
Buses Need Our Love More Than Ever - jseliger
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/love-the-bus-save-your-city/559262/
======
Endama
I suspect the uncomfortable truth behind a lot of the problems regarding
public transit isn't the transit itself, but the passengers. If you had the
choice of riding a public bus with a large collection of the public or paying
a few bucks and selecting a preferred subset of the ridership (e.g. chariot in
SF, uber, lyft, etc.) I think most will choose the non-bus option to feel
comfortable during their ride.

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.

~~~
reaperducer
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.

~~~
munk-a
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?

~~~
reaperducer
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."

------
ThrustVectoring
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.

~~~
stefan_
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.

~~~
paulgerhardt
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...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/26/curitiba-brazil-brt-
transport-revolution-history-cities-50-buildings)

[2] [http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/mar/21/bogotas-bus-rapid-
trans...](http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/mar/21/bogotas-bus-rapid-transit-
system-eyed-us-urban-pla/)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI)

~~~
wool_gather
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.

~~~
nordsieck
> 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.

~~~
cozzyd
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.

~~~
nordsieck
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.

~~~
apendleton
> 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.

------
prostoalex
> 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...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-
homeless-20180406-htmlstory.html)

"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."

~~~
sudosteph
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.

~~~
techsupporter
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.

------
Dwolb
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.

~~~
ravitation
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.

~~~
edaemon
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.

~~~
ajmurmann
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.

~~~
edaemon
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.

------
rdl
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.

~~~
jdavis703
> 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.

~~~
maoistinquisitr
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
>"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.

~~~
rdl
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
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?".

------
komali2
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!

~~~
busterarm
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).

~~~
kpil
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.

~~~
Reason077
_" 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.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Electric cars are coming too.

~~~
KozmoNau7
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.

------
cgy1
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.

~~~
kd0amg
_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.

------
zucked
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.

~~~
tathougies
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.

~~~
jessaustin
Comparing those buses to those that serve other areas seems a little bit like
admiring charter schools that only accept rich smart kids...

~~~
tathougies
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?

~~~
stevejb
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.

~~~
tathougies
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.

~~~
stevejb
[http://time.com/money/3014512/richest-wealthiest-highest-
inc...](http://time.com/money/3014512/richest-wealthiest-highest-income-
counties-america-united-states/)

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.

~~~
dredmorbius
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.

------
barrkel
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
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.

------
dmitrygr
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]

~~~
et-al
> _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.

~~~
stevejb
From this same thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17034959](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).

~~~
icebraining
Manhattan is not a city, it's the smallest borough of a city.

------
maxharris
I love light rail, not the bus:

[http://setosa.io/bus/](http://setosa.io/bus/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching)

~~~
craftyguy
In Portland, OR, the light rail does 'train bunching', with the exact same
consequences (inconsistent schedule, overcrowded trains followed closely by
empty ones, etc).

~~~
maxharris
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...)

~~~
evandijk70
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.

------
lifeisstillgood
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

------
evo_9
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.

~~~
munk-a
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.

------
tgb
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.

~~~
DrScump

      instead give them a city/state-run uber-for-wheelchairs service
    

The San Jose area has that: "Paratransit". It was supposed to serve mobility-
impaired people who have difficulty using buses (although all buses have
lifts).

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.

~~~
mjevans
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.

------
cozzyd
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.

------
stevejb
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.

~~~
gascan
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.

~~~
jboles
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.

~~~
gascan
Ironically, that makes it sound like Sydney is a great place for cable
trolley. No engine whatsoever, works great on hills.

------
ajmurmann
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.

------
icc97
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.

------
Piskvorrr
I have mixed feelings towards the bus. The light rail is okay, the underground
is great, but the bus experience is...greatly variable.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
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.

------
sabareesh
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

------
imgabe
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.

~~~
icc97
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...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/18/self-driving-mercedes-benz-bus-
takes-a-milestone-12-mile-trip/)

------
jonbarker
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](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!"

------
wollw
We need to start planning cities and towns in terms of foot traffic and stop
assuming the need for other forms of transportation.

------
BoorishBears
I would if it didn’t smell terrible, have extremely limited routes across the
state and ran a little more often...

------
downer68
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.

~~~
abainbridge
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
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.

~~~
abainbridge
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
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 :-)

------
jayess
Transit ridership is down across the country:

[https://www.nationaltransitdatabase.org/national-
statistics/](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.

