4 ms·
> We have one car per driver and expect to maintain or exceed that ratio for the next three decades as we can’t afford to spend the increased time needed to do
by namdnay 3y ago
> We have one car per driver and expect to maintain or exceed that ratio for the next three decades as we can’t afford to spend the increased time needed to do all trips via transit. Or even transit plus ride-share.
That's exactly what needs to be fought. A bit of carrot, a bit of stick
- sokoloff 3y agoI'd love to see public transit's utility improved, in order to be remotely competitive with the current utility of the auto. What I mostly see are plans to nerf the utility of the auto, in order to make it competitive with the current utility of public transit.
- smolder 3y ago> I'd love to see public transit's utility improved Me, too. For instance, I'd like to see some modern effort to reduce the effects of the tinnitus-causing screeching of rail cars on the MBTA. For daily commuters who take particular routes, the noise pollution is a serious issue. For another example, I'm reasonably sure regenerative breaking is not a thing for the light and medium rail, (might be for the silver line) because those systems are old enough designs that efficiency wasn't so much of a concern. Rather, I recall hearing they use big resistor packs to turn speed into heat, and maybe stink up a station when they fail.
- ryukafalz 3y agoI'll remind you that you're commenting on an article about a new rapid transit system, which I'd certainly call improving public transit's utility.
- glompers 3y agoAFAIK sokoloff was commenting on a GP. And that poster's further comments. And they didn't give any clear indication that they have indeed read TFA while they were engaging in discussion with sokoloff.