If you are investing in transit for productive purposes, target ridership. If you are dispensing it as a sort of largesse, target coverage.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
If you want transit to be a useful way for lots of people to travel, focus on high ridership.
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
This neglects the fact that over time residential patterns are shaped by transport links. So also: build where you want ppl to live.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IronEconomist
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Most transport links are implicitly or explicitly subsidised by government. Esp if long term: rail, underground. So should consider.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IronEconomist
the underground is useful for new dev because it already serves old--ditto for unsubsidized commuter railways in Japan
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @IronEconomist
if the tube *only* served prospective development nobody could use it--must focus on existing places first, then new
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
But it's not a dichotomy. Eg building cross rail two stops longer into relatively low density areas is likely better than ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IronEconomist @380kmh
...waiting ten years till density has increased amount terminus and restarting construction. There is a happy medium.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
right, that's my point abt it being useful because it connects to somewhere already developed
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.