bat_in_the_stacks

bat_in_the_stacks t1_jdi83w3 wrote

They are legally mandated to be taught. The charters, which are publicly funded, kick out the problem cases. The kids go back to regular public schools. Then the charters advertise how their test scores are higher and their graduation rates are higher than regular public schools. They use this to justify funding more charters. As this cycle progresses, they suck up more and more of the public school funding due to the unfair playing field.

20

bat_in_the_stacks t1_jcwxr9f wrote

But what's the point? It adds stress to the commute in order to charge someone who lives in a different borough than they work in more? That's likely a regressive fee structure for the most part because the poorer you are, the less likely you can live near where you work (which saves valuable time every day). I don't think anyone is clamoring for changing the MTA fee structure to make it distance based.

0

bat_in_the_stacks t1_jbro9ni wrote

The decision makers on this are clueless.

No one needs open gangways between cars. We know to spread out on the platform.

No one needs red and green light indicators to warn of the train's departure. It's the subway, not the LIRR.

Wider doors just mean fewer seats.

"Additional accessible seating" - how many wheelchair bound people will be in one train car? Between poor elevator coverage and wheelchair bound active adults being a small percent of the population, I think the current cars have enough flip up seats or space at the ends.

"Brighter lighting and signage" - hopefully not compared to the more recent trains. They're already as bright as the sun compared to the older models still running on the R line.

−13

bat_in_the_stacks t1_j3qsars wrote

Only if most of the produced items commonly survive. If one stove happened to be produced on a golden day 80 years ago when all forces aligned to make it indestructible, but the rest of the line has since blown up, highlighting that one good one isn't useful.

5