If you are investing in transit for productive purposes, target ridership. If you are dispensing it as a sort of largesse, target coverage.
neglected for a good reason: if you build more where you WANT ppl to live than where they DO live, you're gonna be insolvent
-
-
not that you can't build on spec but it's the exception, not the rule
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most transport links are implicitly or explicitly subsidised by government. Esp if long term: rail, underground. So should consider.
-
the underground is useful for new dev because it already serves old--ditto for unsubsidized commuter railways in Japan
-
if the tube *only* served prospective development nobody could use it--must focus on existing places first, then new
-
But it's not a dichotomy. Eg building cross rail two stops longer into relatively low density areas is likely better than ...
-
...waiting ten years till density has increased amount terminus and restarting construction. There is a happy medium.
-
right, that's my point abt it being useful because it connects to somewhere already developed
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.