That accounts for the sweet spot wrt costs. As for ridership: typically, the bulk of a metropolitan area's population is suburban
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
That population doesn't stay put in the suburbs, though, and frequently travels to and from the city center (or its subcenters)
1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Now, this doesn't mean you can *ignore* urban transit, which is the sort of keystone of the entire system--but that however important...
1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...transit in the urban core may be, it is unlikely to carry the volumes of people that suburban transit carries, and so won't make as much
1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
The necessary disclaimer in all this is that it presupposes urban and suburban transit are operated at the same service standards
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
That is, suburban transit can *never* pull its weight if it doesn't also have high-frequency all-day service
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
"Suburban transit" here strictly refers to its geography, NOT to a different standard of service--this is what America gets badly wrong...
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...with its notion of "commuter rail," thinking suburban transit is only viable for a particular sort of travel, rather than general purpose
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
This is maybe an uninformed question, but lower density doesn't inherently make suburban transit harder to sustain?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatttttttttB
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In particular it means that half-measures that might still work in a denser environment will never work there: go big or go home
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.