Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build...
by chgs on Sunday June 02, 2024 @02:00PM
(#40556038)
Who benefits from running empty buses?
What population density do you need to sustain a 15 minute service from point A to point B on a Sunday at 6am? Or 9pm?
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build...
by blactuary on Sunday June 02, 2024 @02:07PM
(#40556089)
The point is that if you fund transit instead of subsidizing cars in a hundred different ways, the buses will not be empty
Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build...
by nilamo on Sunday June 02, 2024 @02:56PM
(#40556439)
Who benefits from not having service?
Because the cost of living in a society is helping to drive that society forward, even though you personally aren't benefiting from every dollar spent. Would that same person balk at paying emergency services, even if they aren't the ones riding an ambulance or getting help from a cop?
But even more importantly, the whole issue of cost is misplaced, imo. It's all based on millage, which ends up meaning public transport costs less than $20/year to maintain. There's no reason I'm ever going to complain about $20/year to keep buses running, and I look very questioningly at people who do complain about it. It's so small, I feel like they're making proxy arguments, or don't understand how millage works.