Concerning transit--there are two diametrically opposed goals that inform a transit system's structure: coverage and ridership
-
-
Where private companies are involved in transit they will--as organizations based on transactions--seek ridership
-
The former focuses on every person's right to transportation--the latter on making transportation more convenient where lots of it happens
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
USgov funded rail projects disturbing - occurring in areas with dwindling potential ridership #'s, shows DISLOYALTY toward taxpayers
-
building transit where potential ridership is dwindling *demonstrates* their coverage bias; yes, it sucks for taxpayers
-
if coverage already tended to exist in high ridership areas it would be mere bias. As things are - some would call it sabotage
-
yeah, the other side of politicization of transit is that it becomes a weapon to use against constituencies
-
transit becomes something you can bestow or withhold, if budgeting is scarce (typical in coverage systems!) then...
-
...you can expect groups with little political clout to get shafted in favor of more connected groups
-
these things have been true since the dawn of transit, but taxpayers accepted these realities since the service was for them
-
correction: they've been true since transit became a government endeavor paid for by taxpayers
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.