Concerning transit--there are two diametrically opposed goals that inform a transit system's structure: coverage and ridership
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Coverage as a goal means designing a transit system that reaches everywhere, that nobody is too far away from to use.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Ridership as a goal means designing a transit system that maximizes the number of people using it, building transit where most convenient.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
If you followed my earlier thread, you know this means the coverage goal is based on the loyalty sense, the ridership goal on transactions
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Where government is involved in transit it will--as an institution premised on loyalty to its people and their loyalty to it--seek coverage
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
USgov funded rail projects disturbing - occurring in areas with dwindling potential ridership #'s, shows DISLOYALTY toward taxpayers
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MAGApupper @380kmh
light rail systems in US cities PURPOSELY kept incompatible, throws entire concept of government priority = coverage into disarray
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MAGApupper @380kmh
people in all cities would welcome the additional transit options BUT preemptive sabotage via incompatible infrastructure prevents
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MAGApupper @380kmh
and so, light rail becomes mere fixed bus routes, zero accountability to planners, America NEEDS a higher authority on this matter
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
the key difference between light rail and fixed buses isn't that one uses rails, it's all about ROW exclusivity
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.