...specifically, the argument I will always heed is "ridership will not cover the cost of operations."
-
-
-
My suspicion is that ridership can cover costs in certain cities--even small ones--if the railways are built and operated sensibly...
-
...but that most of the country doesn't have a viable market for it. There are two further points here...
-
...one is that existing systems require drastic overhauls in order to actually get ridership up and operating costs down.
-
The second is that there are places *not* currently served by rail transit which could support it through ridership, if it were built.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I think the way bigger problem with the Eagle is it comes once a day in either direction--no use for actual regular travel
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
on twitter? constantly; irl? few will say so explicitly
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not sure it's impossible here, but it's certainly easier to make it cost-effective in more-compact Europe than in the sprawl here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most Americans don't see the need of trains when over 50% of adults own cars. Perhaps small efficient railways in cities would benefit
-
people living downtown but still. America has a very small market for passenger trains
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.