3 ms·
These are implementation details tied to low funding and car oriented infrastructure. For example a bus route becomes significantly faster when it has dedicated
by Tiktaalik 9y ago
These are implementation details tied to low funding and car oriented infrastructure. For example a bus route becomes significantly faster when it has dedicated lanes and doesn't need to share the lane with cars.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> These are implementation details tied to low funding and car oriented infrastructure No, it’s fundamental to the technology. The deadweight cost of the driver mandates a minimum economic size. If you have a big bus, you need a route with lots of people. My long and skinny Cupertino —> Mountain View 6AM/9PM will ne inefficient, or the system will be inefficient—no other options with big buses. A derogatory comparison to Uber is appropriate; it’s amortising the same driver across fewer people. Comparing busses to carpooling is not; I get from and to my precise destination, minimal walking or transferring, and take up no deadweight driver. If you want, think of carpooling as mutualised modularised busses.
- Tiktaalik 9y agoLow ridership routes are a necessary part of a complete public transit system. The reluctance to subsidize low ridership routes is part of what creates a poor mass transit system. The result in a limited public transit system that doesn't match people's needs and people turn to cars. This is exactly what I'm talking about.