5 ms·
Also, working from home would reduce the demand for the train routes. This in turn would mean that the route would be scheduled more sparsely, or even disconti
by m000 4y ago
Also, working from home would reduce the demand for the train routes. This in turn would mean that the route would be scheduled more sparsely, or even discontinued*. Which would force more people to use a car.
*And this is why management and operation of public utilities should be policy-driven rather than profit-driven.
- humanrebar 4y agoIf they're not commuting, they're also using the car less.
- m000 4y agoYes, but those who can't WFH and used to commute by train may find themselves having to use a car again. Not to mention that this will force the use of cars for everything else, in addition to work commute.
- neutronicus 4y agoFWIW, commuter demand has sort of a complicated effect on train routes. Commuters generally want heavy rail to get them from where their housing dollar goes farthest to where the highest wage is, and back, riding twice a day, usually over a significant distance. Fast trains, stops widely-spaced so they can hit top speed. This is at odds with local service for residents, who want trains with tightly-spaced stops and care more about frequency than speed. I live in a dense city with largely non-functional rail transit (Baltimore), and IMO part of the problem is that our public transit options can't decide if they want to be commuter rail or local service and wind up being terrible for both (too slow for commuters because it's light rail, too infrequent for local traffic because of the cost of running a bunch of trains out to the burbs).