For profitable transit service, the suburban market is critical--lower costs than urban or intercity combined with higher potential traffic
-
-
The necessary disclaimer in all this is that it presupposes urban and suburban transit are operated at the same service standards
-
That is, suburban transit can *never* pull its weight if it doesn't also have high-frequency all-day service
-
"Suburban transit" here strictly refers to its geography, NOT to a different standard of service--this is what America gets badly wrong...
-
...with its notion of "commuter rail," thinking suburban transit is only viable for a particular sort of travel, rather than general purpose
-
This is maybe an uninformed question, but lower density doesn't inherently make suburban transit harder to sustain?
-
it means fewer boards at any given stop, but this gets outweighed by the number of stops involved--assuming, again, hi-freq all-day service
-
In particular it means that half-measures that might still work in a denser environment will never work there: go big or go home
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.