A
Anonymous08/08/26, 04:00No.2079200
Should public transit focus on access or efficiency?
Access means you have full access to underused (but possibly vital to some) routes and night/weekend service at the cost of undermining the "public transit is efficient" argument, but efficiency means you cut those routes and timetables.
Can't have both in a single system.
31
Replies
A
Anon08/08/26, 08:19No.2079205
Focusing on efficiency almost always means a compromise in passenger safety so it's pretty much a non-starter
A
Anon08/09/26, 06:07No.2079245
it should focus on not being a financial drain on the taxpayer
A
Anon08/09/26, 19:52No.2079286
I think it should focus exclusively on running over small, fluffy, adorable animals.
A
Anon08/10/26, 14:46No.2079327
Efficiency is gutting your way to irrelevance. Access costs more money, but cities gain the investment back in increased traffic density, an increased labor pool, and increased economic activity from lower-income residents. Also, I think the "efficient" model of ferrying people from suburbs to central business districts is dead. A lot traditional desk jobs either moved out to exburbs or went hybrid/remote. If anything, transit should focus on serving hospitality and medical workers. Which should mean more night/weekend service.
A
Anon08/10/26, 16:20No.2079332
IMO it should focus on access. If it is not a public enterprise but a state service it should be available to as many citizens as possible, tertiary lines and stations should not be culled, driving rural areas to become even less attractive to some while turboing the hellholes towns are.
HOWEVER
O
W
E
V
E
R
Almost all public transport known to me is motorized transport and thus a straight, white, healthy, adult male must reject it. Rip up the tracks and highways, torch the stations, sink the ships and monkey wrench the airplanes.
A
Anon08/10/26, 18:44No.2079347
>Can't have both in a single system.
So split the system into two models.
Japan did this with their rail system. All the EFFICIENT routes stayed private. All the inefficient niche routes that still serve a useful function for their surrounding community were converted to a public/private split trust.
They can remain interoperable and have the same minimum standards, but operate under different financial systems and incentives.
A
Anon08/16/26, 18:05No.2079756
>Should public transit focus on access or efficiency?
That's actually the wrong problem.Reformulate it as:> How can a transportation network provide universal access without requiring universal high-capacity service?now you can have both, but ARIZ reveals that the contradiction is partly caused by treating “transit service” as one homogeneous system. The trick is to move the contradiction to the service mode / capacity allocation, rather than forcing every route to satisfy both goals simultaneously.For example, keep rail and bus as fixed scheduled service in high demand areas and minibus taxi/uber in low demand areas, problem solved.
A
Anon08/24/26, 08:17No.2080342
If I can't get everywhere in the city it's not effective public transit, just a commute/shopping line.
A
Anon08/24/26, 10:01No.2080346
Privatise and deregulate the whole lot.