🚀 go-pugleaf

spike@coke.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) writes:
>	Me, I'd like to see the street cars back.  I think they are
>cool.  Other people argue the points of:
>...
>	* More frequent (but you could just run more buses).
>	* More convenient/Cheaper (no transfer at Kenmore).

I never could understand why the T has its head in the sand so much
on that latter point.  A lot of other transit authorities issue passes/
transfers upon request, good either for a certain number of "hops" on
the system or for a certain amount of time.  The mode of transit, bus
or trolley, really shouldn't matter given the fact that a single authority
runs both.

This, I would argue, makes the whole system more enticing and "seamless".
It's that latter point which makes a car so attractive around Boston:
within Route 128 and outside rush hour, you can get between virtually any
two points within 15 or 30 minutes, without really having to think much
about routes and scheduling.  In a place like New York or San Francisco,
the car is an annoyance (you have to know exactly which route to take
and what time of day to avoid in a car), but the transit system can
effectively take you between any two points in a predictable amount of
time.

Whenever anyone proposes doing the above (opening a new trolley line,
or the like) people howl that it'll be inconvenient and costly.  THAT'S
JUST BECAUSE THE T DOESN'T EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER TRANSFERS.  Public
demand for the system would skyrocket if they'd just grant us this one
little thing.  It'd even be worth a fare increase.

So, why is that that the T's is so intransigent on this?  What's the
history and the modern-day rationale?

-rich
Followups to ne.politics.