If you want transit to be a useful way for lots of people to travel, focus on high ridership.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @IronEconomist @380kmh
Similarly ending unprofitable light rail in the north of England can effectively kill off villages leaving expensive social...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IronEconomist @380kmh
...problems like elderly people unable to attend hospital appointments with local govt eventually picking up the tab.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
yes, there are clear reasons why coverage matters--tho again, is transit best way for gov to get elderly to hospitals?
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.