
Preferences for Trains vs. Buses - prostoalex
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/02/the-myth-that-everyone-naturally-prefers-trains-to-buses/385759/?utm_source=wired&mbid=social_fb
======
robotcookies
People do in general prefer trains over buses. This article is basically just
saying that as you make the buses more train-like by giving them dedicated
lanes and more reliability, people start to like buses more. Make them longer
(articulated), faster, with dedicated lanes, and basically they start to
become like a train with rubber tires. I think that is in fact, confirming
people like trains better.

Titles do matter and I have an issue with the title of the article. It's like
saying people prefer lobster soup over pea soup, but as you start to add more
lobster to the pea soup... people start to like the pea soup... and therefore,
it's a "myth" that people prefer lobster over peas. People prefer faster,
reliable service with fewer stops - duh.

~~~
baldfat
Boses have traffic. People don't like traffic. Trains don't have traffic.

~~~
uhwhat
Trains also sometimes have lounge cars, dining cars and theaters.

Buses confine you to a cramped seat and if you're lucky there's a tiny
bathroom on board.

~~~
DanBC
In England some coaches (long distance buses) have tables (seat four people);
power sockets and WIFI. They might have a fridge with cold bottled water.

Some buses have WIFI.

~~~
baldfat
We have wifi and nice coach buses in the US. Still don't want to ride them
over a train. Trains are certainly faster and more dependable in terms of time
of arrival.

------
maxsilver
> people have just used "trains" to mean "good transit" and "buses" to mean
> "bad transit." If that's the case, then marketing better buses as something
> like trains (or, at least, something other than buses) should weaken this
> automatic association.

> But such efforts will fall flat without meaningful investments in well-
> designed service: dedicated lanes, reliable peak and off-peak service, off-
> board fare payments, comfortable stations or enhanced shelters, or
> reconfigured routes, to start the list. A pretty picture alone isn't enough.

I wish the author had taken this further. It's not a "myth" that people like
trains over buses, it's true and for really good reasons.

Buses / BRT _are_ "bad transit", and Light Rail (or trains / subways / etc)
_are_ "good transit" the vast majority of the time it's actually deployed
today. That's not "perception", it's truth. You can use marketing to hide
that, but the fact will still remain.

This is intentional -- BRT intentionally comes full of big compromises that
Light Rail typically doesn't have. These compromises are what makes BRT
cheaper than Light Rail in the first place.

Transit authorities want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to
pay for good service, but they want to pretend BRT is "like Light Rail" to
make people think they've gotten good service -- that a route hasn't been
shortchanged. It doesn't work that way -- claming BRT is "like Light Rail" is
like slapping wheels onto a tent and saying its "like a RV".

The article is right to promote actual investments in transit. But if your
going through the investment of making BRT as good as Light Rail (such as 100%
dedicated grade-separated routes that can't be impacted by traffic) then your
going to incur most of the costs of real Light Rail anyway, so you might as
well make the service real Light Rail and get the full benefits of that
investment (such as faster transit, smoother rides, much larger carrying
capacity, less local air pollution, etc)

------
vacri
_The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated
lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you 'll find, if
you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground._

The faint sign of tracks on the ground... and that the tram is 50% longer than
the bus. That's not minor. It's crazy that they went to the extent of
designing the bus and the tram to look identical, then just lobbed on another
50% length to the rail.

There are also experiential differences between bus and tram, at least here in
my city (which has the most heavily-trammed road in the world). A tram pulls
up, and punters can get on from a variety of doors. A bus pulls up, and you
can only get on at the front, and have to shuffle your way down the vehicle.
Buses are usually a lot more cramped as well - few buses handle a stroller
well, though some of the newer ones do.

In any case, if you're running your buses like trams, with their own dedicated
lane and so forth... then you may as well turn them into rail vehicles,
because they're cheaper to run (both in maintenance and wages) and service
more people. Of the two images presented, each vehicle has one driver, but the
tram carries 50% more folks.

~~~
dfcowell
Thank you! I can't believe I had to scroll almost to the bottom of the
comments before someone picked up on the length issue.

To add to the already comprehensive list of reasons you gave for tram
superiority - due to the electrical drivetrain and bogey system that all rail-
based vehicles implement, there is generally more usable room for passengers
inside the vehicle, as well as a much quieter environment due to the lack of
engine noise. Additionally, the fact that light rail runs on, well, rails,
means that generally speaking you enjoy a much more comfortable, smooth ride.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I've ridden on light rail - and the 'quiet' feature was noticeably lacking. It
was rattling, clacking, whooshing, pitching, vibrating so loudly that
conversation was impossible. Whilst a bus is generally pretty comfortable and
convenient. So I don't agree on that point.

------
louisphilippe
There is a catch-22 with buses.

Buses would be a lot better if cities had congestion pricing that could
greatly reduce traffic delays. Buses would also be a lot better if there were
more routes and better frequency.

But people oppose congestion pricing because it would make commutes much more
expensive for the poor. But if you actually had it, then the bus would be a
much more feasible form of transportation, because it would be quicker. And as
it became quicker, more people would take it, and the frequency would
increase. And that would altogether be much cheaper for the poor than
commuting by car.

So we cannot have good bus transportation until we have congestion pricing.
But we cannot have congestion pricing until busses are a much better way to
get to work.

~~~
mistermann
> congestion pricing

Is that a surcharge for being on certain roads at certain times of the day?
It's a good idea if it could be undertaken in a somewhat fair way, are there
any well thought out theories that you know of?

~~~
kahirsch
London has been doing it since 2003.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge)

------
archagon
The problem with buses is that they're completely unpredictable. You might as
well not even look at the schedule. There's also the issue of having to
purchase your ticket; buses rarely have automatic kiosks as do trains and
light rail, and you often have to talk to the operator to get your ticket.
Finally, bus routes are byzantine and completely impossible to unravel by
looking at a map. Rail systems are much more amenable to mapping, and if
you're lost, you can always find a rail stop just by looking under your feet
or giving your favorite mapping app a quick scan.

~~~
bryanlarsen
None of those problems apply to proper BRT systems. That's the author's point.

~~~
archagon
I don't see how you can avoid delays if you still have to follow traffic.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Good BRT systems use tunnels / bridges to avoid traffic. When they do interact
with traffic lights, they have priority access.

------
Macha
Can only speak from the experience of my own country, but in Ireland

This is the inside of a bus:
[http://www.cityswifty.com/SC241interior1.JPG](http://www.cityswifty.com/SC241interior1.JPG)

This is the inside of a train:
[https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2831/9337782850_41264e4fd4_b.j...](https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2831/9337782850_41264e4fd4_b.jpg)

That should say it all as to why people like trains more.

~~~
deathanatos
Are those both public transit? Both of those, but particularly the bus, put
anything I've seen here in America to shame. (Even _private_ bus transit
doesn't look that nice…)

~~~
Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd
(German here.) Both look pretty standard to me. Although I think buses like
that are more common for long-distance. Most buses for public transit I've
seen have more space for standing people:

[http://www.bahnreiseberichte.de/050-Rottalerland-
Thueringen/...](http://www.bahnreiseberichte.de/050-Rottalerland-
Thueringen/50-003Bus908-Innen.JPG) [http://www.eifel-rur-
bus.de/seiten/nachrichten/2007/nachrich...](http://www.eifel-rur-
bus.de/seiten/nachrichten/2007/nachrichten_2007-02/koof_dnak24_2007-03-10_innen01.jpg)

------
andrewf
I'm prone to motion sickness on buses.

Even for people who aren't, I can't imagine the joltiness of travelling in a
geared vehicle that's not on tracks is more pleasant than a train.

~~~
jseliger
_I 'm prone to motion sickness on buses._

Me too.

Plus, the question is often not trains versus buses; it's about grade-
separated versus not grade-separated. Separating the trains from the cars is a
huge improvement.

------
qzcx
Most train systems I've taken don't have to stop at stop lights, but the buses
I've ridden, even with a dedicated lane, still stop at the lights. This means
twice as many stops and starts. Big negative in my mind. But then again, maybe
this is another small improvement which could be made.

~~~
_puk
The stop lights for a train are scheduled such that the train doesn't need to
stop if it is keeping to the schedule. This works on both smaller and larger
lines.

The stop lights for a bus are scheduled in line with the general car
population, so it's pretty hard for the bus to keep to its schedule. There's a
lot of work goes into timing traffic lights (for cars), how much of that
thought process involves keeping the number 49 on time?

~~~
deathanatos
I think perhaps what the parent comment meant was more that trains aren't
inhibited by normal traffic lights; upon approaching a crossing with a road,
the train is immediately given the right-of-way — i.e., the lights activate,
the gates close, the cars stop and allow the train to pass.

True, there is a separate signal for the train, though it's more if the
train(s) ahead of it are keeping to schedule than the train itself. (Rush-hour
trains here are regularly delayed due to the train ahead of the one I tend to
ride being so delayed.)

------
Zigurd
I have taken a "first class" bus from Framingham to New York. It was less
reliable than Amtrak.

"less reliable than Amtrak"

Takes some doing.

~~~
vacri
As a tourist who missed his Amtrak train by minutes in Pittsburgh, I headed
over to the bus station. I had no idea you could basically use your train
ticket as a bus ticket, and I didn't even finish the sentence "Hi there, I
missed my train..." before the teller took my ticket out of my hands and
converted it into a bus ticket. A nice surprise - I was expecting to have to
do a little cajoling, but I didn't even get a chance to say boo. :) (the bus
ride was less than pleasant, though...)

------
busessuck
Part of the preference for trains is that the sunk investment in right-of-way
is a strong disincentive to move or discontinue service. This allows people to
feel confident that they can depend on the service to stay there, and invest
in the areas around these transit corridors.

Anecdote: I lived in Seattle for 10 years without a car. (A city with
surprisingly high transit ridership considering the lack of any sort of rail
network, notwithstanding toy trolleys and the lone light-rail line from
downtown to the airport.) More than once I moved apartments due to bus routes
I relied upon being discontinued or rendered unreliable by drastic service
cuts (e.g. instead of all-day service, you now have 4 trips per weekday, peak
direction only, and if you miss them you're either making two transfers or
walking 2 miles to the nearest direct all-day service. Weekend service?
hahaha.)

This doesn't (often) happen with rail, heavy or light. Being unable to depend
on bus service in any particular corridor to last more then a year or two
without realignment or service cuts made it hard to justify settling down. If
I wanted to buy a car and drive everywhere, why pay the premium to live in the
city in the first place? In the end, I moved back to a real city where I could
depend on the metro.

~~~
willyt
Depends on the city though. Bus routes in London haven't changed for a long
time. The buses I used 30 years ago all have basically the same routes. There
are probably routes that are over 80 years old. But buses could never be grade
separated in London. There's just not enough room.

------
legulere
Light train is still a much smoother riding experience than anything a bus can
achieve. Just get your laptop out and try to do something.

------
guard-of-terra
I wonder what would happen if they also included trolleybuses in the mix.

