@tunetardis@PeepinGoodArgs PT is usually cost effective when any of the costs of driving are actually put on the driver
But in most cities (we all know the exceptions) essentially every commute other than suburb to CBD is much faster by car, and even then the PT option is too frequently only viable if your work hours are typical (as in the same as 30+% of the other workers), outside of that frequency is too low
Cities with mediocre to good PT need 5~20x the services to make it a good option
@tunetardis@PeepinGoodArgs Until PT is a good option for all workers, free PT is a subsidy for well paid city office workers. It is a nice thing, but isn’t an effective way to spend money.
Good reasons to implement it are that it makes boarding buses and trains faster and saves money on infrastructure.
So I like free PT, but I’d rather increase services.
@tunetardis @PeepinGoodArgs PT is usually cost effective when any of the costs of driving are actually put on the driver
But in most cities (we all know the exceptions) essentially every commute other than suburb to CBD is much faster by car, and even then the PT option is too frequently only viable if your work hours are typical (as in the same as 30+% of the other workers), outside of that frequency is too low
Cities with mediocre to good PT need 5~20x the services to make it a good option
@tunetardis @PeepinGoodArgs Until PT is a good option for all workers, free PT is a subsidy for well paid city office workers. It is a nice thing, but isn’t an effective way to spend money.
Good reasons to implement it are that it makes boarding buses and trains faster and saves money on infrastructure.
So I like free PT, but I’d rather increase services.