People continue to be astonished that reductions in transit service and utter neglect of transit facilities is turning away ridershttp://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-workers-telework-public-transportation-commute.html …
As it happens, those are three cities which have reorganized their bus networks, expanded service, or both--and at least two of them, if not all three, are hardly what urbanists would consider "ideal" in terms of land use vis-a-vis transit.
-
-
Trying to determine the exact extent to which Uber et al have hurt transit ridership strikes me as trying to ignore the very obvious problems with transit (poor maintenance, unsanitary conditions, limited and dwindling service) in favor of an explanation that's harder to act on.
-
Some of those problems are also very hard to act on. Knowing whether there are other causes of lost ridership is important to know whether it's worth spending money attacking those problems. If you're not going to get the riders back, it may not be worth keeping the service.
-
cleanliness, maintenance, and service availability are the responsibility of the operator, however well or poorly they can address those things--but the operations of a completely unrelated company are not
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.