>>1838785Steelmanning it, many American transportation networks are designed around getting (male, white-collar) commuters from their homes to a CBD and anyone not in that category has to awkwardly fit their schedule/movements around it. Indifferently-designed bus networks and the lack of non-radial rapid transit routes or true regional rail would be examples.
Transit investment had a multi-decade hiatus until investment/affluent types began returning to cities, meaning that network extension failed to keep up with cities as they changed. Scarce rapid transit gives areas it serves a price premium, keeping low-income populations limited in what they can access.
Income of bus riders is lower than income of rail riders, but rail gets disproportionate investment and prestige (Los Angeles had a massive controversy over this in the 1990s) while buses are the first to get funding reduced.
Not that the writer and those like her could fix any of those issues. The solution to most of those problems is to build a competent, comprehensive system that keeps costs under control to create more funds for expanding and improving services. Hiring buzzword-of-the-week 'consultants' does nothing for this.
