3 ms·
> The money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport. > There is a finite pool of money
by 1024core 3y ago
> The money spent on that long distance alternate transport can be better spent enhancing existing short distance transport.
> There is a finite pool of money that can be spent on infrastructure.
Exactly. The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else. That is the most useful metric.
If spending $100B on SF to LA (400mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, then that's 400M passenger-miles, or 250 dollars per pax-mile.
But if spending $5B on (say) SF to SJ (50mi) impacts 1M passengers per year, which is 50M passenger-miles, then it is 100 dollars per pax-mile, a much better tradeoff.
- alephnerd 3y ago> The metric should be passenger-miles, nothing else San Jose to SF (Caltrain) has a yearly ridership of 5.5 Million. Los Angeles to SF has a yearly ridership of 2.2 Million. I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently.
- 1024core 3y ago> I don't think you've ever been to California, or at least haven't had to commute recently. I live in California, chief. You know what they say about making ASSumptions? And I was using round numbers to make the calculations easier and the point easier to understand.