Buses Need Our Love More Than Ever(citylab.com)
citylab.com
Buses Need Our Love More Than Ever
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/love-the-bus-save-your-city/559262/
247 comments
A sample of the population of people who take transit every day is different from a sample of the population in general. When walking down the street you might occasionally run across people who you're not comfortable walking near, but it's relatively rare. Increase the volume of those taking transit and you'll note that only the volume of people you're comfortable riding with will rise.
The massive disincentives to take public transit has slowly built up this self-fulfilling prophecy.
(As a brief supporting empirical note, up here in vancouver I rarely run across such folks when commuting in from New West, while I often run across them in downtown buses. There is a much higher volume moving people in from new west than moving local traffic in downtown)
The massive disincentives to take public transit has slowly built up this self-fulfilling prophecy.
(As a brief supporting empirical note, up here in vancouver I rarely run across such folks when commuting in from New West, while I often run across them in downtown buses. There is a much higher volume moving people in from new west than moving local traffic in downtown)
Here in London, bus ridership has also been in decline for a few years now. But it's pretty clear the reasons are: 1) the rise of Uber and friends, 2) improvements to the Tube and Rail networks (new trains, better service frequency, longer operating hours, etc), and 3) the increase in popularity of cycling.
Yes, sometimes there are weird people on the bus who might make you feel uncomfortable. Yes, sometimes the bus isn't clean and it's full of litter. Sometimes someone has decided to leave their stinky orange peel, banana skin, or chicken bones on the seat. Yes, the bus is powered by a stinky noisy diesel engine with fumes that make you feel nauseous.
But none of this is anything new - it's always been that way! It's just that people have more alternatives now.
Yes, sometimes there are weird people on the bus who might make you feel uncomfortable. Yes, sometimes the bus isn't clean and it's full of litter. Sometimes someone has decided to leave their stinky orange peel, banana skin, or chicken bones on the seat. Yes, the bus is powered by a stinky noisy diesel engine with fumes that make you feel nauseous.
But none of this is anything new - it's always been that way! It's just that people have more alternatives now.
Honestly, I don't think London buses have the same problems as US buses.
Agreed, London buses are in a much better state than American in general. But then you should be comparing them with NY.
The main issue of London buses is that they can be slower over long distances.
But over shorter distances, you are normally less crammed in, have a view with sunlight rather than tunnels, don't have to go all the way down to the tube and back up.
The main issue of London buses is that they can be slower over long distances.
But over shorter distances, you are normally less crammed in, have a view with sunlight rather than tunnels, don't have to go all the way down to the tube and back up.
I wonder if we couldn't have a "business class" option. When I took Muni in SF every day I'd have happily paid a little extra for some more comfort and less likelihood of a homeless person who smells like urine nearby. That money could even be used to subsidize the economy tickets. Maybe it might even work out that we could have a freemium model.
There’s little that irritates me more about my local trains than the fact every one of them has ~20% of carriages dedicated to first class at a huge markup. If they had capacity I’d be fine, but what happens is that you have people standing for a 2 hour journey while there’s empty seats that they’re not allowed to go and sit on.
I don't think my suggestion is appropriate everywhere. I do think it would work well in a place like San Francisco. I also think it would need to be physically secured so that you can only get in with a valid ticket otherwise you are going to keep pleasant, but poor people out and crazy people who she'll like urine would ignore the restrictions.
JR does this with many of their trains. There are green cars that you can get a special pass for at the station platform. I would only buy it for long trips by train, for general commuting I think it's a little unnecessary. That said JR is cheaper than the BART and MUNI but doesn't seem to have many undesirable carriage companions.
Yes but its a virtuous or downward cycle. Really nice buses with wi-fi and improved reliability and frequency (of which the article discussed several possible approaches for) could attract more upper-middle class workers, especially young ones. Not unlike how neighborhoods gentrify.
It's definitely something that plays into how I ride the bus. My route has an express line that runs during peak hours and the same normal route, both get me to my destination within a few minutes of each other. The express route is people going downtown for work. The normal route goes through the rough areas and gets filled up with people hassling the driver for a free ride and people walking on with open beers at 8am and people openly drug dealing. It makes it pretty easy to decide which one to ride.
In a properly functioning system the ratio should be higher. It should cost significantly more for a private transport option.
Take Tokyo, which has grrat public transit. 2 stops om a train may cost $2-$3 but the same rpute by taxi will cost you $30-$40.
Take Tokyo, which has grrat public transit. 2 stops om a train may cost $2-$3 but the same rpute by taxi will cost you $30-$40.
Sometimes it's not even the passengers... it's the driver.
Riding the 152 in Chicago one snowy night (about seven years ago), the bus suddenly stopped and the driver made everyone get off into the snow because it was the end of his shift. When we asked when the next bus was, he said there wouldn't be once because he was the last bus of the night.
I ended up walking about a mile to the nearest Blue Line subway station, since the Blue Line runs 24/7.
Riding the 152 in Chicago one snowy night (about seven years ago), the bus suddenly stopped and the driver made everyone get off into the snow because it was the end of his shift. When we asked when the next bus was, he said there wouldn't be once because he was the last bus of the night.
I ended up walking about a mile to the nearest Blue Line subway station, since the Blue Line runs 24/7.
That story sounds like it goes against intended policy, similar to complaining about a Barista throwing your coffee in your face isn't a really good argument against a chain of coffee shops.
If you reported the incident, do you know if the driver was reprimanded?
If you reported the incident, do you know if the driver was reprimanded?
I didn't report it. It was very late at night and I just wanted to get home. Plus, I've only had one interaction with authority in Chicago[0], and after that I learned to keep my head down and stay off the radar.
[0]: On the day I moved to Chicago, I called 911 to report a drug deal in the alley behind my building. The cops arrived an hour later and the officer told me that I was wasting their time. I'll never forget him saying, "We don't do that in the big city."
[0]: On the day I moved to Chicago, I called 911 to report a drug deal in the alley behind my building. The cops arrived an hour later and the officer told me that I was wasting their time. I'll never forget him saying, "We don't do that in the big city."
If you were on an Eastbound 152, the schedule clearly indicates that the last Eastbound 152's of the night only go to Central, so while perhaps the driver may not have communicated it properly, they were right. If it was a westbound 152 then that's ridiculous and you should have called CTA.
Not much use to you now but the the parallel 80 (Irving Park) and 77 (Belmont) are each half a mile away (in opposite directions) and both run more more frequently and later (the 77 runs almost all night... just a ~2 hour gap between 2 am and 4 am).
Not much use to you now but the the parallel 80 (Irving Park) and 77 (Belmont) are each half a mile away (in opposite directions) and both run more more frequently and later (the 77 runs almost all night... just a ~2 hour gap between 2 am and 4 am).
It was eastbound. We got chucked out in front of Lane Tech and WGN. I was new to the city at the time and didn't know about the 80. I ended up taking that occasionally in the future (going the opposite direction) when there was bad weather because taking the 146(?) up Lake Shore Drive and connecting to the 80 was better than connecting to the 152 because I could wait in Starbucks for the 80, but the 152 connecting stop is exposed to the winter winds off the lake.
Yeah one disadvantage of buses is that you really have to know the system pretty well... by the time you ask Google Maps how you should get home it might be too late.
Refuse to leave the bus, point out that you’re willing to call police and wait for them. Casually mention that the driver will get home faster by finishing their route than forcing you to waste a lot of his time in the process of getting him fired.
Tl;Dr don’t put up with that shit. Ever.
Tl;Dr don’t put up with that shit. Ever.
I think there's a tipping point where this is no longer the case. I live in Seattle, a great city for bus rides, and at least at rush hour, it's 95% office commuters going to/from work. No problems if you travel at rush hour.
Time and cost affect this calculus though. BART has its fair share of "undesirables" but it's the fastest way to get from downtown SF to Oakland during rush hour, so people tolerate it more than they would otherwise.
Absolutely. What I don’t know is if the problem is a small number of very bad actors who could probably be blacklisted, or the average “co-rider tolerability” of a larger number of people (such that it would require a whitelist).
I'm not sure the issue is either. Yes, there are some bad actors that everyone would rather not travel with for various reasons (those who are aggressive/commit various crimes on public transport for example), but then there's a much larger group that each individual might not get along with or tolerate, and that's a large part of the reason private cars and Uber type services are preferred when available. People's preferences are different, and bus/train services are always going to be a compromise in that aspect.
A fun experiment would be to take a bus line with 20 buses and rather than a uniform $2 fare, do identical buses with a each bus charging one of $0, $1, $5, $10, $50 fares. (Maybe also experiment with something other than just farebox fare — some buses are $50/mo unlimited rides, some are $50 for 10 prepaid rides, etc)
No one's going to publicly agree with you, but they all do.
Woah, is this a reverse no true Scotsman? What fallacy is this?
Just to instantly dismember your argument, which hinges on the word "they all," I'll put my hand up as a "I'd ride next to homeless every day if it saves me transit money."
Just to instantly dismember your argument, which hinges on the word "they all," I'll put my hand up as a "I'd ride next to homeless every day if it saves me transit money."
No you wouldn't. When people say 'homeless', they don't care about the residential state of the individual, but the physical state. I couldn't care less if a fellow rider is homeless as long as they don't stink and are not rude or violent. I don't even care if they're drunk as long as they don't interact with me.
I take the bus to work everyday here in UK and besides some people squashing too close to me when they sit down (which is more to do with the size of the seats, to be fair), it's perfectly fine.
I take the bus to work everyday here in UK and besides some people squashing too close to me when they sit down (which is more to do with the size of the seats, to be fair), it's perfectly fine.
Haha, it's wonderful when people speak for me so confidently, because it's the only time in my life I get to justifiably completely negate what is being said to me.
So once again: yup, I would. Pissy, shit covered insane people. Whatever.
I hope you remember before trying again that people exist that clean up blood and shit for a living and are unfazed by it. There's also the homeless outreach teams that have already "seen it all."
For the record, I do already ride the bus and Bart when it's the convenient option, and I've already had to deal with all the shit those above are claiming are impossible to handle.
So once again: yup, I would. Pissy, shit covered insane people. Whatever.
I hope you remember before trying again that people exist that clean up blood and shit for a living and are unfazed by it. There's also the homeless outreach teams that have already "seen it all."
For the record, I do already ride the bus and Bart when it's the convenient option, and I've already had to deal with all the shit those above are claiming are impossible to handle.
This is exactly why I take the bus outside of peak hours though! In particular the M20 from State St/Whitehall up 8th avenue. The MTA is so stigmatized by people under 50 here where "only crazy people and the elderly take the bus".
I'm guaranteed a nice, quiet ride where I get a seat the whole way. It's a little slower, but not much. Meanwhile, the subway is just about unbearable always.
The tricky part is getting the bus driver to even stop for you if you don't "look like you take the bus". 80% of the time I'll be waving them down at the stop and they'll just blow past it if nobody requests the stop inside.
I'm guaranteed a nice, quiet ride where I get a seat the whole way. It's a little slower, but not much. Meanwhile, the subway is just about unbearable always.
The tricky part is getting the bus driver to even stop for you if you don't "look like you take the bus". 80% of the time I'll be waving them down at the stop and they'll just blow past it if nobody requests the stop inside.
The public already publicly agrees on this. AB716 gives BART (and other CA transportation agencies) the right to give riders a "stay away" order. If my personal interactions with BARTPD are indications, this law is however designed to keep away people who look like "undesirables," which is why these kinds of things are generally a bad idea.
That particular complaint has been around a long time: I heard it from a co-worker in about 1980, before a fair number of the HN readers were born.
These days, I commute by bus, unless I walk to or from work. That puts me on the bus between seven and ten times a week. The riders vary by hours, but I seldom see a rider I really don't want to sit beside.
These days, I commute by bus, unless I walk to or from work. That puts me on the bus between seven and ten times a week. The riders vary by hours, but I seldom see a rider I really don't want to sit beside.
Especially if you are a germ-a-phoebe like myself. My friend accidentally sat in a seat soaked in urine by the previous passenger, and had to go back home to change clothes of course. I decided ... nope. And then there is the occasional smoker, so if you have asthma ...
Going by the descriptions here, riding the bus in the US is worse than riding one in India.
In Germany, smoking on a bus is unthinkable, and the bus drivers (and other passengers) will throw you out pretty much immediately if you lit a cigarette.
I've also never heard of people peeing in the bus, let alone encountered that, even though I regularly use public transit at all times of day and night.
In Germany, smoking on a bus is unthinkable, and the bus drivers (and other passengers) will throw you out pretty much immediately if you lit a cigarette.
I've also never heard of people peeing in the bus, let alone encountered that, even though I regularly use public transit at all times of day and night.
>Going by the descriptions here, riding the bus in the US is worse than riding one in India.
You seem to be under the impression that the US is an advanced country full of civilized people like Germany, Norway, Japan, etc. You've obviously never been here.
You seem to be under the impression that the US is an advanced country full of civilized people like Germany, Norway, Japan, etc. You've obviously never been here.
I've been there once in 2004. My memory is a bit hazy, but I have definitely never travelled more distance by car in a single week.
Yeah, this shows the other problem in your biased perspective: it sounds like you never actually used the buses here. Coming to the US and driving around in a personal car (esp. if you just go on road trips to remote places like western national parks, as a lot of European tourists seem to do here) is absolutely nothing like what you'll see if you try to take city buses for transit in cities, especially in the poorer sections.
This is one reason why we should be building SkyTran systems instead of pushing more traditional public transit.
[deleted]
Counterpoint: NYC subway. Big fucking deal they're some crazies. The subway is great.
In Paris, night busses have bouncers. (At least the one I used to take)
Why would it be immoral of me to not want to be harassed and threatened on a regular basis during my commute? Because that was basically my experience of depending on busses for ~6 months.
The bus system has to make pretty aggressive tradeoffs in order to be useful to commuters. You can't make it stop at every block in order to make it take less walking to get to the bus stop. Similarly, you can't have parallel lines a block apart. You have to limit the service area so that you can afford to run busses every 5-10 minutes. And you'll want to improve streets so that busses can run down the center and pick up passengers from protected islands, rather than fighting with parking and turning traffic for space.
Like, I take the BART every day into work. It's fantastic. I walk for five to ten minutes to get to the station, a train comes every 5 minutes so I don't have to worry about the train schedule, then I walk another five to ten minutes to get to the office. If the bus experience could match that, it'd take over a lot of commuting.
Like, I take the BART every day into work. It's fantastic. I walk for five to ten minutes to get to the station, a train comes every 5 minutes so I don't have to worry about the train schedule, then I walk another five to ten minutes to get to the office. If the bus experience could match that, it'd take over a lot of commuting.
Like, I take the BART every day into work. It's fantastic.
I walk for five to ten minutes to get to the station, a
train comes every 5 minutes so I don't have to worry about
the train schedule, then I walk another five to ten minutes
to get to the office. If the bus experience could match
that, it'd take over a lot of commuting.
Then I moved to Berkeley. Commute in is every 15 minutes, 50/50 I have to take a transfer on the way in. Commute home is a nightmare: BART has a carriage shortage so they try to shave off cars from longer routes (such as the Richmond line). This means things get really crowded on occasion, and there's a point where a car being crowded begets more crowding, as it takes longer and longer to offboard/onboard people and therefore each subsequent stop has more people to cram on. A majority of the time on my way home when I get a transfer (as there seems to be a Richmond train from SF only for an hour span at the peak of rush hour), the trains are almost an entire cycle late, meaning I've got another 15 minute wait to see two trains come through one after the other.
The point of this is: the problems you raise with busses are also with trains/BART. Some of them are even worse for BART: you have to steeply limit the service area because putting down tracks is stupendously expensive.
This is less a "problem with trains" than it is a "problem with rail in the United States", or maybe just with SF.
Melbourne Metro, for example, has roughly the same amount of weekday riders as BART, 415,000 vs 446,000 respectively, with nearly 5 times(!) the amount of track, at 540mi vs 112mi.
This is, of course, excluding light rail services -- another 150mi of track in Melbourne with some 1,700 stops, and non-Metro heavy-rail services to the other nearby commuter hub cities like Geelong and Ballarat.
Berlin is, from my knowledge, more similar to Melbourne than to SF in this respect.
But y'know what the funny thing is? Everyone in Melbourne hates the bus service. Makes me wonder about what they think about buses in Berlin.
Melbourne Metro, for example, has roughly the same amount of weekday riders as BART, 415,000 vs 446,000 respectively, with nearly 5 times(!) the amount of track, at 540mi vs 112mi.
This is, of course, excluding light rail services -- another 150mi of track in Melbourne with some 1,700 stops, and non-Metro heavy-rail services to the other nearby commuter hub cities like Geelong and Ballarat.
Berlin is, from my knowledge, more similar to Melbourne than to SF in this respect.
But y'know what the funny thing is? Everyone in Melbourne hates the bus service. Makes me wonder about what they think about buses in Berlin.
The problem with BART is that it runs 4 out of 5 lines on the same single stretch of track through SF. So even with the most modern signaling, there will still be 1/4th the maximum train frequency after the individual lines split. The Pittsburg-Bay Point line counteracts this during rush hour with trains that come just into the city and then turn around, but it's still only an average of ~7 mins between trains. Compare with the Victoria line in London which I believe runs 36 trains an hour!
Buses in Berlin are okay, but trains are usually twice as fast. Buses serve the last mile between the train station and your destination.
Had the same experience when I lived over there too. Was pretty surprised West Oakland was as cheap as it was relative to anywhere North Oakland/Berkeley considering how much more access it had to everything.
The price of places under ten minutes from a BART station further out were sharply different to further out in the same area too. You could shave some time off by cycling but then you're the guy with a bike on the packed train.
Seem to recall 20+ minute waits for trains in Berkeley on weekends too (it'd be handy if they let you know this somewhere in the station before you pass the ticket point, but that's another thing), with a transfer required to get into SF?
SF is far from the worst area for public transport, but it'd never come near my best.
The price of places under ten minutes from a BART station further out were sharply different to further out in the same area too. You could shave some time off by cycling but then you're the guy with a bike on the packed train.
Seem to recall 20+ minute waits for trains in Berkeley on weekends too (it'd be handy if they let you know this somewhere in the station before you pass the ticket point, but that's another thing), with a transfer required to get into SF?
SF is far from the worst area for public transport, but it'd never come near my best.
> BART has a carriage shortage so they try to shave off cars from longer routes
This is just crazy. Compared to the cost of new track some additional rolling stock should be almost insignificant. You couldn't come up with a better example of penny wise, pound foolish...
This is just crazy. Compared to the cost of new track some additional rolling stock should be almost insignificant. You couldn't come up with a better example of penny wise, pound foolish...
The rolling stock is actually a very significant cost of the system. In DC, they spent $886 million for Kawasaki to build them 428 railcars in one contract, which comes out to just over $2M per car (and a single train normally has 8 cars). According to Wikipedia, they now have 500 of these 7000-series cars in service; that's $1B.
BART is in the process of replacing all their cars now, as nearly all of the ones they're running are long past their expected end of service dates.
First of all, those objections seem very context-specific. Buses work great already in plenty of cities without those problems. It seems like you’re looking for ‘how can buses be better than BART for my specific commute’, not ‘how can buses be better than driving or ridesharing for everybody who doesn’t have another mass transit option already?’
But to your point about stopping in every block: optimizing a bus route along a major avenue in a block-based US city seems like a similar problem to elevator scheduling in a high-rise building. I wonder if similar models to ‘sky lobbies’ and destination selection could be applied to get people more efficiently to their destination.
But to your point about stopping in every block: optimizing a bus route along a major avenue in a block-based US city seems like a similar problem to elevator scheduling in a high-rise building. I wonder if similar models to ‘sky lobbies’ and destination selection could be applied to get people more efficiently to their destination.
>"You can't make it stop at every block in order to make it take less walking to get to the bus stop"
You absolutely can, that's how the main bus lines in Copenhagen operate. Some of the stops are only a couple hundred meters apart, and during most of the day the schedule isn't fixed, it's just signed as 5-8 minutes between buses.
The main A and C bus lines criss-cross the city on bigger streets, usually parallel to each other for a lot of stretches, and occasionally on the exact same streets for short stretches. In addition to this, there are a number of lines that service smaller streets on longer intervals, with the stops a little further apart.
Of course we also have the S-trains and Metro, which step up in distance and grid size, compared to the A and C bus lines.
It works. I rarely have to walk more than a couple of minutes from a bus/train stop to get anywhere I'm going in the Copenhagen area.
And this is with stops basically every other block, buses every 5 minutes in rush hour on the main lines, occasionally parallel lines (where it makes sense) and no artificial limits on the service area.
You absolutely can, that's how the main bus lines in Copenhagen operate. Some of the stops are only a couple hundred meters apart, and during most of the day the schedule isn't fixed, it's just signed as 5-8 minutes between buses.
The main A and C bus lines criss-cross the city on bigger streets, usually parallel to each other for a lot of stretches, and occasionally on the exact same streets for short stretches. In addition to this, there are a number of lines that service smaller streets on longer intervals, with the stops a little further apart.
Of course we also have the S-trains and Metro, which step up in distance and grid size, compared to the A and C bus lines.
It works. I rarely have to walk more than a couple of minutes from a bus/train stop to get anywhere I'm going in the Copenhagen area.
And this is with stops basically every other block, buses every 5 minutes in rush hour on the main lines, occasionally parallel lines (where it makes sense) and no artificial limits on the service area.
Plenty of cities (Chicago, in my experience) have parallel lines 1-2 blocks apart.
For the record, I take the transbay bus to work most days, and it's a similar deal (plus I can almost always get a seat). Slightly less convenient with the schedule (every 10 minutes instead of 5)
For the record, I take the transbay bus to work most days, and it's a similar deal (plus I can almost always get a seat). Slightly less convenient with the schedule (every 10 minutes instead of 5)
It sounds like you're talking about downtown Chicago. There are a lot of bus lines that converge in that area, along with every single train except the yellow line, because the city is hyper-centralized so that's where everyone's commuting to.
In most the city, buses just run along the major thoroughfares, which typically means they are spaced 4-ish city blocks apart.
In most the city, buses just run along the major thoroughfares, which typically means they are spaced 4-ish city blocks apart.
That's exactly the problem, buses can never match that. They can't have too short a route or too fast an interval, it doesn't work when you have huge variance due to personal cars, lights etc. impeding them.
Citylab's push here is in response to South American cities doing exactly that with great success[1]. Initially developed in Curitaba, follow on initiatives in Bogota have been very popular[2]. Basically, treat the bus like a metro. Give them their own lane. Make sure the platform is level with pickup. And you've got a massively cost down subway system. For an inspiring documentary you should check this[3] video out.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/26/curitiba-braz...
[2] http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/mar/21/bogotas-bus-rapid-trans...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/26/curitiba-braz...
[2] http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/mar/21/bogotas-bus-rapid-trans...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI
I recall reading an article a few years ago about Bogotá's transit, where the mayor (I think) said something very interesting. Among other arguments, he made a moral argument about the dedicated lane for transit. Roughly, there's 40 or 50 people on the bus, vs 1-2 per car, and you get, what, 3? 2? cars in the space of a bus. He found it completely unjustified to let the convenience of those 45 people be outweighed by the convenience of the 4 or 5.
I'm not sure that it stacks up perfectly logically, but it's an interesting way to think about it. And it looks like they have a pretty good system.
I'm not sure that it stacks up perfectly logically, but it's an interesting way to think about it. And it looks like they have a pretty good system.
> Roughly, there's 40 or 50 people on the bus, vs 1-2 per car, and you get, what, 3? 2? cars in the space of a bus. He found it completely unjustified to let the convenience of those 45 people be outweighed by the convenience of the 4 or 5.
That's only true if the lane is as full of busses as other lanes are full of cars.
That's only true if the lane is as full of busses as other lanes are full of cars.
> That's only true if the lane is as full of busses as other lanes are full of cars.
1) The density of people per unit road area is about 10 times greater than with cars. A bus lane only needs to carry 1/10th as many buses to come out ahead (and a bus occupies considerably less space than 10 cars).
2) The relevant metric isn't people (or vehicles) per unit road area. It's the lane's flux of people per unit time. On that metric, an free flowing carpool lane will beat a congested regular lane every time (even when the carpool lane appears empty to the layman).
You can do your own back of the napkin calculation, but vehicles have to packed roughly 5 to 10 times denser in the congested lane to achieve the same vehicle flux per unit time.
That means a free flowing carpool lane (>=2 people) only needs about 1/20th the vehicle density per unit area to come out ahead of a congested single-occupancy lane.
It's just no contest with an uncongested bus lane: Buses will win on a people per time metric with only 1% as many vehicles per unit area. To visualize this, 100 closely packed cars (remember, they are not touching!) is about three city blocks long.
1) The density of people per unit road area is about 10 times greater than with cars. A bus lane only needs to carry 1/10th as many buses to come out ahead (and a bus occupies considerably less space than 10 cars).
2) The relevant metric isn't people (or vehicles) per unit road area. It's the lane's flux of people per unit time. On that metric, an free flowing carpool lane will beat a congested regular lane every time (even when the carpool lane appears empty to the layman).
You can do your own back of the napkin calculation, but vehicles have to packed roughly 5 to 10 times denser in the congested lane to achieve the same vehicle flux per unit time.
That means a free flowing carpool lane (>=2 people) only needs about 1/20th the vehicle density per unit area to come out ahead of a congested single-occupancy lane.
It's just no contest with an uncongested bus lane: Buses will win on a people per time metric with only 1% as many vehicles per unit area. To visualize this, 100 closely packed cars (remember, they are not touching!) is about three city blocks long.
Yes, but if the bus is faster, more people will take the bus and so you will add more buses. In places like Quito with dedicated busways, there are buses basically non-stop. Buses can follow one another better than trains too because you don't have the signal system reducing headways.
For the record I'm a huge fan of busses and highly skeptical of trains. I'm sure that there are some places in the world where the Mayor's statement is true. Those places are rare.
In a downtown corridor during rush hour? Sure - I could totally see a lane full of just busses. However, most dedicated bus lanes won't be that busy. This isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for dedicated lanes - just that the reason the Mayor gave was at best hyperbolic and at worst maliciously deceptive.
> more people will take the bus and so you will add more buses.
In a well run business that would be true.
In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized. This means that the more busses that are run, the more money the system loses (not strictly true, but roughly).
What you say should make sense, but it doesn't for important institutional reasons.
In a downtown corridor during rush hour? Sure - I could totally see a lane full of just busses. However, most dedicated bus lanes won't be that busy. This isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for dedicated lanes - just that the reason the Mayor gave was at best hyperbolic and at worst maliciously deceptive.
> more people will take the bus and so you will add more buses.
In a well run business that would be true.
In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized. This means that the more busses that are run, the more money the system loses (not strictly true, but roughly).
What you say should make sense, but it doesn't for important institutional reasons.
> In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized. This means that the more busses that are run, the more money the system loses (not strictly true, but roughly).
So what? Transportation infrastructure for single-passenger vehicles is also subsidized in the US (the gas tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for roads, for instance), and it gets more expensive with more users too (in the form of increased wear on roads requiring more maintenance, or the need to expand roads to accommodate increasing use). But we do it anyway, because transportation infrastructure is a public good. I've never understood the inclination that public transit should stand alone among transportation modes and operate without subsidy.
So what? Transportation infrastructure for single-passenger vehicles is also subsidized in the US (the gas tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for roads, for instance), and it gets more expensive with more users too (in the form of increased wear on roads requiring more maintenance, or the need to expand roads to accommodate increasing use). But we do it anyway, because transportation infrastructure is a public good. I've never understood the inclination that public transit should stand alone among transportation modes and operate without subsidy.
>In a downtown corridor during rush hour? Sure - I could totally see a lane full of just busses. However, most dedicated bus lanes won't be that busy.
These are precisely the places where dedicated bus lanes and BRTs exist. BRT is called bus rapid transit because there is a planned frequency for these buses - therefore a need for consistent, uninterrupted rights of way.
>In a well run business that would be true. In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized.
Only because highly popular bus routes (and train routes) subsidize unpopular routes that exist for the public good and not to make money - neighborhood routes, night buses, etc. In the US, routes are highly subsidized because of a lack of density compared to Europe or Asia.
These are precisely the places where dedicated bus lanes and BRTs exist. BRT is called bus rapid transit because there is a planned frequency for these buses - therefore a need for consistent, uninterrupted rights of way.
>In a well run business that would be true. In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized.
Only because highly popular bus routes (and train routes) subsidize unpopular routes that exist for the public good and not to make money - neighborhood routes, night buses, etc. In the US, routes are highly subsidized because of a lack of density compared to Europe or Asia.
> In the first world, most busses are heavily subsidized.
Public transport makes it possible for more people to use the roads it makes it faster for people that have to go by car. So what you call subsidized is actually a way to activate capital sunk into expensive infrastructure and make it more effective.
Public transport makes it possible for more people to use the roads it makes it faster for people that have to go by car. So what you call subsidized is actually a way to activate capital sunk into expensive infrastructure and make it more effective.
> I'm sure that there are some places in the world where the Mayor's statement is true.
In Europe this is predominantly true (maybe not the UK outside London). There's still massive traffic jam problems but buses certainly during rush hour are full and special lanes are provided for them.
In Europe this is predominantly true (maybe not the UK outside London). There's still massive traffic jam problems but buses certainly during rush hour are full and special lanes are provided for them.
I've seen this same argument about buses only taking up the amount of space as a handful of cars, but I think it's based on an incorrect assumption. Namely, it's only true in a static picture. If you look at the dynamic picture, cars and buses in motion, then buses take up a lot more "room." They're slow to accelerate. They stop frequently. They block traffic when they stop. They're huge, and people can't get around them as easily as they can around cars. They impede traffic in all sorts of ways that cars don't. Buses might still have an advantage, but I don't think it's as large as is claimed. (Separate peeve: it's always assumed that buses are nearly full and cars are nearly empty.)
What you bring up stems from two things, infrastructure needs to prioritize busses, and second comparing busses to single car does not work. Since we are obviously talking about rush hour. At a traffic light in a busy intersection where I live there will be max 15 people in cars, 50-400 people in busses, and about 100 more on the streets walking and bicycling. I think 5 times more people in busses is a pretty good advantage.
I don't disagree (infrastructure should prioritize, or at least accommodate) buses when they're used. But it currently does not. Also, your example seems to be from a dense, urban center, but of course not everyone on those buses started in the city; a lot of them had to get there from somewhere else, and there the advantage is less pronounced the case for dedicated infrastructure harder to make.
These all sound like more reasons to put buses and cars into separate paths.
I would love to see separate lanes for buses and cars. In Hawaii, where I live, there was a proposal for an elevated, bus-only, viaduct that ran the length of a major freeway. This would have enabled buses that run as frequently as trains and are unimpeded by rush hour traffic, and are cheaply and easily scalable with demand. Instead we're getting an elevated train that has disrupted traffic already with its construction, that has blown through its budget with no end in sight, will be stopping short of its original end point due to cost overruns, and is only expected to reduce parallel car traffic by 2%. Ugh.
They did this where I lived in Sweden too. The city wanted a tram line, but couldn't afford it. So they built a bus line. Bought massive triple bendy busses. Even used tram signals at the stoplights. Worked great.
Same in Finland(Helsinki) as well. Its called the joker line, huge busses that go every 8-10 mins. Now theyre actually trying to replace it with a fast tram.
Similar in the Netherlands, plans for a tram line, turned out to be to expensive, got changed to bus line with dedicated lanes. Even though it was built to make an eventual transition to a tram easy, this seems to work better in hindsight than dedicated trams.
I experienced the bus rapid transit in Quito, Ecuador as a kid. [0] It was superb. The stations are enclosed with payment as you enter.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Quito
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Quito
Don't know what it was like years ago, but these days it's a mess and universally hated by Quito residents. The Trolley bus is dirty, crowded and a haven for pickpockets and thugs. The schedule is completely irregular now and it often stops running early for no reason.
Bummer. Maybe it was bad 20 years ago, but from the perspective of a kid who could get all around the city at age 15, it was fantastic. We did also hitchhike by jumping into the backs of trucks too... those were the days.
You're not still there are you?
You're not still there are you?
No I just spent 6 months working there and studying Spanish. Loved the city in general but it does have very real safety issues. I was never robbed myself (I'm 6'3" and scary looking) but every single other person I know who has lived or visited Quito was robbed at least once, usually multiple times. My local Spanish teacher was robbed 4 times in 3 months.
The transmillenio is a mess: https://thebogotapost.com/2017/04/06/transmilenio-transport-...
Though it sounds like less of a mess than the wildcat jitneys and segmented bus companies that came before...
If you're going to do all that, I'd honestly rather go the extra mile and build a tram mile. Trams are superior to buses in terms of comfort.
>They can't have too short a route or too fast an interval, it doesn't work when you have huge variance due to personal cars, lights etc. impeding them.
Lots of cities have found ways around this. Express buses with dedicated rights-of-way in Pittsburgh, for example. Or Chicago's 146 Outer Drive Express and J14 Jeffrey Jump routes are also good examples.
Too often the biggest problem with buses getting around isn't the buses. It's cars driving, turning, or parking illegally in bus lanes.
Lots of cities have found ways around this. Express buses with dedicated rights-of-way in Pittsburgh, for example. Or Chicago's 146 Outer Drive Express and J14 Jeffrey Jump routes are also good examples.
Too often the biggest problem with buses getting around isn't the buses. It's cars driving, turning, or parking illegally in bus lanes.
Which itself is a symptom of infrastructure not meeting capacity. If there were enough parking people wouldn't park illegally.
There will never be enough parking. You might also consider that the 20 m^2 land for a parking spot in prime locations like San Francisco are easily worth >$1000 per month and using that for free parking is part of why your rent is so high.
Close...the infrastructure to focus on here is still transit; if the buses were sufficient, the parking issue would be solved simply by fewer cars on the road.
If there were an appropriate price for parking illegally (please pay this big fine!) people wouldn't park illegally.
If there were no free surface parking every road would magically gain two lanes, e.g. for buses or bikes. Or you could use all that space to increase density. See for example how it works in Tokyo.
Bus rapid transit. Dedicated, sometimes separated, lanes. High throughput stations. Carefully designed light systems, etc. If you do it right you can get a system that is nearly as good as a subway at a fraction of the cost. A lot of cities in South America, for example, have proven that it works already.
I went to school in Ottawa, where they have a 'transitway' [1] that is basically a series of bus-only highways, though there are some parts that are only dedicated lanes.
I wasn't a daily user but it was decent enough - along the route I used to use most often a bus came every 3 minutes during peak times.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitway_(Ottawa)
I wasn't a daily user but it was decent enough - along the route I used to use most often a bus came every 3 minutes during peak times.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitway_(Ottawa)
They can do bus-only lanes though. Ideally, also toll the roads high enough so that the traffic is never backed up. (And, even more ideally, have no toll when when the road is below capacity.)
Force the middle class out of the city, give them shitty transit options, then tax the hell out of them when they decide to drive.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
Buses works great as a middle-class transit option in lots of places. When I lived in Barcelona I used the city bus as my primary method of short- to medium-distance transit, as did, I believe, the majority of middle-class residents.
Taking the bus doesn't have to be the terrible experience it has devolved into in many US metro areas.
Taking the bus doesn't have to be the terrible experience it has devolved into in many US metro areas.
You have a point, even though I disagree in the long view. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Making transit really good is very hard until cars are deprioritized. And until transit is really good, deprioritizing cars screws a lot of people over.
The idea is that the bus wouldn't be shitty if it weren't having to compete on equal terms with the rest of the choked traffic.
You're gonna get flagged for that because it's in direct contradiction with the beliefs of most here.
You're gonna get flagged for pointing out that HN is a pretty extreme echo chamber.
In my city, a new project was started that did precisely that. Dedicated bus lanes for almost the entire route, bus stops spaced about a mile a part, and 8 busses per hour.
It received massive criticism when it was constructed, as there already was a functioning network and the project was quite expensive compared to other bus lanes. It did become a massive succes, as its a viable alternative to the train for commuters due to the shorter travel time.
They are in the process of replacing the diesel busses with electric busses, first on the short routes and in 2020 on the longer routes.
It received massive criticism when it was constructed, as there already was a functioning network and the project was quite expensive compared to other bus lanes. It did become a massive succes, as its a viable alternative to the train for commuters due to the shorter travel time.
They are in the process of replacing the diesel busses with electric busses, first on the short routes and in 2020 on the longer routes.
Buses can be adapted far easier and cheaper to changes in transportation needs that any light rail system. even if you toss in road maintenance as its already performed for cars it is still cheaper to operate than rail. buses can also reroute easily if there are problems with their route and a broken down bus or fire doesn't block the route for other buses.
plus BART has about ten billion dollars in maintenance backlog.
the only rail system in the US which works well is NYC and we get horror stories about it regardless
plus BART has about ten billion dollars in maintenance backlog.
the only rail system in the US which works well is NYC and we get horror stories about it regardless
> You can't make it stop at every block
a solution for this is kind of "stop on demand"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshrutka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi
a solution for this is kind of "stop on demand"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshrutka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi
This does not work if you want to speed up routes in rush hour, because people will demand stops at every block. Usually people are not alturistic enough to get off in bulk if they have the option to stop everywhere. Busses work great even in low density environment if you build infrastructure that is good for busses. Bicycles + buss makes it posible to serve quite large areas fast and simple.
> This does not work if you want to speed up routes in rush hour, because people will demand stops at every block.
Actually, this is exactly how Marshrutkas work, at least in Sofia/Bulgaria. They do not stop on "every block", they stop only if they are not full enough or someone wants to get off. But normaly, this persons tell their destination early enough to the driver, so he or she can plan better the few stops. Nowadays most people prefer the Metro over the Marshrutkas though.
Actually, this is exactly how Marshrutkas work, at least in Sofia/Bulgaria. They do not stop on "every block", they stop only if they are not full enough or someone wants to get off. But normaly, this persons tell their destination early enough to the driver, so he or she can plan better the few stops. Nowadays most people prefer the Metro over the Marshrutkas though.
London is doing a decent job of covering your points:
> You can't make it stop at every block in order to make it take less walking to get to the bus stop.
How big's a block? London often has bus stops a few hundred metres apart even out in the sticks.
> Similarly, you can't have parallel lines a block apart.
London often has multiple routes serving the same area in addition to parallel routes nearby.
> You have to limit the service area so that you can afford to run busses every 5-10 minutes.
My most frequent bus (53) goes from Central London to Plumstead Station (~11 miles) on a 6-12 minute schedule during the day. That's not uncommon for London.
> And you'll want to improve streets so that busses can run down the center and pick up passengers from protected islands
Slowly happening over London - couple of stops near me have had their inset bus stop bays pushed out into the road to block traffic when the bus is stopped.
> You can't make it stop at every block in order to make it take less walking to get to the bus stop.
How big's a block? London often has bus stops a few hundred metres apart even out in the sticks.
> Similarly, you can't have parallel lines a block apart.
London often has multiple routes serving the same area in addition to parallel routes nearby.
> You have to limit the service area so that you can afford to run busses every 5-10 minutes.
My most frequent bus (53) goes from Central London to Plumstead Station (~11 miles) on a 6-12 minute schedule during the day. That's not uncommon for London.
> And you'll want to improve streets so that busses can run down the center and pick up passengers from protected islands
Slowly happening over London - couple of stops near me have had their inset bus stop bays pushed out into the road to block traffic when the bus is stopped.
I used to take the bus into the city (NL line), and while it's a little slower I found it a much nicer experience than BART.
[deleted]
> such as L.A. and Denver, are watching transit ridership decline across the board, in part because investment in buses has trailed so far behind the commitment to trains
That's not completely true for LA (and for the record, train ridership in LA is on decline as well, while the population is growing).
Here's the actual reason http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-homeless-2018...
"People looking for warm, dry places to sleep have barricaded themselves inside emergency exit stairwells in stations, leaving behind trash and human waste. Elevator doors coated in urine have stuck shut. Mentally ill and high passengers have assaulted bus drivers and other riders."
"More than 1 in 5 current passengers has been harassed on the train. In a 2016 survey, 29% of former riders told Metro they stopped taking transit because they felt unsafe."
"Sim said she saw a man pull down his pants, squat over the edge of a platform and defecate onto the train tracks at Union Station. She said she has sat in urine on the subway, “hopscotched through peoples’ feces” on sidewalks, and endured verbal and sexual harassment on the train."
"In one more serious case, Loew said, LAPD officers used a Taser on a man who was brandishing a knife and threatening passengers."
"He kept riding, until he sat down one morning on a seat that was wet and hot with urine. With no change of clothes on hand, he wore the urine-soaked pants to work. Then he started driving to work again."
That's not completely true for LA (and for the record, train ridership in LA is on decline as well, while the population is growing).
Here's the actual reason http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-homeless-2018...
"People looking for warm, dry places to sleep have barricaded themselves inside emergency exit stairwells in stations, leaving behind trash and human waste. Elevator doors coated in urine have stuck shut. Mentally ill and high passengers have assaulted bus drivers and other riders."
"More than 1 in 5 current passengers has been harassed on the train. In a 2016 survey, 29% of former riders told Metro they stopped taking transit because they felt unsafe."
"Sim said she saw a man pull down his pants, squat over the edge of a platform and defecate onto the train tracks at Union Station. She said she has sat in urine on the subway, “hopscotched through peoples’ feces” on sidewalks, and endured verbal and sexual harassment on the train."
"In one more serious case, Loew said, LAPD officers used a Taser on a man who was brandishing a knife and threatening passengers."
"He kept riding, until he sat down one morning on a seat that was wet and hot with urine. With no change of clothes on hand, he wore the urine-soaked pants to work. Then he started driving to work again."
Seattle is in a similar situation. Ridership is growing still, but mostly due to driving and parking being very expensive and inconvenient. We also have a program where major employers (including Amazon) will provide cards for unlimited transit use, but not re-imburse or provide for the full cost of parking.
Even so, it's very common for people to get on the bus without paying and make everyone else uncomfortable. I've seen harassers, people vaping and shooting up, obviously unstable people yelling and making a scene. That's not to say anything of the people who just bring an awful odor or take up a whole row with absolute junk. I've never seen feces or urine, but definitely seen vomit. There's no enforcement against this kind of thing most of the time, and riders are too afraid to speak up on their own.
If I'm given the choice between a 30 minute walk and a 10 minute bus ride, I'll almost always walk if it's not just pouring rain. Luckily Seattle sidewalks and pedestrian friendliness in general is pretty great.
It's a drastically different situation from my hometown, Charlotte NC, where the buses don't get much use and it really is due to service stinking and general perception of the bus being for poor people only. Also cars are fairly cheap and ubiquitous. I would frequently be the only white person on a crowded bus, but even though I sometimes got weird looks, I was never harassed or made to feel in danger like I've experienced in Seattle. It was mostly just working class folks or people and some people with DUIs going to work, city services, or community college (which was my reason for taking it, I just hated driving though). An improvement in service and getting some nicer buses probably would have helped, but now that light rail is a thing (just barely though), I do think they are putting all their resources there instead.
Even so, it's very common for people to get on the bus without paying and make everyone else uncomfortable. I've seen harassers, people vaping and shooting up, obviously unstable people yelling and making a scene. That's not to say anything of the people who just bring an awful odor or take up a whole row with absolute junk. I've never seen feces or urine, but definitely seen vomit. There's no enforcement against this kind of thing most of the time, and riders are too afraid to speak up on their own.
If I'm given the choice between a 30 minute walk and a 10 minute bus ride, I'll almost always walk if it's not just pouring rain. Luckily Seattle sidewalks and pedestrian friendliness in general is pretty great.
It's a drastically different situation from my hometown, Charlotte NC, where the buses don't get much use and it really is due to service stinking and general perception of the bus being for poor people only. Also cars are fairly cheap and ubiquitous. I would frequently be the only white person on a crowded bus, but even though I sometimes got weird looks, I was never harassed or made to feel in danger like I've experienced in Seattle. It was mostly just working class folks or people and some people with DUIs going to work, city services, or community college (which was my reason for taking it, I just hated driving though). An improvement in service and getting some nicer buses probably would have helped, but now that light rail is a thing (just barely though), I do think they are putting all their resources there instead.
It's funny that you mention Amazon when referring to the ORCA card program since Amazon's outreach to other cities to kick in for transit improvements if its HQ2 is located there has caused one of the latest flare-ups of kerfuffle about Amazon's impact on Seattle. (The angst, for those unaware, is that while Amazon is offering private dollars to add transit stations or make service improvements in cities like Atlanta or Baltimore, it isn't making the same offer to Seattle / Sound Transit even though two of the new light rail stations are being built to serve the area that is effectively its campus.)
I would like to also mention that my experience doesn't match yours. I ride the bus almost exclusively (there's no light rail near my house and never will be) and have only, rarely, encountered what you describe. I'm certain it exists, but not to the extent of calling it very common. Two routes, RapidRide E and route 7, stand out as being the most likely "culprits," which is, I think, less of a function of riding a bus and more of where those two routes happen to serve. The streetscape of the part of Aurora that the E runs down looks a lot like the inside of the E's bus.
I would like to also mention that my experience doesn't match yours. I ride the bus almost exclusively (there's no light rail near my house and never will be) and have only, rarely, encountered what you describe. I'm certain it exists, but not to the extent of calling it very common. Two routes, RapidRide E and route 7, stand out as being the most likely "culprits," which is, I think, less of a function of riding a bus and more of where those two routes happen to serve. The streetscape of the part of Aurora that the E runs down looks a lot like the inside of the E's bus.
You don't have a public transport problem in the US, you have an underlying societal problem of people not giving a shit about other people.
This and the replies honestly make me think there are far deeper problems than public transit in play here. In the UK I’ve never in my life seen someone defacate in public, or encountered the result. The worst I usually encounter on public transport is someone who smells bad, or is a bit weird, and the very worst drunk passengers throwing up on late night trains.
>In the UK I’ve never in my life seen someone defacate in public
Funnily enough, this happened last weekend at a friend's housewarming. That said it was in Clapham so it wasn't entirely surprising.
Funnily enough, this happened last weekend at a friend's housewarming. That said it was in Clapham so it wasn't entirely surprising.
I love the bus because it runs express from my Chicago neighborhood directly into the loop.
I get on, play with my phone, and get off 25 minutes later. I don't have to fight traffic driving myself and I can multi-task if I choose.
The problem comes when trying to take the bus to any other part of the city. It's slow, stops at every block, and is unpredictable when it arrives. It's a mode of transport that supports everyone and that inherently makes it less useful to the individual.
Personally I'd like to see bus systems get more fine-grained about their routes, timing, and size of vehicle. We should be able to model some optimizations that improve service while remaining accessible for everyone.
It'd be a shame if over the last several years major cities haven't been collecting the required data to make this possible. If not, now would be a good time to beging recording this data.
I get on, play with my phone, and get off 25 minutes later. I don't have to fight traffic driving myself and I can multi-task if I choose.
The problem comes when trying to take the bus to any other part of the city. It's slow, stops at every block, and is unpredictable when it arrives. It's a mode of transport that supports everyone and that inherently makes it less useful to the individual.
Personally I'd like to see bus systems get more fine-grained about their routes, timing, and size of vehicle. We should be able to model some optimizations that improve service while remaining accessible for everyone.
It'd be a shame if over the last several years major cities haven't been collecting the required data to make this possible. If not, now would be a good time to beging recording this data.
Exactly this.
When I moved to Portland (from NYC, unfortunately), I hoped that I would have access to the MAX, but if not then I'd be able to take the bus to work. I ended up being about 20 blocks from the nearest MAX stop, but there was a bus stop right outside my apartment. I took the bus maybe a dozen times before I realized that it really is a non-option; what takes me ~15 minutes (20 on a extremely rare bad day) in a car takes me at least 45 minutes (to an hour) on the bus.
It's really all about what bus route you're on, and your ability to find housing on the bus with the most direct line to your office (in a city like Portland). That's usually not super easy. I have coworkers that have 15-30 minute bus rides from farther out because they're on efficient bus routes.
When I moved to Portland (from NYC, unfortunately), I hoped that I would have access to the MAX, but if not then I'd be able to take the bus to work. I ended up being about 20 blocks from the nearest MAX stop, but there was a bus stop right outside my apartment. I took the bus maybe a dozen times before I realized that it really is a non-option; what takes me ~15 minutes (20 on a extremely rare bad day) in a car takes me at least 45 minutes (to an hour) on the bus.
It's really all about what bus route you're on, and your ability to find housing on the bus with the most direct line to your office (in a city like Portland). That's usually not super easy. I have coworkers that have 15-30 minute bus rides from farther out because they're on efficient bus routes.
Part of Portland's problem is that its transit is built to move people into and out of downtown. Very little of it is built to move people between neighborhoods or across routes. That's somewhat understandable since downtown is the most common destination, but plenty of people (like you) end up without many options.
Some cities I've lived in have a star model. In Munich I'd take the subway downtown, change trains and head into a different suburb. Because the train was quick and the stops reasonable spaced resulting in a decent experience. In Portland the MAX stops so frequently downtown that taking it for example from the west side to the airport is way too slow. You spend way too much time just slogging through downtown. It starts to suffer from the same problem like most US buses that stop every fucking block. What's up with that insanity?! The T-Line in SF suffered from the same problem and I ultimately stopped taking it in favor of a kick scooter.
Yep, the MAX is sluggish enough downtown that it's often faster to bike to the other side of downtown to catch it. Say you want to get to Beaverton from the South Waterfront: you could take the Orange from there to Pioneer Square, then the Blue to Beaverton, but it would be faster for you to just bike to the Goose Hollow station. All because the Orange Line takes 12 minutes to travel the 1.5 miles from the South Waterfront to Pioneer Square. It takes 25 minutes to traverse downtown.
I've long been an advocate to bury the MAX downtown (via cut-and-cover, not tunneling), but obviously even that could cost billions of dollars.
I've long been an advocate to bury the MAX downtown (via cut-and-cover, not tunneling), but obviously even that could cost billions of dollars.
>It's slow, stops at every block, and is unpredictable when it arrives. It's a mode of transport that supports everyone and that inherently makes it less useful to the individual.
I wouldn't say that it's inherently less useful to the individual.
In lots of the UK we have dedicated bus lanes. Usually there's some leeway over who can use them, but it's often just buses/taxis/cyclists/motorbikes. They're often only restricted during peak hours, and there's cameras set up which will send fines to drivers who misuse the lanes.
This works fantastically because it actually makes the bus faster, or a similar speed, to driving. Therefore people use it more, which puts less cars on the roads, which makes every form of transport faster for everyone.
I wouldn't say that it's inherently less useful to the individual.
In lots of the UK we have dedicated bus lanes. Usually there's some leeway over who can use them, but it's often just buses/taxis/cyclists/motorbikes. They're often only restricted during peak hours, and there's cameras set up which will send fines to drivers who misuse the lanes.
This works fantastically because it actually makes the bus faster, or a similar speed, to driving. Therefore people use it more, which puts less cars on the roads, which makes every form of transport faster for everyone.
Also, express buses. Split the city up into zones, have local bus routes within the zones (maybe with some overlap) and have one or a few stops in the zone be feeder stations that let you transfer to inter-zone buses that zip around post-haste. Set it up sensibly and you'll have a quick transit for everyone. Take a hint from zoning (one bus zone covering an area with a lot of office parks) and you'll be able to scale bus volume more accurately during different times, i.e. less buses there on weekends and after seven or eight.
The challenge here is riding the bus is inferior in convenience and comfort, fundamentally, vs other options. Unless price (likely by eliminating any subsidies for other methods; today even a $0 bus fare would still not be enough) or other features (bypassing traffic) make up for it, why would a rational person take the bus? There are probably places on the margin where buses are more acceptable right now (in a downtown core area where they replace a long walk, where other methods are inconvenient), but if the goal is wide usage, this has to be addressed.
Private bus networks with access limited to certain people (employees of companies or groups of companies, universities, etc) seem to work ok; what generally doesn’t seem to work are public buses.
Is the problem density (I doubt Google employees across Bay Area are denser than bus riding public overall within SF) — probably not.
A lot of the unpleasantness is other riders. Without the ability to ban certain riders (either via a whitelist or blacklist), bus ridership will remain limited. BART is bad enough, but whenever I’ve taken muni or peninsula bus service (very rarely)it made the case for this.
Transit agencies are also highly political — unionized labor, political appointees running it, expensive contracts for everything, inflexible policies — so I doubt they could provide the same service as private bus companies.
The solution is probably not public transit, but possibly is multi passenger vehicles. Something like Lyft Line with more passengers, dynamic routing, etc, plus some core routes with scheduled higher capacity service.
Private bus networks with access limited to certain people (employees of companies or groups of companies, universities, etc) seem to work ok; what generally doesn’t seem to work are public buses.
Is the problem density (I doubt Google employees across Bay Area are denser than bus riding public overall within SF) — probably not.
A lot of the unpleasantness is other riders. Without the ability to ban certain riders (either via a whitelist or blacklist), bus ridership will remain limited. BART is bad enough, but whenever I’ve taken muni or peninsula bus service (very rarely)it made the case for this.
Transit agencies are also highly political — unionized labor, political appointees running it, expensive contracts for everything, inflexible policies — so I doubt they could provide the same service as private bus companies.
The solution is probably not public transit, but possibly is multi passenger vehicles. Something like Lyft Line with more passengers, dynamic routing, etc, plus some core routes with scheduled higher capacity service.
I've been in a number of cities where I don't find buses inferior. For me it's even often my personally preferred means of transit, though I've of course ridden my share of poor buses too.
The good case is when they're: frequent, run on arterial routes (no meandering), don't stop excessively often, have routes designed to avoid big bottlenecks like left-turn waits (or have strategically placed bus-only bypasses for those trouble spots), stop in the rightmost travel lane rather than in pullout bays that require merging back into traffic, and have a streamlined payment system (the last two combining to give low dwell times at stops). Doesn't even have to be BRT, but let's say halfway to BRT.
Two cities with those kinds of buses that I've personally experienced recently: Washington, DC, which has nice arterial routes up/down main roads like Massachusetts Ave and 16th St, and Copenhagen, which has a network of "A bus" [1] routes.
[1] https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-bus (in Danish)
The good case is when they're: frequent, run on arterial routes (no meandering), don't stop excessively often, have routes designed to avoid big bottlenecks like left-turn waits (or have strategically placed bus-only bypasses for those trouble spots), stop in the rightmost travel lane rather than in pullout bays that require merging back into traffic, and have a streamlined payment system (the last two combining to give low dwell times at stops). Doesn't even have to be BRT, but let's say halfway to BRT.
Two cities with those kinds of buses that I've personally experienced recently: Washington, DC, which has nice arterial routes up/down main roads like Massachusetts Ave and 16th St, and Copenhagen, which has a network of "A bus" [1] routes.
[1] https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-bus (in Danish)
I live in Copenhagen, and I prefer public transport (primarily buses) because I don't have to worry about finding and paying for a parking space or getting home drunk from a night out. It's also significantly less expensive than owning a car. I spent 4x the cost of my transit card[1] every month in gas alone, never mind maintenance and insurance costs.
I would have to walk significantly further from most parking garages to where I'm going, that from the nearest bus stop.
This talk of banning certain people is nonsense. The whole point of public transport is that it's for everyone. And what you're suggesting with "multi passenger vehicles" already exist in many countries. Here we call the "telebus", and it's working quite well in less densely populated areas. Just you know, without the rampant disregard for workers that Uber and Lyft display.
[1] Unlimited traveling in the city zone and the zone I live in for DKK375/month ($60).
I would have to walk significantly further from most parking garages to where I'm going, that from the nearest bus stop.
This talk of banning certain people is nonsense. The whole point of public transport is that it's for everyone. And what you're suggesting with "multi passenger vehicles" already exist in many countries. Here we call the "telebus", and it's working quite well in less densely populated areas. Just you know, without the rampant disregard for workers that Uber and Lyft display.
[1] Unlimited traveling in the city zone and the zone I live in for DKK375/month ($60).
> Private bus networks with access limited to certain people (employees of companies or groups of companies, universities, etc) seem to work ok; what generally doesn’t seem to work are public buses.
This sounds like an argument for restricting transit access to the most privileged members of society. The real reason private buses are successful is because they have a limited amount of stops, it's more like riding a train than a local bus that stops at every block. If anything cities should be investing way more in BRT, as the private sector has proven that high quality buses can work.
This sounds like an argument for restricting transit access to the most privileged members of society. The real reason private buses are successful is because they have a limited amount of stops, it's more like riding a train than a local bus that stops at every block. If anything cities should be investing way more in BRT, as the private sector has proven that high quality buses can work.
The public “express buses” seem to have most of the same problems. This is possibly due to inflexibility in how/where they are deployed, or riders, or other factors.
Diesel buses are very energy efficient. Electrified rail is surprisingly inefficient.
Building bus rapid transit lanes makes more sense than spinning up a light rail infrastructure almost any way you measure: capital costs, energy, maintenance, flexibility...
I also wonder how much sense intercity rail even makes for most trips. If you could set aside a lane for buses only on I-95 Boston to DC (for example), you could have a bunch of routes that go directly from various neighborhoods to other neighborhoods at mostly 110 mph.
Building bus rapid transit lanes makes more sense than spinning up a light rail infrastructure almost any way you measure: capital costs, energy, maintenance, flexibility...
I also wonder how much sense intercity rail even makes for most trips. If you could set aside a lane for buses only on I-95 Boston to DC (for example), you could have a bunch of routes that go directly from various neighborhoods to other neighborhoods at mostly 110 mph.
>"Diesel buses are very energy efficient. Electrified rail is surprisingly inefficient."
I would really like to see a citation, because I find that extremely hard to believe.
I would really like to see a citation, because I find that extremely hard to believe.
Really depends on ridership. There's also pollution other than just energy inefficiency; old diesel buses with low ridership put a lot of particulates and other pollution into the air, compared to the same number of passengers in the newest petrol (or cleaner diesel, or obviously electric) cars.
Sure, an older diesel bus with just 2-3 people on board is obviously less efficient than a car with 2-3 people on board.
But you also have to factor in that most buses run for a lot longer than the average car, sometimes decades and millions of kilometers. Most of the time they're not even "put to pasture" because they're worn out, but because newer buses are more efficient and have more creature comforts. So the older buses are brought in when for instance there is rail maintenance and you have to replace a train line with buses. In comes the old stock, still pulling its weight.
This also ties in to the environmental load of producing new cars/buses, you need a lot less raw material to make a bus that moves 60 people, compared to the cars needed to move 60 people.
That's why old stock is cycled out regularly, to improve efficiency and reduce pollution on the busiest lines. The the older buses get moved to more sparse routes, with less busy schedules and less stop-and-go.
Where I live, a surprisingly big problem is actually that too many people ride the buses during rush hour. Sometimes you just have to wait for the next bus to come and hopefully have some space for you. I'll admit that's really a luxury problem to have.
Public transport is vastly better for the environment and for congestion, unless nobody uses it. That takes investment, but politicians are way too quick to say "well no one's using it now, why should we invest?".
But you also have to factor in that most buses run for a lot longer than the average car, sometimes decades and millions of kilometers. Most of the time they're not even "put to pasture" because they're worn out, but because newer buses are more efficient and have more creature comforts. So the older buses are brought in when for instance there is rail maintenance and you have to replace a train line with buses. In comes the old stock, still pulling its weight.
This also ties in to the environmental load of producing new cars/buses, you need a lot less raw material to make a bus that moves 60 people, compared to the cars needed to move 60 people.
That's why old stock is cycled out regularly, to improve efficiency and reduce pollution on the busiest lines. The the older buses get moved to more sparse routes, with less busy schedules and less stop-and-go.
Where I live, a surprisingly big problem is actually that too many people ride the buses during rush hour. Sometimes you just have to wait for the next bus to come and hopefully have some space for you. I'll admit that's really a luxury problem to have.
Public transport is vastly better for the environment and for congestion, unless nobody uses it. That takes investment, but politicians are way too quick to say "well no one's using it now, why should we invest?".
That article lists a number of problems that are almost purely US-specific.
In actuality and outside of those artificial limitations, rail is one of the most efficient forms of transport we have, especially electric rail.
In actuality and outside of those artificial limitations, rail is one of the most efficient forms of transport we have, especially electric rail.
Not really. You are underestimating the massive energy efficiency advantages of modern diesel engines, across many contexts. It's the same reason why water pumps and freight locomotives and all kinds of other equipment that could theoretically be electrified isn't.
The energy efficiency of a diesel engine is nothing compared to electric power plants.
Well then why is the water in your city pumped by diesel engines, and why are all the goods delivered by diesel locomotives, barges, and trucks? The entire logistics industry is just full of morons that didn't get the memo over the last 80 years that electrified motors are better than diesel?
No, they use diesel motors for almost a century because they are more efficient and cost effective.
No, they use diesel motors for almost a century because they are more efficient and cost effective.
The water in my city sure as hell isn't pumped by diesel power.
As for the rest, that is due to historical reason, back when those networks were established, we didn't have the electrical grid and power available. We do now.
The main reason they still use diesel is because it's cheaper to keep the existing gear running, rather than replacing everything. Electric trains are so much more efficient (in modern kV systems), it's not even funny.
As for the rest, that is due to historical reason, back when those networks were established, we didn't have the electrical grid and power available. We do now.
The main reason they still use diesel is because it's cheaper to keep the existing gear running, rather than replacing everything. Electric trains are so much more efficient (in modern kV systems), it's not even funny.
Public buses do work well in a few cities. London and Manchester. Vancouver seems good. Maybe San Francisco. Ok very few cities.
The problem is you need a critical mass of people using them before anyone puts any real effort into making them not awful.
There are too many cities that have a few rubbish busses, but they aren't on Google Maps, they don't have live departure boards at bus stops, everybody pays in cash, they follow terrible routes that cater to people with no alternative (children and OAPs), they're infrequent and unreliable, no bus lanes, etc. etc.
That said I don't think the future of transport is busses. They're just too slow and shit in general.
The problem is you need a critical mass of people using them before anyone puts any real effort into making them not awful.
There are too many cities that have a few rubbish busses, but they aren't on Google Maps, they don't have live departure boards at bus stops, everybody pays in cash, they follow terrible routes that cater to people with no alternative (children and OAPs), they're infrequent and unreliable, no bus lanes, etc. etc.
That said I don't think the future of transport is busses. They're just too slow and shit in general.
Me: I would ride the bus if it was available more than once every 30 minutes. At this point it's faster for me to Uber.
City councilmember: why should we allocate even more funds to the busses? Nobody's riding them!
City councilmember: why should we allocate even more funds to the busses? Nobody's riding them!
God I would love it Manhattan banned Uber and all non-commercial traffic (exile all civilian traffic to the highways and parking garages alongside them) and upped the number of buses. Clean new yellow cabs too and tougher requirements to drive them (raise the fares, I don't care).
It kind of works for Venice, it's so nice to be in a car free town with a slow but nice public transport (the vaporettos) so I started to dream about if it would be possible to a similar thing with buses, combined with the existing subway and trams, and just exile all cars.
The thing is that where I live, the bus network is heavily funded and I'm suspecting that it's probably operating already with too little efficiency most of the day and most lines - basically a lot of buses driving around nearly empty at times.
Since I bike in the city, I can't fail to notice that buses also seems to generate most of the dust, if not all of it - sometimes you basically have to stop and wait a few minutes if you are biking behind a bus, since it's not possible to neither see or breathe. Even on an at least nominally clean tarmac road. I haven't noticed that behind a Nissan Micra.
Further, large diesel engines running heavy start-stop duty cycles like buses probably generates unproportionally more particles than just about everything else.
Since this city have one of the highest count of both PM10 and PM2.5 - source could be either oil or dust - this also have got me thinking.
Where I live, the focus on buses is driven by a political agenda - basically the environmentalists and the left have defined buses as "good" and cars as "bad" - and I suspect regardless of any facts in the matter, exemplified in an interview where one politician admitted that they'd really love to ban cars even if the had no environmental impact at all.
I'm not particularly fighting for more cars and less buses, but I like my facts straight before implementing public policy. I haven't been able to find any official published statistics in fuel consumption per passenger mile for the public transport in the region - should be somewhat trivial to calculate now that every passenger conveniently carries a tracking device with them.
I also haven't been able to find any studies about particle emissions for buses and if it's possible to find any correlation between the ratio of buses to other traffic and particulates.
Unfortunatly, I suspect that research on topics like those is probably heretical and a thought crime in most Universities' departments for environmental studies.
Still, electric buses on the larger streets instead of vaparettos on the Grand Canal is a lovely thought.
The thing is that where I live, the bus network is heavily funded and I'm suspecting that it's probably operating already with too little efficiency most of the day and most lines - basically a lot of buses driving around nearly empty at times.
Since I bike in the city, I can't fail to notice that buses also seems to generate most of the dust, if not all of it - sometimes you basically have to stop and wait a few minutes if you are biking behind a bus, since it's not possible to neither see or breathe. Even on an at least nominally clean tarmac road. I haven't noticed that behind a Nissan Micra.
Further, large diesel engines running heavy start-stop duty cycles like buses probably generates unproportionally more particles than just about everything else.
Since this city have one of the highest count of both PM10 and PM2.5 - source could be either oil or dust - this also have got me thinking.
Where I live, the focus on buses is driven by a political agenda - basically the environmentalists and the left have defined buses as "good" and cars as "bad" - and I suspect regardless of any facts in the matter, exemplified in an interview where one politician admitted that they'd really love to ban cars even if the had no environmental impact at all.
I'm not particularly fighting for more cars and less buses, but I like my facts straight before implementing public policy. I haven't been able to find any official published statistics in fuel consumption per passenger mile for the public transport in the region - should be somewhat trivial to calculate now that every passenger conveniently carries a tracking device with them.
I also haven't been able to find any studies about particle emissions for buses and if it's possible to find any correlation between the ratio of buses to other traffic and particulates.
Unfortunatly, I suspect that research on topics like those is probably heretical and a thought crime in most Universities' departments for environmental studies.
Still, electric buses on the larger streets instead of vaparettos on the Grand Canal is a lovely thought.
>"Where I live, the focus on buses is driven by a political agenda - basically the environmentalists and the left have defined buses as "good" and cars as "bad""
That's a bit of a strawman argument, but nevertheless there are strong and indisputable benefits to public transport over cars.
One is the pollution. Per passenger, even diesel buses pollute a lot less than cars, and electric buses are being phased in. There are also some buses that run on cleaner-burning natural gas, but those are more of a stopgap measure.
Secondly, congestion is markedly reduced by getting more people on public transport and bikes. People simply take up less space when they're not driving around a mostly empty car.
Regarding the dust, it's not really produced by the buses, but it does get whirled up more by large vehicles. The dust is produced by everything; cars, buses, trucks, bikes, even pedestrians to some extent. Reducing one of those sources, by for instance getting thousands of people to take the bus instead of driving their cars alone, will significantly reduce particle pollution.
>"Unfortunatly, I suspect that research on topics like those is probably heretical and a thought crime in most Universities' departments for environmental studies."
That's nonsense. My girlfriend studies at our national technical university and there is plenty research being done on all environmental factors.
That's a bit of a strawman argument, but nevertheless there are strong and indisputable benefits to public transport over cars.
One is the pollution. Per passenger, even diesel buses pollute a lot less than cars, and electric buses are being phased in. There are also some buses that run on cleaner-burning natural gas, but those are more of a stopgap measure.
Secondly, congestion is markedly reduced by getting more people on public transport and bikes. People simply take up less space when they're not driving around a mostly empty car.
Regarding the dust, it's not really produced by the buses, but it does get whirled up more by large vehicles. The dust is produced by everything; cars, buses, trucks, bikes, even pedestrians to some extent. Reducing one of those sources, by for instance getting thousands of people to take the bus instead of driving their cars alone, will significantly reduce particle pollution.
>"Unfortunatly, I suspect that research on topics like those is probably heretical and a thought crime in most Universities' departments for environmental studies."
That's nonsense. My girlfriend studies at our national technical university and there is plenty research being done on all environmental factors.
Large vehicles certainly causes dust from the additional wear.
And I'm not questioning reduced pollution in fully laden busses or reducing congestion in crowded routes in the rush hour, but I haven't seen anything about total system effects in "saturated" systems where the total seat factor is low, and where additional "conversion" will require more buses that will run emptier.
And I'm not questioning reduced pollution in fully laden busses or reducing congestion in crowded routes in the rush hour, but I haven't seen anything about total system effects in "saturated" systems where the total seat factor is low, and where additional "conversion" will require more buses that will run emptier.
There's a nice comparison here: https://truecostblog.com/2010/05/27/fuel-efficiency-modes-of...
Although that seems to only consider diesel-powered buses. CNG or electric buses are better.
Although that seems to only consider diesel-powered buses. CNG or electric buses are better.
"It kind of works for Venice, it's so nice to be in a car free town with a slow but nice public transport (the vaporettos) so I started to dream about if it would be possible to a similar thing with buses, combined with the existing subway and trams, and just exile all cars."
At this point Venice is basically an open air museum for tourists. It can hardly serve as an example for regular cities that house people who live and work there.
At this point Venice is basically an open air museum for tourists. It can hardly serve as an example for regular cities that house people who live and work there.
"Further, large diesel engines running heavy start-stop duty cycles like buses probably generates unproportionally more particles than just about everything else."
The good news: electric busses are coming. City busses will be huge winners from electrification, both for economic and environmental reasons. Greatly reduced fuel and maintenance costs, improved ride quality, less noise and pollution.
The good news: electric busses are coming. City busses will be huge winners from electrification, both for economic and environmental reasons. Greatly reduced fuel and maintenance costs, improved ride quality, less noise and pollution.
It seems to me that it's mostly dust from the road - busses are heavy, have larger tyres and wider track width.
Combined with the fact that the roads are heavily sanded and salted half of the year, and that they are swept rather than washed, for some reason often only once in the year, the roads are dirty.
I know that other cities wash the streets more or less constantly, but here they claim it won't help which seems questionable to me.
Winter tyres with studs are allowed here (in the winter) and are getting a lot of attention since they generate a lot of particles in laboratory tests - but it would be interesting to see what 3 months of grinding sand and salt in snow slush with heavy weight wheels will generate, with or without studs.
But yes : electric busses would be nice. With a soft driving filter applied...
Combined with the fact that the roads are heavily sanded and salted half of the year, and that they are swept rather than washed, for some reason often only once in the year, the roads are dirty.
I know that other cities wash the streets more or less constantly, but here they claim it won't help which seems questionable to me.
Winter tyres with studs are allowed here (in the winter) and are getting a lot of attention since they generate a lot of particles in laboratory tests - but it would be interesting to see what 3 months of grinding sand and salt in snow slush with heavy weight wheels will generate, with or without studs.
But yes : electric busses would be nice. With a soft driving filter applied...
Electric cars are coming too.
The problem with cars in cities is not just the pollution, although that is a huge factor.
It is also the fact that they are grossly inefficient space-wise. The majority have only the driver (and maybe, maybe a single passenger) in an otherwise empty car. Congestion would be vastly reduced if we could get most of those people on public transport or bikes instead.
It is also the fact that they are grossly inefficient space-wise. The majority have only the driver (and maybe, maybe a single passenger) in an otherwise empty car. Congestion would be vastly reduced if we could get most of those people on public transport or bikes instead.
I find it much more intimidating to take buses versus rail. For example, unlike most rail systems, buses will skip stops unless a passenger requests that the bus make a stop. Well, when I'm riding the bus for the first time or at night, it's quite easy to miss when I should request a stop. Meanwhile, if I take a train, I know the stations will stop at every station in its route and their are prominent signs at each station so it's much easier to figure out when I should exit the train. Plus often the same bus line may have different types of routes, such as an express route, so if I'm not careful making sure whether the bus has an X at the end of its name, I sometimes end up taking the wrong route that skips my stop.
Well, when I'm riding the bus for the first time or at night, it's quite easy to miss when I should request a stop.
I always thought it odd that MBTA buses announce the stop they're currently passing (too late to ask the driver to stop there) rather than saying which stop is coming up next.
I always thought it odd that MBTA buses announce the stop they're currently passing (too late to ask the driver to stop there) rather than saying which stop is coming up next.
I found Transit[1] extremely helpful for this. It lets you search for bus routes that will take you where you want to go, provides a walking route to the bus stop and tells you when you need to leave to get there on time, provides real-time arrival information and tells you how many stops are left before your destination and when to get off.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(app)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(app)
Buses have two main problems as I see it.
Number one is an image problem - they aren't sexy. Here in the States, we are obsessed with the 'European' way of life. Most major European cities have some form of streetcar system or underground metro, if not both. To us, those are sexy. Nevermind that those cities have buses, too.
The bus _could_ be more sexy. BRT with dedicated lanes, priority signaling, clean & modern interiors, at-grade egress, and most importantly, consistent and reliable service. Those changes would go a long ways towards making the bus 'cool' enough to ride.
The other is that because buses are inherently at least a little inconvenient, there has to be an incentive to use them. For most people, the main driver is financial. Ten years ago when the economy was shaky, I, a consistent multi-modal commuter, saw a huge uptick in the number of people riding the bus. When the economy got stronger and more surefooted, buses started to empty out again. Now I see fewer and fewer people of 'means' on the buses - the ones that remain likely don't have other options. When people can afford _not_ to be inconvenienced, they won't be - whether that means buying a parking pass, ponying up for gas & insurance, or taking rideshare everywhere.
Number one is an image problem - they aren't sexy. Here in the States, we are obsessed with the 'European' way of life. Most major European cities have some form of streetcar system or underground metro, if not both. To us, those are sexy. Nevermind that those cities have buses, too.
The bus _could_ be more sexy. BRT with dedicated lanes, priority signaling, clean & modern interiors, at-grade egress, and most importantly, consistent and reliable service. Those changes would go a long ways towards making the bus 'cool' enough to ride.
The other is that because buses are inherently at least a little inconvenient, there has to be an incentive to use them. For most people, the main driver is financial. Ten years ago when the economy was shaky, I, a consistent multi-modal commuter, saw a huge uptick in the number of people riding the bus. When the economy got stronger and more surefooted, buses started to empty out again. Now I see fewer and fewer people of 'means' on the buses - the ones that remain likely don't have other options. When people can afford _not_ to be inconvenienced, they won't be - whether that means buying a parking pass, ponying up for gas & insurance, or taking rideshare everywhere.
I recently moved to Marin county and use the bus to commute to SF. The Golden Gate Transit buses are pretty amazing. They come on time, the seats are clean and comfortable, and they have (usually fast) wifi. The clientele is clearly professionals commuting to the city in the morning and evening, and it works.
Honestly, if more bus systems simply got wifi and nice seats, that would be a huge step forward. I've taken the Muni buses before, and they are frankly disgusting. I actually look forward to my bus commute each morning now.
Honestly, if more bus systems simply got wifi and nice seats, that would be a huge step forward. I've taken the Muni buses before, and they are frankly disgusting. I actually look forward to my bus commute each morning now.
Comparing those buses to those that serve other areas seems a little bit like admiring charter schools that only accept rich smart kids...
Why? Golden gate transit buses are public buses paid for by tax payer dollars and fares, like every other bus system. They are not private systems. What an odd time we live in, when being proud of our public civil infrastructure gets one labeled an elitist. Should I be ashamed of our schools as well?
I think it is reasonable to point this out. When I lived in Seattle, I took the express buses between Seattle and Redmond on a daily basis. They sound like the ones that you describe. However, the buses within the city of the Seattle were a completely different situation. Messy, smelly, and often carrying people who could be upsetting or at least make you feel uncomfortable. Taking a bus originating from the second-wealthiest county in the United States should not be regarded as a typical experience.
But the government funding these systems is the same -- the state of California.
Also, the Marin system still deserves commendation. First of all, while it is a rich county, there is still a large wealth gap. There is a substantial number of obviously poorer people on the buses as well. Some routes mainly serve disadvantaged areas. Yet, the buses serve everyone, and people still want to ride them. And they're still pretty nice. Why punish people who may already be struggling with an awful bus ride?
Secondly, the counties to the south of San Francisco are pretty darn rich (probably richer than Marin, TBH), and their public transit options suck. I spent many years in south bay, and despite all the money people throw around there, the bus system was awful.
There are certainly poorer areas in the United States where the main factor limiting adoption and tech improvements is a lack of funding. However, there are also plenty of really rich counties (in California at least) where the lack of a good bus system is simply due to a complete unwillingness to invest in good public infrastructure.
Also, the Marin system still deserves commendation. First of all, while it is a rich county, there is still a large wealth gap. There is a substantial number of obviously poorer people on the buses as well. Some routes mainly serve disadvantaged areas. Yet, the buses serve everyone, and people still want to ride them. And they're still pretty nice. Why punish people who may already be struggling with an awful bus ride?
Secondly, the counties to the south of San Francisco are pretty darn rich (probably richer than Marin, TBH), and their public transit options suck. I spent many years in south bay, and despite all the money people throw around there, the bus system was awful.
There are certainly poorer areas in the United States where the main factor limiting adoption and tech improvements is a lack of funding. However, there are also plenty of really rich counties (in California at least) where the lack of a good bus system is simply due to a complete unwillingness to invest in good public infrastructure.
http://time.com/money/3014512/richest-wealthiest-highest-inc...
It seems that there aren't many counties richer than Marin. And, a large wealth gap may just mean, there are some rich people, and some really rich people. Are the "obviously poorer people" still on iPhone 6's and 2015 MacBooks? (ok that part is sarcasm).
The point is, if you are getting the bus in Marin county, you are getting on the bus with others who are also in Marin county. That is going to heavily bias the experience because of the people, not the quality or cleanliness of the bus.
It seems that there aren't many counties richer than Marin. And, a large wealth gap may just mean, there are some rich people, and some really rich people. Are the "obviously poorer people" still on iPhone 6's and 2015 MacBooks? (ok that part is sarcasm).
The point is, if you are getting the bus in Marin county, you are getting on the bus with others who are also in Marin county. That is going to heavily bias the experience because of the people, not the quality or cleanliness of the bus.
Marin City and San Rafael's Canal district are generally poorer. Also less well served.
Many people in San Rafael and Novato are fairly solid middle class. Outlying areas range from redic wealth to rural poor.
There's wealth, yes, but as with that future of Gibsons, there are somme kinks in the distribution.
Many people in San Rafael and Novato are fairly solid middle class. Outlying areas range from redic wealth to rural poor.
There's wealth, yes, but as with that future of Gibsons, there are somme kinks in the distribution.
> Are the "obviously poorer people" still on iPhone 6's and 2015 MacBooks? (ok that part is sarcasm).
No... Marin has some really poor parts.
> The point is, if you are getting the bus in Marin county, you are getting on the bus with others who are also in Marin county. That is going to heavily bias the experience because of the people, not the quality or cleanliness of the bus.
But this still doesn't explain why the buses in Santa Clara and San mateo county aren't up to par.
No... Marin has some really poor parts.
> The point is, if you are getting the bus in Marin county, you are getting on the bus with others who are also in Marin county. That is going to heavily bias the experience because of the people, not the quality or cleanliness of the bus.
But this still doesn't explain why the buses in Santa Clara and San mateo county aren't up to par.
> But the government funding these systems is the same -- the state of California.
No, it's not the same, and though the State of California is among the indirect funders of both, it's not the government directly responsible for either. The government funding GGT is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District.
The government funding Muni is the City and County of San Francisco.
No, it's not the same, and though the State of California is among the indirect funders of both, it's not the government directly responsible for either. The government funding GGT is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District.
The government funding Muni is the City and County of San Francisco.
The City and COunty of San Francisco is really friggin rich.
The cost of wifi and some nice seats has got to be a rounding error compared to the cost of actually purchasing and operating buses. There is no reason normal buses couldn't have those things too.
> Here in the States, we are obsessed with the 'European' way of life.
I promise that's a "blue state" phenomenon. It's just America is exceedingly good at creating cultural bubbles so it seems like a broader American inclination.
I promise that's a "blue state" phenomenon. It's just America is exceedingly good at creating cultural bubbles so it seems like a broader American inclination.
Buses are the public transport of last resort for very good reasons.
They go through all the busiest areas to maximize passenger numbers, which is what makes them slow.
Delays compound; since per-stop timetables are unpredictable due to traffic, buses normally just try to make the best time they can. Which means you wait for the bus, possibly for a long time. So a late bus becomes later, as it takes longer to board the extra passengers, and then the next bus catches up, and you get bunching.
You're much better off walking or cycling to a rail option if you have it. Buses in busy cities are barely faster than walking at the worst of times, especially when you add in waiting time.
As a result, the bus works best for those people who can't walk or cycle - old people, mothers with buggies - and poor people who have little choice but to sit in a bus for an hour or more as it crosses town.
Point to point longer distance, special purpose buses that don't need to follow main routes can work much better. Airport shuttles, work shuttles, that kind of thing.
They go through all the busiest areas to maximize passenger numbers, which is what makes them slow.
Delays compound; since per-stop timetables are unpredictable due to traffic, buses normally just try to make the best time they can. Which means you wait for the bus, possibly for a long time. So a late bus becomes later, as it takes longer to board the extra passengers, and then the next bus catches up, and you get bunching.
You're much better off walking or cycling to a rail option if you have it. Buses in busy cities are barely faster than walking at the worst of times, especially when you add in waiting time.
As a result, the bus works best for those people who can't walk or cycle - old people, mothers with buggies - and poor people who have little choice but to sit in a bus for an hour or more as it crosses town.
Point to point longer distance, special purpose buses that don't need to follow main routes can work much better. Airport shuttles, work shuttles, that kind of thing.
You really should come visit Copenhagen sometime. Our buses work amazingly well :-)
The only times it gets a bit busy and bunched up is during rush hour, but I've rarely had to wait more than 10 minutes for the next bus, even in the worst cases.
The only times it gets a bit busy and bunched up is during rush hour, but I've rarely had to wait more than 10 minutes for the next bus, even in the worst cases.
I keep hearing a lot of anti-car sentiment on HN, and a lot of claims that cities with good public transit are wonderful. Amsterdam is often cited as an example. So I decided to find out for myself. I went there.
It convinced me more than ever that I will always prefer car/uber/lyft to public transit. Wait, hear me out.
Yes, buses and bikes were wonderful. But, they do not stop at my door, and they do not stop at where I want to go. Sometimes they stop close, sometimes a few blocks away. Lots of people will argue that this is OK, but it really is not when the weather is a freezing rain. So basically to subscribe to your vision of the future city, I have to subject myself to walking and waiting in freezing rain?
No thanks. Car/Uber/Lyft for me.
PS: I am not saying let's stop having buses. Just that everyone who claims that everyone should be on buses and we should ban cars from cities is delusional or a masochist.
[bring on the downvotes, thanks for proving the point that no rational debate can be had here]
It convinced me more than ever that I will always prefer car/uber/lyft to public transit. Wait, hear me out.
Yes, buses and bikes were wonderful. But, they do not stop at my door, and they do not stop at where I want to go. Sometimes they stop close, sometimes a few blocks away. Lots of people will argue that this is OK, but it really is not when the weather is a freezing rain. So basically to subscribe to your vision of the future city, I have to subject myself to walking and waiting in freezing rain?
No thanks. Car/Uber/Lyft for me.
PS: I am not saying let's stop having buses. Just that everyone who claims that everyone should be on buses and we should ban cars from cities is delusional or a masochist.
[bring on the downvotes, thanks for proving the point that no rational debate can be had here]
Cars are more convenient; no one contests this point.
But they come at significant cost, and these costs are also often opaque.
People advocating for public transit are often motivated by things like walkable downtowns, more compact neighborhoods, reduced public spending on roads, less traffic, and fewer parking lot oceans. Perhaps additionally public health, climate change, or air quality.
I think ultimately it's not about how public transit is itself so amazing; it's really more about the city you could have, if cars & car infrastructure were not so dominant.
But they come at significant cost, and these costs are also often opaque.
People advocating for public transit are often motivated by things like walkable downtowns, more compact neighborhoods, reduced public spending on roads, less traffic, and fewer parking lot oceans. Perhaps additionally public health, climate change, or air quality.
I think ultimately it's not about how public transit is itself so amazing; it's really more about the city you could have, if cars & car infrastructure were not so dominant.
If your bike doesn't stop at your door or doesn't go where you want to go, you're using it wrong.
I bought an electric bicycle recently after years of being a staunch car supporter. I am now convinced that the electric bicycle is the perfect mode of personal transport for non-rural areas. It takes up hardly any room, it doesn't make much noise, it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone, it doesn't get stuck in traffic, you can park it anywhere for free. You can even take it through pedestrian-only zones if you get off and push. Being electrically-assisted, it can actually get you up hills at a fair speed without making you arrive at your destination sweaty and smelly. Being a bicycle, it can still be used even if you ride it so far that the battery goes flat (well over 30 miles).
It's personal transport of the future. Everyone should get one.
Edit: and if you want to try out an ebike, there's almost certainly a bike shop near you that will rent you one for a day.
I bought an electric bicycle recently after years of being a staunch car supporter. I am now convinced that the electric bicycle is the perfect mode of personal transport for non-rural areas. It takes up hardly any room, it doesn't make much noise, it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone, it doesn't get stuck in traffic, you can park it anywhere for free. You can even take it through pedestrian-only zones if you get off and push. Being electrically-assisted, it can actually get you up hills at a fair speed without making you arrive at your destination sweaty and smelly. Being a bicycle, it can still be used even if you ride it so far that the battery goes flat (well over 30 miles).
It's personal transport of the future. Everyone should get one.
Edit: and if you want to try out an ebike, there's almost certainly a bike shop near you that will rent you one for a day.
It's personal transport of the future. Everyone should get one.
In warm and dry parts of the world with good roads. You try biking in Toronto in the winter! Some people also understand that roads are dangerous, and being hit by a car when you’re on a bike is very bad news.
In warm and dry parts of the world with good roads. You try biking in Toronto in the winter! Some people also understand that roads are dangerous, and being hit by a car when you’re on a bike is very bad news.
> In warm and dry parts of the world with good roads.
All you need are good roads. Bicycling in the winter in Helsinki or – even further north – Oulu is completely mainstream. People know how to dress for the outdoors, and as long as the bike lanes are cleared of snow, cycling is not viewed as the major inconvenience that people in warmer countries expect it to be.
All you need are good roads. Bicycling in the winter in Helsinki or – even further north – Oulu is completely mainstream. People know how to dress for the outdoors, and as long as the bike lanes are cleared of snow, cycling is not viewed as the major inconvenience that people in warmer countries expect it to be.
“All you need are good roads.” That’s a Big expensive undertaking. In Canada (which is ever so slightly bigger than Finland) the roads range from excellent to abysmal. In the US the roads often have potholes and little accommodation for cycles, and the U.K. has some of the worst roads I’ve seen outside of a developing nation. Finland is also a small country with a population which all lives in the same climate. Countries like the US and Canada are huge, and far more populous, with population densities varying wildly. In addition, the climate ranges from lovely to arctic.
Needless to say, this creates a host of issues you won’t find in Helsinki, where 1.2m of Finland’s 5m inhabitants live. A bunch of very similar people living in the equivalent of one American state or small Canadian province, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and weather can make roads and cycling a priority. Good luck scaling that.
Needless to say, this creates a host of issues you won’t find in Helsinki, where 1.2m of Finland’s 5m inhabitants live. A bunch of very similar people living in the equivalent of one American state or small Canadian province, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and weather can make roads and cycling a priority. Good luck scaling that.
Note that I mentioned Oulu. The bike lane infrastructure constructed there – the sheer total distance of lanes versus the city’s population – makes it preposterous to claim that Toronto (the example city in the grandparent post) cannot also have decent winter cycling.
We are talking about one city; no one is suggesting that Canada’s rural areas – which is the only place it would be relevant to bring up distance or low population density like you did – need bike lanes, too.
We are talking about one city; no one is suggesting that Canada’s rural areas – which is the only place it would be relevant to bring up distance or low population density like you did – need bike lanes, too.
FWIW, I live in the UK. The roads are fine for cycling and the cyclepaths are excellent.
There is a "National Cycle Network" of cyclepaths and roads that are exceptionally well-suited to cycling (low traffic etc.), and it is signposted well.
(But, again, I hadn't noticed any of this until after I got the bike).
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map
There is a "National Cycle Network" of cyclepaths and roads that are exceptionally well-suited to cycling (low traffic etc.), and it is signposted well.
(But, again, I hadn't noticed any of this until after I got the bike).
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map
> Some people also understand that roads are dangerous, and being hit by a car when you’re on a bike is very bad news.
Some people understand that cars are dangerous, and would see the risk of killing people with your car as a downside to using a car.
The parent specifically mentioned 'it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone' as an advantage for the bike.
Some people understand that cars are dangerous, and would see the risk of killing people with your car as a downside to using a car.
The parent specifically mentioned 'it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone' as an advantage for the bike.
Fair points. Where I live there is actually a very good network of cycle paths.
But I didn't even know they existed until after I got the bike and started planning routes for journeys.
Even if the cycling infrastructure near you is unsuitable, there are still lots of people in places that do have good cycling infrastructure but either don't realise it or just haven't tried it.
Those people should strongly consider trying out an ebike!
But I didn't even know they existed until after I got the bike and started planning routes for journeys.
Even if the cycling infrastructure near you is unsuitable, there are still lots of people in places that do have good cycling infrastructure but either don't realise it or just haven't tried it.
Those people should strongly consider trying out an ebike!
I like my car. A lot. Stereo is great, seats are comfortable, goes where I want it to go when I want it to. Sure it's expensive, I have 220$ monthly parking bill (Pittsburgh, I know it's worse elsewhere), insurance, traffic, whatever--in a way I think my car is like a child's safety blanket. I just don't feel right without it handy.
I felt the same way. Then I sold my car and I cannot believe how much money I am saving, it's actually a little bit ridiculous.
> But, they do not stop at my door, and they do not stop at where I want to go. Sometimes they stop close, sometimes a few blocks away.
I think it's reasonable to expect a commuter to walk 4-5 blocks on either end of a ride unless they happen to be handicapped. And winter jackets, boots, and umbrellas are available for the conditions you've mentioned.
No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities. Those will be needed, but they should definitely not be the default mode of transportation for most urban dwellers.
I think it's reasonable to expect a commuter to walk 4-5 blocks on either end of a ride unless they happen to be handicapped. And winter jackets, boots, and umbrellas are available for the conditions you've mentioned.
No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities. Those will be needed, but they should definitely not be the default mode of transportation for most urban dwellers.
From this same thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17034959
> God I would love it Manhattan banned Uber and all non-commercial traffic (exile all civilian traffic to the highways and parking garages alongside them) and upped the number of buses. Clean new yellow cabs too and tougher requirements to drive them (raise the fares, I don't care).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17034959
> God I would love it Manhattan banned Uber and all non-commercial traffic (exile all civilian traffic to the highways and parking garages alongside them) and upped the number of buses. Clean new yellow cabs too and tougher requirements to drive them (raise the fares, I don't care).
Manhattan is not a city, it's the smallest borough of a city.
> No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities.
>"No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities"
I am actually saying that, at least for the city centers.
Ban private cars, or charge a non-trivial congestion fee. Let commercial vehicles with a business purpose drive there, for deliveries and work, and let taxi services operate. But get rid of the space-hogging private cars.
I am actually saying that, at least for the city centers.
Ban private cars, or charge a non-trivial congestion fee. Let commercial vehicles with a business purpose drive there, for deliveries and work, and let taxi services operate. But get rid of the space-hogging private cars.
Amsterdam is not really what I’d consider ideal for transit (there is the walkable tourist area (with trams and for locals, bikes) and then a larger area around it with a fairly frustrating train system and great roads. Outside of the core tourist area, the main disadvantage of a car is cost.
Hong Kong seems like a better example of a place where transit clearly wins. Higher density, inferior roads, and better transit.
Hong Kong seems like a better example of a place where transit clearly wins. Higher density, inferior roads, and better transit.
> buses and bikes were wonderful. But, they do not stop at my door, and they do not stop at where I want to go.
Welcome to planet earth. It doesn't revolve around you.
Welcome to planet earth. It doesn't revolve around you.
"You're not important enough for buses to cater to your needs" is not a very strong argument for using buses.
But it is a strong argument to people to take the initiative to live where transit is feasible rather than live where it's not and complain about it.
I live a 10 minute bike ride from a park-and-ride bus stop where I have several bus line options to get to work, my bike+bus commute is faster than my driving commute because the bus takes the express lanes (and can legally drive on road shoulders in some places). I do a full bike commute some days, but it takes about twice as long by bike as it does by bike+bus, so I don't do it all the time. If I didn't want to bike to the bus, there's a local bus that runs a block away from my house that I could take to the park and ride.
But I didn't end up with this transit accessible commute by accident, I purposely chose where I live so I could take transit.
I live a 10 minute bike ride from a park-and-ride bus stop where I have several bus line options to get to work, my bike+bus commute is faster than my driving commute because the bus takes the express lanes (and can legally drive on road shoulders in some places). I do a full bike commute some days, but it takes about twice as long by bike as it does by bike+bus, so I don't do it all the time. If I didn't want to bike to the bus, there's a local bus that runs a block away from my house that I could take to the park and ride.
But I didn't end up with this transit accessible commute by accident, I purposely chose where I live so I could take transit.
That only works for people who already want to take the bus.
If you like your car and you don't like buses, why would you pay any attention to the buses when choosing where to live?
You don't win people over by saying they need to go out of their way to come over to your side, you win people over by showing how good your alternative is.
Buses are great if you're poor, but otherwise they're very inconvenient everywhere I've ever lived.
If you like your car and you don't like buses, why would you pay any attention to the buses when choosing where to live?
You don't win people over by saying they need to go out of their way to come over to your side, you win people over by showing how good your alternative is.
Buses are great if you're poor, but otherwise they're very inconvenient everywhere I've ever lived.
Nor you. We each get a vote. And mine is for cars.
Also, what about bicycles does not allow them to go to your door or where you want to go?
Biking in freezing rain isn't wonderful either
There's always rain gear...
But I'm already working on it, actually. Rentable covered trikes and quadricycles with electric motors and storage. Slim enough to fit two to three units per road lane. Capable of multiple trips across town up steep hills before needing to be recharged, and remaining light enough to pedal (the default mode being lightly assisted power). Tow trailers and rear sidecars are an option, too.
But I'm already working on it, actually. Rentable covered trikes and quadricycles with electric motors and storage. Slim enough to fit two to three units per road lane. Capable of multiple trips across town up steep hills before needing to be recharged, and remaining light enough to pedal (the default mode being lightly assisted power). Tow trailers and rear sidecars are an option, too.
It seems like this approach is a slow re-invention of the car.
I mean, you could also claim bicycles are obsolete and why not use scooters and motorcycles, but they have different use cases.
Cars are two-ton balls of complexity that last decades, operate in any environment and require mostly non-renewable energy. They've very costly, they take up a lot of room, they're expensive and complicated to maintain, and they're dangerous enough that you can't operate one without a license and we need laws and officers to regulate and police their use.
My vehicle is basically a four wheeled electric bicycle with a plastic cover. These already exist in many places with slightly different design. They've just never been designed specifically with dense urban transportation in mind.
Also, they're not intended to replace public transit. You can not get more efficient than a train, light rail or a bus. My vehicle is intended to provide the kind of personal transportation that a car is used for in cities while allowing for denser and more efficient transportation while also being safer and pollute less, to say nothing of parking, and cost of ownership.
Cars are two-ton balls of complexity that last decades, operate in any environment and require mostly non-renewable energy. They've very costly, they take up a lot of room, they're expensive and complicated to maintain, and they're dangerous enough that you can't operate one without a license and we need laws and officers to regulate and police their use.
My vehicle is basically a four wheeled electric bicycle with a plastic cover. These already exist in many places with slightly different design. They've just never been designed specifically with dense urban transportation in mind.
Also, they're not intended to replace public transit. You can not get more efficient than a train, light rail or a bus. My vehicle is intended to provide the kind of personal transportation that a car is used for in cities while allowing for denser and more efficient transportation while also being safer and pollute less, to say nothing of parking, and cost of ownership.
Which is a sensible thing to do if the design parameters for transport that is limited to an urban region are significantly different from that of the typical car.
[deleted]
I'm too spoiled to walk in the rain is hardly rational debate.
I love light rail, not the bus:
http://setosa.io/bus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching
http://setosa.io/bus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching
In Portland, OR, the light rail does 'train bunching', with the exact same consequences (inconsistent schedule, overcrowded trains followed closely by empty ones, etc).
Yup!
The fix is to prioritize trains over all other street traffic, especially cars. (I suppose you could do this with buses, too, but people don't really see it that way because they have rubber wheels just like cars...)
The fix is to prioritize trains over all other street traffic, especially cars. (I suppose you could do this with buses, too, but people don't really see it that way because they have rubber wheels just like cars...)
Buses in my country have priority over all other street traffic. They never have a red light, it goes to green automatically when the bus arrives.
In Seattle (where I lived for three years, until just recently,) there was this dedicated bus lane. Cars for the most part stayed off of it, but the bus still had to stop at traffic lights.
Anything on rail is just way more suited to nonstop use! People in cars can (or should) more easily understand that trains/streetcars can't just start and stop just for them.
Anything on rail is just way more suited to nonstop use! People in cars can (or should) more easily understand that trains/streetcars can't just start and stop just for them.
There are lots of those in Seattle and King County. They even close down an entire avenue during rush hour and turn it into a bus-only street.
Dedicated lanes and roads help, but light rail is significantly faster than buses & more reliable. It is a huge reason why we're investing in building Light Rail out to the outer reaches of Seattle.
With Light Rail, you are essentially buying people part of their lives back in the form of a shorter commute. That is quite important, as time spent driving in traffic is pretty well wasted.
With Light Rail, you are essentially buying people part of their lives back in the form of a shorter commute. That is quite important, as time spent driving in traffic is pretty well wasted.
Which is why I'm really excited about the light rail stop at Northgate, because it will cut my travel time into the city by 20 minutes.
[deleted]
Light rail is... well terrible. Build a real rail system separated from car traffic to avoid slowing down public transit to match the speed of private transit.
Proper light rail systems are fully separated from traffic.
You're probably thinking of trams ("streetcars" in North America), which don't have a fully segregated right of way.
You're probably thinking of trams ("streetcars" in North America), which don't have a fully segregated right of way.
If it's fully separated from traffic why/how isn't it just regular ("heavy") rail?
The "light" refers to the weight and capacity of the rail vehicles themselves. Light rail vehicles are typically smaller and carry less passengers per car than heavy rail.
Light rail systems don't share track with heavy rail (which can include freight services, etc), so the regulatory requirements for things like crash safety are often reduced.
All of this reduces the cost of the light rail systems compared to heavy rail.
Light rail systems don't share track with heavy rail (which can include freight services, etc), so the regulatory requirements for things like crash safety are often reduced.
All of this reduces the cost of the light rail systems compared to heavy rail.
Why not both? Light rail in places dense enough to justify the capital cost and buses to supplement that in the lower density areas.
There is a huge problem here - we are designing cities around the manually operated car, focused on the commute to and from work (and lesser extent school)
But these are dying trends - but they will be baked into our cities by concrete and tarmac for decades.
I travel by coach from outside London (basically they drive round a commuter belt town picking up about 30 people then hop on a motorway. Dozens maybe more of similar coaches run each day). And I work in the City and right now there are, I kid you not, a major 50+ storey building going up on each point of the compass at work. London is adding major office space.
But the jobs will become more remote working - and the infrastructure can barely take it - funnelling millions of people from suburban beds to inner city offices is what half the infrastructure of a city is for.
When this stops, it will stop suddenly.
Remote working is nicer. you spend more time with your kids, you walk, take part in your community, see people.
It wins hands down.
So when something shifts, and remote working hits that tipping point, what happens?
My last position almost everyone did one day a week from home. Turn that into three at home and 2 in meetings and coffee and ...
I'm sorry there is a point i am making but it's late and i need to think on it
But these are dying trends - but they will be baked into our cities by concrete and tarmac for decades.
I travel by coach from outside London (basically they drive round a commuter belt town picking up about 30 people then hop on a motorway. Dozens maybe more of similar coaches run each day). And I work in the City and right now there are, I kid you not, a major 50+ storey building going up on each point of the compass at work. London is adding major office space.
But the jobs will become more remote working - and the infrastructure can barely take it - funnelling millions of people from suburban beds to inner city offices is what half the infrastructure of a city is for.
When this stops, it will stop suddenly.
Remote working is nicer. you spend more time with your kids, you walk, take part in your community, see people.
It wins hands down.
So when something shifts, and remote working hits that tipping point, what happens?
My last position almost everyone did one day a week from home. Turn that into three at home and 2 in meetings and coffee and ...
I'm sorry there is a point i am making but it's late and i need to think on it
Nah how about we all work from home 2 or 3 days a week. People will actually do that and it saves not only the city but whole bunch of other things for the employee and the employer.
People remoting might have a detrimental effect on cities. Some business (especially restaurants) make the majority of their money off of regular customers during business hours, these are extremely healthy businesses for a city economy.
I don't disagree that we should probably all remote more, but don't think it it all up sides.
I don't disagree that we should probably all remote more, but don't think it it all up sides.
Yes, it'd be really interesting to see cities try to develop that as a partial solution to congestion and pollution. Offering a formal 3/5 days telecommute option for a large enough portion of your workforce should qualify for some type of rebate, subsidy, or credit.
Interesting idea, but the law of hidden consequences will surely bite in some form or another. For example, the aggregate of employees' houses is almost certainly less efficient energy-wise than their offices. I feel confident that many neighborhoods' internet service would struggle under the weight of simultaneous videoconferencing from every house.
Here's a possibly dumb proposal: don't support wheelchairs on buses, instead give them a city/state-run uber-for-wheelchairs service. The problem is that supporting wheelchairs adds an inordinate burden to buses and makes sticking to a schedule completely impossible even if there is no traffic. If you want to take the bus 3 miles, a wheelchair user getting on could double your ride time. So would giving the wheelchair users their own service actually even cost much on the net? Presumably the bus service could save money by not handling wheelchairs on the bus while still sticking to a given level of service and reliability.
I'm not sure it's economically feasible but if service to wheelchair users improves too then it might be something you could sell as a good thing above and beyond the improvements to the bus service.
I'm not sure it's economically feasible but if service to wheelchair users improves too then it might be something you could sell as a good thing above and beyond the improvements to the bus service.
instead give them a city/state-run uber-for-wheelchairs service
As it turned out, they just let anybody ride who has the gall to call them. 90% of their trips amount to a taxpayer-subsidized cab service for the self-important.
The award of the contract was suspect, too, and the subcontractor had to be dumped at great expense... just like the county's ambulance contract with Rural/Metro.
That's unfortunate. However this sounds a lot more like corruption and a shady business issue "fulfilling" a contract, or a /very/ poorly written contract.
I ride the bus every day and honestly, if it's not crowded, it's usually more comfortable than sitting in a car. You don't have to strike up conversation with anyone or anything either. You can usually bust out your laptop too. I sometimes avoid taking the express buses to work because I know I'll get a seat on the local bus, even if it takes an extra 10 mins.
My biggest issue is I systematically underestimate the time it takes me to get to the stop (I use bus trackers and leave with the minimum amount of time required to make it to the stop), so I often end up running or sometimes barely miss the bus.
My biggest issue is I systematically underestimate the time it takes me to get to the stop (I use bus trackers and leave with the minimum amount of time required to make it to the stop), so I often end up running or sometimes barely miss the bus.
One thing that seems to have not been addressed here is noise. I was just on a quick walk in downtown Sydney, Australia. It was so loud on the sidewalks, with buses seeming to contribute a huge portion of noise. Additionally, the diesel exhaust can be stifling particularly in these urban corridor situations where the buildings trap the fumes. I would much rather be walking next to 50 Prius/Camry taxi cabs and a few private vehicles than 10 loud buses. I agree with the idea of bus utilization in cities but there are certainly some downsides.
Electric buses and CNG buses are already here, and they are quieter. It might take some time for Sydney to retire old diesel buses, but they won't be that loud & fumey forever.
CNG buses don’t seem to do as well as diesel with hot weather and lots of hills, two things Sydney has an abundance of. A few have also caught fire. That said, Sydney’s CNG buses are pretty old now so maybe the tech is updated.
Ironically, that makes it sound like Sydney is a great place for cable trolley. No engine whatsoever, works great on hills.
Were you in the CBD? I'd say the downside of the noise is worth it. The amount of Sydneysiders driving in to work solo is staggering.
Yeah, CBD. I can deal with the noise, but the diesel fumes get to me. It was more just thinking "if this noise and exhaust wasn't here, this would be a much more pleasant experience."
Can someone explain why it's so common for buses in the US to stop every damn block? In SF even some subway lines do this. This seems like the surest way to render the mode of transportation entirely useless.
I'm of the opinion that buses are the best candidate for the first mode of road transport that can eliminate road deaths for passengers.
They're driven by professional drivers who don't drink, have strict rules about the amount of rest, don't speed and typically (far more than amateurs) drive in a predictable sensible manner.
Certainly in Belgium it's down to single figures per year. The crashes that do occur are usually caused by amateur drivers in cars, the driver falling unconscious or something like a tire blowout.
I think passive neural networks can be trained to take over if the driver becomes unwell (this was one of Musk's claims for the Autopilot in the Tesla Semi) and I think they can be trained to handle the situation of a tire blowout better than a human.
The final issue is amateur drivers. Not much can be done about them until we reach level 4 automation.
They're driven by professional drivers who don't drink, have strict rules about the amount of rest, don't speed and typically (far more than amateurs) drive in a predictable sensible manner.
Certainly in Belgium it's down to single figures per year. The crashes that do occur are usually caused by amateur drivers in cars, the driver falling unconscious or something like a tire blowout.
I think passive neural networks can be trained to take over if the driver becomes unwell (this was one of Musk's claims for the Autopilot in the Tesla Semi) and I think they can be trained to handle the situation of a tire blowout better than a human.
The final issue is amateur drivers. Not much can be done about them until we reach level 4 automation.
I have mixed feelings towards the bus. The light rail is okay, the underground is great, but the bus experience is...greatly variable.
Getting to the underground platform and getting back to street level adds 5-10 mins of wasted time which the bus makes up for but the problem with buses is traffic. It’s taken me 1 hour to go a mile and a half in London more than once in areas where there is a congestion charge (toll to discourage private cars) in place.
[deleted]
Similar to lyft line we want these services to be convenient to the passengers at the same time there is a pool. Based on location and time we might need to change size of the bus and also reduce the number of stops. Unless this is solved no one is going to use it nor going to be profitable
With the push for self driving cars, I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about self driving buses. It seems like it would be a slightly simpler problem to have a self-driving vehicle along a predefined route.
There are, Mercedes has built one [0]. But this suffers from the same problem as Autopilot/Uber crash that it's not fully autonomous so the bus driver has to stay alert whilst doing nothing.
[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/18/self-driving-mercedes-benz...
[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/18/self-driving-mercedes-benz...
My favorite line ever from any kids book of all time "The Bus is For Us" https://www.amazon.com/Bus-Us-Michael-Rosen/dp/0763669830 "The bus is the best, the best is the bus, the bus is the best because the bus is for us!"
We need to start planning cities and towns in terms of foot traffic and stop assuming the need for other forms of transportation.
I would if it didn’t smell terrible, have extremely limited routes across the state and ran a little more often...
Buses fucking suck.
Buses make you wait in the rain.
Buses get stuck in traffic very easily.
Buses create traffic and make it worse with their size.
Buses idle diesel fumes as they stand in traffic.
Buses are noisy and idle outside of homes.
Bus stops in front of homes are filled with noisy people.
Buses that permit requested stops go nowhere slower than ever.
Buses are a half measure.
Buses fucking suck.
Buses make you wait in the rain.
Buses get stuck in traffic very easily.
Buses create traffic and make it worse with their size.
Buses idle diesel fumes as they stand in traffic.
Buses are noisy and idle outside of homes.
Bus stops in front of homes are filled with noisy people.
Buses that permit requested stops go nowhere slower than ever.
Buses are a half measure.
Buses fucking suck.
>"Buses make you wait in the rain."
There's this thing called a bus shelter. They're actually really inexpensive to put up. Ask your city why they're not putting them up.
>"Buses get stuck in traffic very easily."
No more easily than a car. Bus-only lanes work amazingly well to mitigate the problems of traffic and congestion.
>"Buses create traffic and make it worse with their size."
Buses take up much less space per passenger than cars, so it's kind of ridiculous to make that argument.
>"Buses idle diesel fumes as they stand in traffic." >"Buses are noisy and idle outside of homes."
Natural gas buses and electric buses and being phased in, they're both quieter and cleaner than diesel buses. And bus lanes reduce idling time significantly.
>"Bus stops in front of homes are filled with noisy people."
Oh no, people. How horrible.
There's this thing called a bus shelter. They're actually really inexpensive to put up. Ask your city why they're not putting them up.
>"Buses get stuck in traffic very easily."
No more easily than a car. Bus-only lanes work amazingly well to mitigate the problems of traffic and congestion.
>"Buses create traffic and make it worse with their size."
Buses take up much less space per passenger than cars, so it's kind of ridiculous to make that argument.
>"Buses idle diesel fumes as they stand in traffic." >"Buses are noisy and idle outside of homes."
Natural gas buses and electric buses and being phased in, they're both quieter and cleaner than diesel buses. And bus lanes reduce idling time significantly.
>"Bus stops in front of homes are filled with noisy people."
Oh no, people. How horrible.
And, where I'm from (Cambridge, UK), they also:
Are more expensive than driving.
Are regulated in such a way that prevents a competitive market.
Are run by profit making companies that demand subsidies from government.
Don't run at night.
Are full at rush hour.
Spend ages at the bus stop while everyone buys tickets, argues with the driver, asks which bus this is etc etc.
A single ticket can't be used on buses from two different companies.
I cycle. The buses seem like a threat to my safety because they are too big to overtake safely on a busy street. Also their engines are at the back, so I can't hear when they're sneaking up behind me.
Once they don't need a driver and are electric, most of these problems could be solved. I'll re-assess then.
Are more expensive than driving.
Are regulated in such a way that prevents a competitive market.
Are run by profit making companies that demand subsidies from government.
Don't run at night.
Are full at rush hour.
Spend ages at the bus stop while everyone buys tickets, argues with the driver, asks which bus this is etc etc.
A single ticket can't be used on buses from two different companies.
I cycle. The buses seem like a threat to my safety because they are too big to overtake safely on a busy street. Also their engines are at the back, so I can't hear when they're sneaking up behind me.
Once they don't need a driver and are electric, most of these problems could be solved. I'll re-assess then.
Come to Copenhagen and see how a unified public transport system is supposed to work. My tickets work for all buses and all trains equally.
Don't blame public transport as a concept, blame private profiteering and corruption.
Don't blame public transport as a concept, blame private profiteering and corruption.
I've been to Copenhagen. I noticed you have a lot of cyclists! But no, I agree with your point. I think that is the main problem.
I've been told by a US expat that we must have "the fittest fat people in the world", since everyone bikes here. Young, old, fit, fat, everyone bikes :-)
Bus shelters, bus-only lanes and electric buses solve nearly all of those problems.
Transit ridership is down across the country:
https://www.nationaltransitdatabase.org/national-statistics/
I just don't see how you convince people to ride the bus vs rides haring. The bus is virtually always incredibly inconvenient and slow. It really is a last resort mode of transportation. It's no surprise that virtually all transit agencies across the country are seeing dramatic declines in bus usage since 2014.
https://www.nationaltransitdatabase.org/national-statistics/
I just don't see how you convince people to ride the bus vs rides haring. The bus is virtually always incredibly inconvenient and slow. It really is a last resort mode of transportation. It's no surprise that virtually all transit agencies across the country are seeing dramatic declines in bus usage since 2014.
I'm not saying that this is a morally acceptable thing, I just suspect this is a significant reason why bus ridership has been declining.