TBF, the question is: At what point does buying a fleet of quarter-million dollar buses (and paying the drivers and paying the pensions and paying the mechanics) make more sense than just having the riders all buy cars?
Important point here! A bit overstated--transit functions well even if it's not operating at capacity--but the point holds, there is a GAP between what car traffic is capable of and what transit is designed forhttps://twitter.com/poiThePoi/status/1004049716177498114 …
-
-
-
The answer is: wherever traffic approaches saturation levels, since adding more cars to such a mix only exacerbates the problem But if this doesn't include the bold step of dedicated street space for those buses, it won't improve very much!
-
At which point, on that margin, you ripped out 400 cars (or more) worth of laneage for 400 people's worth of buses, and I really, honestly understand why the suburban types are suspicious.
-
Likewise! Would they prefer the buses run in mixed traffic? Or would they prefer that there simply be even more cars on the road?
-
My parents live in a suburb of Cleveland. My favorite cheap sushi place is in Parma, about 12 miles and 30 minutes drive away. Best bus system in the world: How long does it take to get from Parma to Bay Village? So you can't replace my use cases.
-
>you will always have the same favorite cheap sushi place >new businesses don't take advantage of new transport opportunities >cities have a static building stock indefinitely
-
forgot to add >planning entire transport system based on occasional dining choice
-
That was one use case though. There's lots of those. Even in NYC. I live in NYC and I've been shuttling power tools to the place I just bought in Queens for a week and a half. Because it's a 2-hour trip that takes 30 minutes by car, and the car would have a trunk.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.