Read the piece on thetransitbrief.net ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsI've talked about this before, but I think redundancy is a really underrated part of great transit networks. Giving you multiple ways to get from one place to another is important because when you need to shut down for inevitable maintenance, when there are inevitable problems, or when you want to reroute people because of an event or something, having redundancy is what allows you to do that.
Their wordsAnd that's because ultimately what makes it transportation system good is less at scale, but it's ability to connect to important places and cities only have so many important places.
Their wordsI've argued in the past that a model of transit building where you add a new line every couple of years is probably a healthier place than one where you do it every couple of decades because it keeps the institutional capacity to build new infrastructure alive and well.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.