4 ms·
Imo some level of service even in areas not all that favorable to transit is reasonable. Or at least, I think it's possible to do at least slightly better. I no
by mjn 9y ago
Imo some level of service even in areas not all that favorable to transit is reasonable. Or at least, I think it's possible to do at least slightly better. I now live in a fairly rural part of the UK, a remote region (Cornwall) that has no real urban areas. And yet just about every population concentration of over 1000 people or so, here, has a bus that does at least one round-trip a day. Towns of over 20,000 people have very good, regular service. Of course it's subsidized, and in the smaller villages it might literally only be once a day in each direction, but a service does run.
In many American towns and suburbs it seems not even that level of service is available. And it's not due to the distances or population density either. I used to live in a suburb of Houston, TX that had 60,000 people, was about 20 miles from downtown, and it had no bus service! Now I live in a smaller and more remote town in the UK, and it has decent bus service.
- TulliusCicero 9y agoThe demographic we're talking about is the exact same one that hates transit and will refuse to fund it. It's not unlike the rural areas in the US that are heavily dependent on government subsidies that they vote against.