unimaginative2
Senior Member
Obviously spending more on something that serves people less well is ridiculous. But transit advocates saying "We can't afford it" to an inarguably superior service is equally ridiculous. Drum, there are a lot of people out there who have full time jobs determining what governments can and can't afford, and prioritizing. It's not your "job" as a transit advocate to decide that. You keep saying "Why should 100,000 riders suffer for 50,000 to benefit?" As an advocate, you should be proposing solutions so that all 150,000 riders get good service! Then, if budgets are too limited, governments can start to prioritize. It just doesn't happen in any other sector. Health care advocates don't say "Don't build this excellent new hospital, because somewhere someone else will still have a lousy one." They demand good hospitals in every community. Do they get everything they ask for? Of course not. But they get a hell of a lot more than they would if they fought amongst themselves over whose pet project deserves to be advocated and whose is "unaffordable" based on some imagined understanding of the government budgetary process.
"Building up ridership for the next step" shows how you've latched on to this idea that only when masses of people for some reason still ride an unappealing service, do we choose to "reward" them with a modest improvement. Nothing too good, though! We shouldn't build anything that would still be pleasant to ride after more than a few years.
"Building up ridership for the next step" shows how you've latched on to this idea that only when masses of people for some reason still ride an unappealing service, do we choose to "reward" them with a modest improvement. Nothing too good, though! We shouldn't build anything that would still be pleasant to ride after more than a few years.