|
|
| Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center (1253759) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Thu Oct 17 00:58:12 2013, in response to Re: part 2: PHOTOS: Pennsauken Transit Center, posted by WillD on Wed Oct 16 20:57:54 2013. They're using the same accounting used for all other modes - Yes, I was referring to all modes.that's the way they've chosen - Just means that their figures are meaningless, use sound figuring. full cost accounting - Yes the $80 daily figure would be trimmed a bit, but the River Line is still too costly. how about we address that problem - I would gladly see total highway and airport costs, including surrounding impacts put on an "honest" basis. More so as doing that for all transport would resolve which ones the riders will fully pay for. As a generality, the "the other guy is doing it" fallacy is not going to be one that leads to a good position. That's an abjectly ignorant statement - and you would actually make an un-ignorant, meaningful difference to the finding that providing each citizen with weekly transportation to his workplace costs in nieghbourhood of $80 times 5 days? The system was not built because of the weekend business and the weekend figures seem unlikely to change how much subsidy the project needed to provide its core weekday service. I recollect a co-worker writing out a state of the art, high tech proposal. Then he wrote "reality check" and filled out what turned out to be a more meaningful assessment of the idea. I think that's what River Line needed. Bill |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|