Having a transit agency achieve solvency requires accepting transit systems with lots of coverage cannot be a substitute for allowing density of development near transit. It's literally illegal for people to move from areas that would lose coverage to those that still would.https://twitter.com/380kmh/status/977225595246534657 …
Correct! Coverage transit and paratransit should be considered a social service, something like SSDI--they are ipso facto not MASS transit, they are not trying to accomplish the same objectives as mass transit.
-
-
I've always wondered why nobody seems to ever propose offering housing subsidies for paratransit customers in poorly served areas. Some users could probably actually (partially?) use regular transit in best neighborhoods.
-
But even if a couple hundred $ housing subsidy resulted in 2-3 fewer trips per week, it'd break even.
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.