view, to get rid of express and long-haul buses (and occasionally long-haul TRAX) and put everyone on a commuter train.
This is why FrontRunner must run as frequently (or preferably more frequently) as it does, because I would estimate that most of the people on it are not the 'typical' 9-5 commuter. College students make up a significant portion of the ridership, and they need transportation all day (and all night). and the general public uses FrontRunner much more than other commuter rail systems. I've pretty well firmly made up my mind at this point that FrontRunner should be classified as a 'regional rail' rather than 'commuter rail,' because it is much more useful to the community than a simple commuting option.
FrontRunner trains, running on their own tracks, are also cheaper to run than a commuter train running on leased freight tracks, BTW. The cost of leasing, the cost of scheduling your train during prime business hours, the cost of having dispatchers give preference to the commuter train (rather than the freight trains that actually make the railroad money) and - biggest of all - the INSURANCE costs of running your train on someone else's tracks all add up. UTA doesn't have those costs.
Then there is the staffing. UTA employs 'operators,' not engineers, and 'train hosts' rather than 'conductors,' simply so that they can pay their staff less. Whereas other commuter trains must operate with 3-4 man crews, FrontRunner trains work with just the one operator. (The Train host is an administrative part-time position, and consequently gets paid even less).
All this means that FrontRunner is one of the cheapest-to-operate commuter rail system in the country - leading me to believe that dropping service in the off-peak hours would have a very small effect on the budget while it
would have a marked effect on ridership and public perception.
Threaded Mode