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 …
this is like saying you shouldn't build roads unless they will operate at gridlock capacity for at least a few hours of the day lmao Japanese transit typically maintains high frequency throughout the day, when trains are mostly empty!
-
-
A bus costs a quarter million dollars and gets about 3 MPG, the drivers cost $100k/year plus matching pension in retirement (when they aren't actually driving the bus) plus bennies There's a break-even point at which cars make sense /Or Ubers, since Ubers don't need parking
-
Ubers (taxis) are much more useful than cars in this context--useful at higher densities than driving! But very expensive per passenger relative to distance traveled. Not viable on their own... Bus fuel economy and driver cost is not set in stone, and you leave out issue of fare
-
Certainly it's important in USA to start charging passengers for the actual cost of the trip they take--this is something I discuss frequently
-
At which point I would've been paying $24/day for my commute from Mountain View to Palo Alto instead of $10, and would've stopped taking the train and started driving. And that's a solo car, a family of four...
-
perhaps such a route isn't viable for train, then! but the only way to be sure is to see how many ride when the fare is correct--and on a related note, it is not just the cost of riding transit that is artificially depressed...
End of conversation
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.