4 ms·
The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line. I think you're making
by flomo 2y ago
The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line.
I think you're making a different argument, where trains attract a more well-heeled commuter. Which is why many cities have brought back LRT as part of a redevelopment plan.
- jmward01 2y agoThe argument I am making is that you can only say something was cheaper if it provided the same level of service or better for less money. In the case of the bus transition it provided worse service as indicated by utilization dropping. I am also making the argument that evaluating the value of transit shouldn't rest entirely on the cost of that service and ridership but on the value as a whole it brings to a city. I mentioned NYC because the evidence there (and in other cities that have implemented congestion pricing) is that as ridership goes up the economic, environment, and social health of a city also goes up. Point being, the bus transition had a very negative value impact. I will also add a final argument, as your ridership drops things like busses may appear less costly per ride simply because you are loosing volume and low volume routes are likely easier to service by bus so, again, cheaper but not an apples to apples comparison.
- flomo 2y agoYes, I like trains and wish we had better transit. I'm responding to the claim streetcars were "torn up for cars", which was not really the case (and frequently subject to a conspiracy theory).