2 ms·
I'm not entirely sure I get your argument. The MBTA faces a bunch of horrible infrastructure limitations: 1. Only two rails for all subway lines, so a lot of
by jeffasinger 9y ago
I'm not entirely sure I get your argument.
The MBTA faces a bunch of horrible infrastructure limitations:
1. Only two rails for all subway lines, so a lot of the maintenance requires downtime.
2. The green line is on horribly dated signaling mechanisms, and also has to deal with traffic at various points.
3. The commuter rail has terrible stations, often requiring a very long time boarding, and single tracks at many points.
Alot of that would make your operational complaints better. Sure, there are problems with the MBTA, but likely the solution isn't to avoid fixing anything.
- tabeth 9y agoI'd say my argument is that rail based transport is inherently flawed given the politics surrounding funding its maintenance. Using the highway is better and more politically digestible, IMO. 1. Buses would encourage better maintenance of roads -- roads that are used by regular people. Other people like that. 2. Buses can go anywhere cars can. They can be swapped out in a more modular fashion, and are more resilient to delays as rerouting can happen instantly. 3. Buses, finally, can be scaled more easily. A single small town in the South or North Shore that wants public transportation? They now have access with a single double decker, high speed bus.
- kristjansson 9y agoPoint of fact: `regular people ‘ use trains too.
- jandrese 9y agoBuses get stuck in traffic jams. This is the main advantage of a proper metro system: it bypasses all of the idiots that mess up the roads. If you are talking about a small town then buses are the correct solution, but when you're talking about big cities the calculus changes considerably. A 15 minute train ride can take over an hour in a bus easily.