...the flaw in this conception of the "purpose" of transit is simply that the best way to make a service that's useful for the poor is by making a service that's useful for *anyone.*
-
Show this thread
-
Our roads, for example, are much better for the poor who can drive than our buses are for the poor who can't. Because our roads are expected to be used by anyone *as much as they can afford to,* while transit is expected to ONLY be used by those w/o a choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Haunted Forrest 🌲 Retweeted Haunted Forrest 🌲
The more people can use transit, the more useful it is, and vice versa:https://twitter.com/380kmh/status/1040419294130184192 …
Haunted Forrest 🌲 added,
Haunted Forrest 🌲 @380kmhimportant that temp and situational disabilities are much more common -> a much bigger market eg. transit is better for blind ppl than car, but can only really be there FOR blind ppl if it's used by a larger body of people, for instance, the easily distracted (aka everyone) https://twitter.com/rayadim/status/968165460733759488 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Should probably add one more problem, despite saying I'd stop at three: public involvement You know how grocery stores don't have to hold public hearings every time the prices change on, say, apples? Or every time they introduce a new product, or discontinue an old one? Yeah...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Public involvement is something which can be very useful--but it isn't something INTRINSICALLY useful, and can end up being extremely counterproductive, time intensive, and wasteful of resources.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
What's more, the results of public involvement rarely have much bearing on transit operations, and the public is generally aware of (and angered by) this. It only makes people cynical to have them go through the motions, and since "lack of public feedback" isn't a big problem...
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
...I think it's time to put the idea to rest. I promise that other businesses have ways of gauging customer feedback without scheduling public meetings--we can do the same in transit.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
So, summary: - Overhaul fares, prioritize farebox recovery - Overhaul schedules, prioritize consistency - Reduce public involvement & other "fruitless but feels good" requirements - Focus on overall travel market rather than low-income travel market
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @380kmh
Read quickly. Suggestion: Reword "reduce public involvement". I know what you mean, but makes it sound like you dont give a damn about the rider's concerns. Presume focus on overall market includes rider's thoughts. What % do fares cover? What is farebox recovery? Stealing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @56tbirdJones
"Public involvement" isn't about rider concerns tho, that's my point--it's about a particularly theatrical way of getting feedback (public hearings) which can't necessarily be acted on. Successful businesses don't use public hearings to estimate customer concerns, etc...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Fares currently cover around 15% of expenses; farebox recovery refers to the share of expenses that are covered by fares
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Frankly, I am shocked. I would have thought it to be higher. You aren't running a transit program, you are running a welfare program. Your very astute comment earlier about the taxpayer being the customer has hit home. I am a taxpayer!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.