A fixed-route service operates according to a regular schedule, along a specified route, making stops at predetermined locations.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
If you get the schedule, route, and stops right, this sort of transit can be incredibly profitable--as is the case in Tokyo and Osaka.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
The ideal form of coverage transit is something like a taxi (which, as I've mentioned before, is a type of public transit).
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
The ideal form of ridership transit is something like a (grade-separated!) train.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
The difference between the two has to do with the sort of networks they run on. The one uses a road system, the other uses dedicated tracks.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
A vehicle on roads stops at most junctions, whenever it needs to change its route. A vehicle on dedicated tracks *only* stops for riders.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
A bus or trolley that operates in mixed transit, by the way, is the worst of both worlds. It stops for every light AND for every stop.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
This has some implications for transit provision: where ridership is too low to justify commercial transit, stick to ensuring coverage.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
On the other hand, where ridership makes commercial transit viable, take all possible steps to ensure dedicated ROW, whether or not on rails
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Coverage transit, which cannot possibly turn a profit, should be provided by the state, as part of a social safety net.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Commercial transit, however, should aim for privatization and keep costs in line with revenue.
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.