Even if every current person's mind has been completely made up based on past experience, there are always "new adults" learning to get around and forming opinions.

So I strongly disagree: marginal improvements DO matter. And I agree with the author that this would be a relatively easy improvement to deliver for many cities.

I live in Chicago with the third-closest stop spacing per the article. I'm personally able to walk a block or two further to a bus stop no problem. Bus stop consolidation would save me a lot of time over the course of a year!

I’m really curious how this would pan out here, but it can’t be the only solution.

“A block or 2” each way at the start and destination is a significant difference (4-8 blocks) for most elderly people.

Busses fill two different roles, as primary means of transportation and arguably more importantly as a backup means of transportation. They can serve a vital role for cities without the kind of investment it would take to make most typical HN reader consider them as a primary means of transportation.

As such latency isn’t necessarily as critical vs coverage here.

One bus route can't wear two hats. Faster, sparser routes are typically complemented by slow, meandering collector routes which provide the kind of backstop you describe. Moreover, elderly and disabled people can use paratransit [1], which exists precisely to serve people with mobility issues too severe for regular transit.

Anyway, I reject the notion of buses as a second-tier transit option reserved for poor and disabled people. The only way poor people ever get decent service is when they use the same infrastructure that affluent people do. A bus system that doesn't serve the middle class is a system that will quickly lose its funding and become inadequate for anyone to use.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit

Paratransit is for a far smaller percentage of the population due to the significant expense.

In the US, buses (and public transport in general), are thought of as social programmes. Anyone can use them, but they are really for people who can't drive or are too poor to own a car.

The rider makeup then looks like that. The elderly and the poor, sadly. Services run at a huge loss and are dependent on massive and unpopular government subsidies. Quality of service is bad. There's a stigma to using it. You end up with long, slow bus lines because this allows as many of the current demographic (elderly, poor) to take the bus. And there are always bailouts or brutal cuts on the horizon. You end up at a sort-of local maxima of inadequacy.

In an alternate universe, public transport is run to compete with the car, and attracts all demographics. Day-to-day operations are un-subsidised, and therefore relatively expensive. It competes on value. People use it because it's a better experience than driving.

This alternate universe is a city like London. Transport for London has a balanced budget, and despite what grumpy Brits like to say, quality of service is on an ever-upwards trajectory.

In my opinion, operating transport as transportation programme, not a social programme, is how you get more adoption in the long term. You make public transport attractive to more demographics.

It’s a large percentage of total bus revenue by design, and a significant expense for some local governments. But the number only look large because of how we split the vast majority of government spending into federal and state budgets with local budgets being relatively anemic by comparison.

Perhaps the tiny subsidies (in absolute terms) are because the bus systems are just so small?

SFMTA's farebox recovery is around 25%. London Underground is about 130%. Osaka Subway is 209%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Busses are light compared to 18 wheelers and other heavy equipment, they also replace many cars and SUV’s which keep getting heavier.

Finally that rule of thumb isn’t really that accurate, “A 1988 report by the Australian Road Research Board stated that the rule is a good approximation for rutting damage, but an exponent of 2 (rather than 4) is more appropriate to estimate fatigue cracking.” Rutting really isn’t that significant in most cases, but can instantly destroy road surfaces when fully loaded construction vehicles etc drive over something once.

They don’t replace nearly enough cars and SUV’s to make up for the difference in fourth power of axle weight. But yes, 18 wheelers are worse.

A modest bus holds 40-50 people. Most commuter traffic is single driver, single vehicle. I don't know to which power the difference in axle weight would have to be to surpass the efficiency gains of replacing 40 to 50 American sized SUVs with a city bus, but I suspect it's more than four.

(I don't really understand how the fourth power of axel weight thing can possibly be true, though. Why would joining two vehicles together into a mega vehicle with double the weight and double the wheel count suddenly cause the combined vehicle to inflict 16x more wear than before you joined the two together? It makes no sense.)

So, scenario A:

    4 ton vehicle, 2 axles
    load per axle is 2 tonnes.
    2^4 is 16
    2 axles - so load is 32.
    Another vehicle the same - also loading 32
    Total: 64

    8 ton vehicle, 4 axles
    load per axle is 2 tonnes
    2^4 is 16
    4 axles - load load is 64
    Total: 64

A Ford F-150 weighs about 2 tons and has two axles, for an axle weight of 1 ton. 1^4=1.

A garbage truck weighs maybe 30 tons and has three axles, for an axle weight of 10 tons. 10^4=10,000.

So if you drive an F-150, you’re doing as much road damage driving down the street 10,000 times as the garbage truck does once. Rural areas that don’t have garbage trucks and just expect everyone to haul their garbage to the dump in the back of their pickups are onto something.

In Europe, the numbers differ even more. Lighter weight cars typically 1.5-2 tons, a new London bus can be upto 18 tons when loaded - that's ~5-16 units of wear for the car to 104,976 units for the bus...

But this is all supposing we're optimising for road wear, which isn't really the point of a bus system.

Doubling the weight and doubling the wheel count leaves the axle weight unchanged.

Your former doesn't imply the latter. Here in Seattle we even still have cobblestone roads without heavy traffic and they spend very little money on them.

We have extensive rutting damage on the lanes use by busses and requires more expensive, deeper road base when they get replaced. This cost is due to the heavy traffic.

Even if squared, the buses are still 22 tons instead of 2-3 tons. 49 times more damage isn't good.

Also that visible ware is noticeable because it hasn’t been replaced. Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.

We also have many concrete roads and closely-spaced axles, if they had them, would not help.

> Looking worse when you resurface on the same schedule isn’t an actual cost.

I addressed this: they have to dig much deeper and replace with much thicker road. Much more expensive. It's not "looking worse", it's actively dangerous to cyclists and other road users, so the surface must be replaced more often too.

But this is where you need to do a deeper analysis than just a simple rule of thumb. Even adding extra wheels to the same axle makes a big difference to road surfaces.

> so the surface must be replaced more often too.

Level of ruts you see are considered acceptable or they would be replaced.

However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance. If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.

I guess you don't know how the USA works, and Seattle in particular. We are spending a fraction of what is necessary to keep infrastructure from failing. We had a major bridge nearly collapse and was out of commission for years. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-dep...

Many of our roads are not what we call acceptable.

> However, ultimately the same entity is paying for the busses and road maintenance.

Hahaha nope. We have so many different organizations with their own funding sources. Roads come from State and local funds. Metro is primarily funded with dedicated sales tax.

> If lighter busses saved taxpayers money that’s what they would use which is a major sign your analysis is inherently flawed.

Sorry, but this is possibly the most naive thing I've ever heard.

I can’t help but chuckle at the idea you actually believe that. Stop reading headlines and do some actual research into what’s actually going on.

If the US was utterly failing in maintenance you’d see ~6,000 random bridge failures per year based on the number of bridges in existence instead they are incredibly rare showing that we are actually doing a great job overall.

Here in Seattle, the busy roads with older lanes used for buses are obvious, because they have two deep canyons while the lane next to them is fine. In fact King County Metro has to pay millions in fines to the state because the buses are excessively heavy.

No roads without bus traffic have the same type of damage.

Which is part of the reason to know that axle weight alone isn't a sufficient scale. If you connect 2 cars axle to axle, they won't start doing 8x as much damage. What matters is axle weight divided by tire width.

I wish you did a little more studying before talking so authoritatively.

1. Where the Government wants to subsidize some group (e.g. help the disadvantaged by giving them discounts) they should pay the fair price to the transit agency out of the budget of Welfare, not drag on the financials of the transport agency. In other words, it shouldn't be possible that the transport agency is insolvent only because most of their customers are paying next to nothing. Discussions about whether we should spend a certain sum on subsidizing the poor to ride the bus/train/etc are purely welfare budget discussions.

2. The Government should move additional money into the system when they realize an expansion of transport helps further societal goals: e.g. congestion pricing funds should help to expand transit, or the government pays part of the cost to build new rail service to reduce congestion on the roads.

Instead of TfL being forced to take the loss, they are reimbursed by local government cost of the transport.

As an aside, I also take some issue with this pass being completely free to use. In my experience, people end up using it to go a single stop just because it's free, so why not -- which slows bus service for everyone else. I think it should be 20p per journey or something like that.

To liken this back to the old days - the difference in time between flashing a valid transfer slip (of paper) and having to drop change into the automated till.

Elderly will have to do that, too, because a) I expect they still want to track usage, and b) allowing some passengers to hop on a bus without checking in makes it too easy for those ineligible to do that (e.g. elderly who do not live in London) to try and do that, too.

Unfortunately the bus passes and freedom passes are not interchangeable and sometimes have to be manually checked if not in the local region,

Another counterpoint: if the bus isn't overloaded, taking an additional passenger costs next to nothing, while delivering significant value to the passenger. Don't we want to create as much value as possible?

The bus has to stop, let the passenger on, and later let them off.

This affects everyone else on the bus and reduces the quality of service.

You can see that a long-distance train has doors only at the end of carriages, and stops for several minutes, but a subway has doors about every 10 seats, and stops for 20 seconds.

I can't make any excuses for the social and class implications, but if it got more people on the bus, it might only need to be a temporary measure.

The usual pattern is when a bus only lane is proposed, drivers complain because they view the bus as a social program. Local legislators often take the drivers' side because they also view the bus as a social program. Even if you get the political capital to push a bus only lane, traffic enforcement will routinely ignore bus lane violations. LA is making waves on the latter problem by attaching cameras to buses which automatically write tickets for cars blocking the bus lane.

Ultimately it's a politics problem. If nobody wants to spend political capital on running a bus system as a transport program, it ends up as a social program.

The problem with this in the US is that it's nearly impossible for the bus to be faster than a car without making the car slower on purpose, and the latter is the thing which is going to create the most opposition, because you're essentially screwing people over during the transition period -- which would take years if not decades.

In the meantime people still can't take the bus because the higher density housing that makes mass transit viable where they live hasn't been built yet etc., and as long as they're stuck in a car they're going to fight you hard if you try to make being stuck in a car even worse.

Meanwhile, cars are expensive. ~$500/mo for a typical car payment, another $100+ for insurance, another $100+ for gas, you're already at $8400+/year per vehicle before adding repairs and maintenance etc. For a two-car household that's more than 20% of the median household income. Make mass transit completely free and people start preferring the housing where mass transit is viable, which means more of it gets built, which is the thing you need to actually make it work.

LA average vehicle speed during rush hour is 27.6km/h (17 mph) according to Tom Tom [1]. So a 10 mph bus would turn that 27 minute journey into 46 minutes which I'll admit is more than desirable, hardly catastrophic though.

But remember that each bus can carry about fifty people which would remove close to fifty cars from the road resulting in less congestion and faster buses. Fifty cars need 400 m of road, one bus needs only 20 m.

And on your way home you can doze in your seat without causing an accident.

[1] https://www.tomtom.com/traffic-index/city/los-angeles-ca

There is another interesting US-centric perspective here. For some reason, US consumers feel the need to drive new or nearly-new cars.

$5000 can get you a reliable but unsexy used car. I think there is a sort of "Parkinson's law" of consumer spending at play, where financial outgoings will expand to match disposable income.

I also think there's a problem with fixed spend (e.g. car payment, insurance) vs per-trip spend. Per-trip costs are felt more.

A reason that public transport is often more popular in European cities because driving isn't even an option. There's literally nowhere to park. Even the rich need to get around, and this creates pressure to improve non-car transport from all sides.

$5000 can get you a 10+ year old used car with 100,000+ miles on it and no warranty. That's fine if you know how to do repairs and maintenance yourself, because then you're buying a part from the internet with a low markup and installing it yourself instead of paying four times as much for someone else to do it. But not every knows how to do that, or has time, or knows how to tell if a used car with no warranty will be reliable before buying it. And if you plop $5000 down on something with no warranty and then have to scrap it after the first year because your $5000 car needs a $5500 new engine, you're not saving money.

There is also the matter of where used cars come from. You can get one for $5000 because someone paid $30,000 to buy it new ten years ago. If more people did that, fewer new cars are sold and then fewer enter the used market and used car prices go up. So you can buy a used car for $5000, but it's not possible for "most people" to do that because if they tried to, they would no longer be available for $5000.

> I also think there's a problem with fixed spend (e.g. car payment, insurance) vs per-trip spend. Per-trip costs are felt more.

Which is the problem with mass transit. You get in your car and it feels like it costs nothing, the only thing that changed is the gas gauge went down by half a tank and the odometer went up. Meanwhile the amortized cost was actually over $100. Then you go to get on the train and you immediately have to swipe your card and get a bill for $40, which feels like a lot for one trip.

Worse, the car is $100+ per trip only if you're amortizing the fixed costs, i.e. comparing to the alternative of not having a car at all. If the fixed costs of having the car are sunk, the incremental cost of the trip is maybe $15, and then when the train is $40, nobody with a car is saving money to take the train when they can.

Whereas if the train is $0, then it's "hey that goes right where I'm going this time and I don't have to buy gas". Which, if it happens often enough, means more people don't need a car to begin with.

> A reason that public transport is often more popular in European cities because driving isn't even an option.

Obviously if you make something unavailable then people use alternatives. But in the US it's the other way around -- half the population lives in the suburbs where there is no public transport, nor can there be because the density is too low.

So then you need to find ways to make public transit more attractive (like eliminating the fares) rather than making cars less attractive, because making cars less attractive is going to encounter major opposition from the people who have no available option other than to use cars.

Switching a car lane to a bus lane actually makes the cars in the remaining lanes move faster.

But it's especially rubbish when converting an existing lane, because the existing lane will have already allowed the demand to be high, e.g. people already built houses outside the range of mass transit and those residents are now locked in to using that road in cars, and you then remove the lane even though the demand is sticky.

At least that’s what I think. But if you’re right, and there’s a version of bus transport that’s viable without subsidy, then there should be a market opportunity for a private business to provide that type of bus transport. This actually exists for long range intercity buses already, but you’d think it should be possible inside of some cities. I haven’t looked into this in a lot of detail but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was effectively impossible to try and start a private bus service in most cities, specifically because that would reduce ridership of city transit and threaten all of the unionized public sector jobs in that system. In which case the bus system isn’t really even for the poor and elderly anymore; it’s for the transit workers union, which undoubtedly is a player in city politics.

Of course, there's still plenty of drivers, but the nice thing is that you have options here. Why would I want to drive if I can just take the metro, or tram, or train, or hell just cycle? Within Dutch cities cycling is often much faster than any other mode of transport, and the great thing is that everyone uses the cycling infra, young or old, rich or poor, able bodied and otherwise.

(Even then, it depends on the destination - if it's to another city then the intercity trains are still better but for 2+ people it ends up being the premium/expensive option and the car is cheaper.)

The city heavily discourages car use for commuting.

Offices have no parking spaces.

Any parking you do find in central London will be paid at an extreme rate.

To drive into the city costs around $20 per day, increasing much further if you have an older, polluting vehicle.

There is so much congestion that it is usually faster to walk than drive.

Yesterday I came across a couple articles that encapsulate this thought.

https://jacobin.com/2026/02/zohran-mamdani-efficiency-nyc-bu...

And

https://coreyrobin.com/2025/11/15/excellence-over-mediocrity...

These means the trains constantly improve and there's no poltitians trying to cut funding or under budgetting. The 10 companies in Tokyo I can name are JR East, Eiden, Toei, Tokyu, Seibu, Tobu, Odakyu, Keio, Keikyu, Keisei. There are actually more but they generally run 1 line each, at least at the moment.

Of those, only Toei (4 lines) are run by the government. Eiden (the Tokyo Subway) is private but gets some goverment backing. The others are all private. JR East was public in the 70s. The other 7 have always been private.

Unsurprisingly, only Toei, the government run one, is not setup with all of the positive feedback loops that keep the others going.

Note that it's similar in the Osaka/Kyoto/Kobe area. JR West and 5 other big companies, 3 subway companies, a bunch of other 1/2 line companies.

Another thing to note is, AFAICT, the population density of Kyoto is generally less than Los Angeles but they have great transporation from these private companies.

Conversely, the London Underground has had notorious underfunding issues.

When living in many a European city, I have chosen to walk instead of using a bus route due to the frequent stops making the bus trip a lot more expensive and marginally quicker. I have also lived in places where the eldery get a separate service, tailored to them, if they need it. Works a lot better IMO.

Alternate buses stop on the one-mile points only.

Fundamentally as another commenter here said, a bus "can't wear two hats." In most large US cities, the bus, and sometimes the subway (if one exists), is mostly a welfare program, and its target demographic is the elderly, the poor, and the homeless. Two of those groups are rarely in any hurry.

The fact that urban professionals also rely on transit to actually get to work is not very much considered in the decisions ultimately made. This is why any changes to it are so fraught.

To actually serve both populations, you'd need to have two independent systems, but that would represent a tremendous amount of incremental cost. That's why they used to have (do they still? I'd guess not, post-pandemic) buses paid for by Apple, Google, Facebook etc. to shuttle people to work -- it's something the city government could never accomplish because the choices that make transit useful to those with jobs make it problematic for the other group.

Nothing stops you have adding express bus routes, thus allowing busses to work for yet another population. Further, bus networks are inherently cheap as long as they see reasonable ridership numbers it’s more economically efficient than cars.

Until there' a snowstorm, and no one shovels. And you have a broken leg, or are elderly, or disabled. Sure, it might save you personally some time, but we live in a society and should try to help out the one's who need help.

And this is why point-to-point transportation is almost always faster and more convenient, if you can afford to use it. (That load-bearing "if" is important, though.)

Point-to-point transportation is faster and more convenient because:

1. we don't have bus lanes so buses are forced to sit in the same traffic as cars and 2. buses are often underfunded so have slow/infrequent service.

Point to point transportation is often slower and less convenient if buses and public transit is done right. I can count on my fingers the number of times I used an Uber or drove a car in the 1 month that I stayed in Europe - this was going out every day, in multiple cities, rural and urban, and across different countries.

This is a good thing! If more people use public transit when it's possible, it opens up the roads for the handful of people who actually NEED to use a car.

If you have enough density to justify a bus lane, you have enough density to justify a subway.

That assumes a linear city, where everyone lives within a short walking distance of the same street.

In actual cities, bus lines from different neighborhoods converge on main streets. While individual lines may have 10–15 minute intervals, bus traffic on the main streets may be high enough to justify dedicated bus lanes.

Then, as the city grows, it can make sense to replace the bus lanes with light rail and direct bus lines with collector lines connecting to the rail line. Which should be cheap, as a dedicated lane is usually the most expensive part in building light rail.

But you generally want to avoid building subways until you have no other options left. Subway lines tend to be an order of magnitude more expensive than light rail lines. Travel times are also often higher, as the distances between stops are longer and there is more walking involved.

Isn't that the assumption you're making? That there is a single primary street that everything converges and then diverges from which is common to every bus route? Meanwhile in practice any given person standing on the You Are Here dot could want to go in any of the eight directions from where they currently are.

A route that goes east-west isn't going to have much in the way of shared route with one that goes northeast-southwest except for the one point where they intersect, and isn't it better to have multiple routes intersecting in multiple places in terms of minimizing trip latency and maximizing coverage?

> Which should be cheap, as a dedicated lane is usually the most expensive part in building light rail.

But that's the thing that makes the bus lane so expensive!

By the time you have an area with enough congestion to be considering a bus lane, the problem is generally that you can't add a lane because the land adjacent to the existing road is already developed and not available, otherwise you would just add an ordinary lane that buses could use too. But converting one of the existing lanes in an area which is already congested makes the traffic exponentially worse than putting the new thing underground.

Essentially, if you can add a lane then you add an ordinary lane and if you can't add a lane but need one then it's time to dig.

A typical direct bus line starts from somewhere, goes through a number of neighborhoods, reaches a major street, and follows it to a central location. The number of directions that need a bus line is typically much higher than the number of streets reaching the central location. (For example, you need ~10-degree intervals at 10 km from the center to guarantee a reasonable walking distance to the nearest bus stop.) Hence the bus lines eventually converge.

Once you have enough bus traffic that a dedicated lane makes sense, transforming an ordinary lane into a bus lane will make the traffic faster for the average person. It's not a Pareto improvement, as the traffic will become worse for those who drive on that route. But it's not a huge loss for them either. If you already have 20+ buses/hour making frequent stops during the rush hour, the throughput for that lane will already be much lower than for the other lanes.

Public transit depends on the assumption that there is enough density along a given route to justify its existence. Take a look at the NYC subway map. In the highest density boroughs (Manhattan and Brooklyn) the routes basically go from everywhere to everywhere. Even more so for the Manhattan bus map. That's what you want in a large dense city.

In smaller cities, the "build a high density core surrounded by lower density areas" model is the thing that causes more congestion, because then the core ends up as a bottleneck but people don't want to take transit to get there because it doesn't have frequent service to the areas outside the core at one of the traveler's endpoints. For those cities it's better to have medium density everywhere than try to make transit work in a city where a large proportion of the population is coming from an area with density too low to make it viable.

And if the whole "city" is low density, i.e. it's a rural small town, then it's not likely you're going to make public transit work there whatsoever. The best option there is to use mixed zoning so people so inclined can live within walking distance of shops.

> It's not a Pareto improvement, as the traffic will become worse for those who drive on that route. But it's not a huge loss for them either.

It is though? The premise to begin with is that road is already too congested and is slowing down the buses. Removing a third to half of its capacity is going to make it dramatically worse. That's what many of the proponents of bus lanes are after -- they want to force people onto the bus by snarling the cars.

They refer to this as "induced demand" by inverting the sign when what they really mean is to suppress demand for driving by making it more miserable, but don't want to call it that because it would be unpopular.

Consider a low-density urban area with 1500 people / square km (~4000 people / square mile). You could achieve that with a uniform sprawl of single-family homes on half-acre lots, or with a network of towns / villages / neighborhoods surrounding the city center. The former generates more car traffic, while the latter makes public transit useful for a large fraction of trips. And the latter also makes local services viable, as there will be enough population within a walking distance.

And if you have a 2+2 lane street with enough bus traffic to justify bus lanes, most of the capacity is in the inner lanes not used by the buses. Urban buses stop frequently, making the traffic flow much worse than in lanes without buses.

Not at all. Building a subway in most US cities right now is very expensive. Raising the tax revenue alone is probably a non-starter.

Moreover you're going to have to close the road down anyway to do any form of cut-and-cover or even deep bore construction, which means every business on the corridor and every person who lives on it is going to get angry for as long as the subway is being built.

There's no painless way to do infill public transport. The problem is that nobody in the US is willing to compromise.

This is true but seems like a problem worth solving. It's also true of more than subways; we have the same problem with bridges, housing and many other things. Better to get on with fixing it than use it as an excuse for doing something worse.

> Moreover you're going to have to close the road down anyway

That's a one-time cost, and you're not required to close a 500 mile stretch of road for years on end. Dig one block, install the tunnel, cover it, dig the next block.

IMO it comes back to the fact that Americans are just not willing to accept change of any kind right now. The economy feels too shaky, the electorate too divided (even within states and municipalities), and there's too little faith in government to architect the kind of change you'd need to build subways, underground metros, or even BRT. We need a larger feeling of unity even at a state level to make the changes necessary, which is why municipalities continue to do bare minimum maintenance of roadways and pretty much nothing else. The last big set of constriction in dense urban areas was funded by the Obama stimulus from the GFC which was passed 17 years ago.

Only if you're also intentionally making point-to-point worse.

Note that I'm not comparing to "get in your own car and drive", which has the disadvantage of having to park. I'm comparing the ideal taxi-shaped thing to the ideal bus-and-tram-and-train-shaped thing.

I feel like you missed my last paragraph. If public transit is better then more people would use it and there would be fewer cars on the road. Can you imagine how terrible point-to-point traffic in SF would be if everyone was driving to work instead of relying on Caltrain or BART?

(Also, tunnels are useful not just for the increase in traffic, but for moving car traffic away from non-car traffic, which makes both kinds of traffic safer, faster, and more efficient.)

They make even more sense if they are a bit larger and can accommodate multiple people at once. Something like a large van or small bus.

I'd suspect most car trips today are 1 or 2 passengers with the back seat and trunk empty; we'll eventually see new form factors of on-demand vehicle that trim off unneeded space. If you need to get from A to B alone, no cargo to speak of, you order a ride that covers that class and it's small. If you're taking a shuttle from the airport with your whole family and luggage, you order a ride with those specs.

Even the rush hour traffic is trivially solved by mild carpooling (small vans for 4-6 people).

We're talking about cities, of course; in rural areas, nothing beats cars.

This is a false argument. Think about this: a bus every 10 minutes is effectively 500-900 meters long! It easily "takes" as much space as 100+ cars. In other words, nothing would change from the traffic perspective if instead of 1 bus every 5 minutes, you had 100 individual cars.

The "people in the shape of a bus" argument makes sense only when you're talking about the performance in a very narrow case of transporting people in a steady, uninterrupted stream of buses. Or if you need to size your traffic bottlenecks.

Moreover, a bus route necessarily is unoptimal for at least some people on a bus. They are effectively "thicker" than other people because they take up more "effective space". But wait, there's more! Buses also necessarily move slower due to stops, so the "effective length" of a bus becomes even longer because cars will clear the road faster.

But wait, there's even more! A single bus needs about 3 drivers to be effective. So with the average daily busload of around 15 people, you have almost 20% of the bus taken by the drivers on average. This makes bus trips pretty expensive. Not quite to the level of Uber/Lyft, but surprisingly close.

And these problems are fundamental. That's why urbanists like NJB don't like to talk about that.

uhhhhhh what. What does every 10 minutes have to do with this at all

> It easily "takes" as much space as 100+ cars.

are you ok??? have you seen a bus before??

> A single bus needs about 3 drivers to be effective

I have never ever seen a bus with 3 drivers in it. If you're talking about 3 drivers over the course of 24h, those drivers are not in the bus at the same time, and therefore don't make up 20% of the passengers on the bus. If you're saying the average bus route serves 15 people per day, you are certainly mistaken.

See the word "effective". Think about the road space that a bus requires but doesn't use if it is just once per 10 minutes.

> I have never ever seen a bus with 3 drivers in it. If you're talking about 3 drivers over the course of 24h, those drivers are not in the bus at the same time, and therefore don't make up 20% of the passengers on the bus.

Yes, I'm talking about the drivers that are needed for a reasonable 16-hour bus service. And the typical ratio is actually a bit more than 3 drivers per 1 bus.

> If you're saying the average bus route serves 15 people per day, you are certainly mistaken.

No. I'm saying that on _average_ there are 15 people in a bus. More during the rush hour, fewer during the off-hours.

Excepting the case of a dedicated bus lane, the amount of road space a bus is preventing other cars from taking up at a given time is equal to the size of the bus. Technically, it's less than that in the case of bus stops littered amongst parking. In the case of a dedicated lane, it reduces the maximum throughput of the thoroughfare, but it's not a simple thing to model as there are other effects that the bus can have to reduce the number of cars when the rate limit of thoroughfare would be pertinent (i.e. usually rush hour). Just saying "think about it" when saying a bus takes up the space of 100+ cars doesn't really substantiate such a bold claim.

> Yes, I'm talking about the drivers that are needed for a reasonable 16-hour bus service. And the typical ratio is actually a bit more than 3 drivers per 1 bus.

> No. I'm saying that on _average_ there are 15 people in a bus. More during the rush hour, fewer during the off-hours.

If there is an average of 15 passengers on the bus during the operations of the bus and there is an average of 1 driver on the bus during the operations of the bus, then it is 1/16th occupied by driver(s). For it to be taken 20% by driver occupancy, then it would require there to be an average of 4 passengers on the bus during operations.

> If there is an average of 15 passengers on the bus during the operations of the bus and there is an average of 1 driver on the bus during the operations of the bus, then it is 1/16th occupied by driver(s)

No. For the bus to be viable, all 3 drivers have to be "virtually present" there. A bus _has_ to be available at all times with a reasonable interval, otherwise it might as well not exist.

Or in other words, a passenger needs to be paying the salary for even the missing drivers.

until this moment, you were only claiming.

> the section about computing the efficacy of bus lanes

> Excepting the case of a dedicated bus lane

Not all buses require a bus lane. A bus lane is a deliberate choice that doesn't make sense in all areas and for all bus routes. It is disingenuous to reference the reduction in throughput due to a bus lane as a blanket claim that an individual bus takes away the room of 100+ cars on the road.

> you have almost 20% of the bus taken by the drivers on average

> No. For the bus to be viable, all 3 drivers have to be "virtually present" there.

Your claim is about how much of the bus is taken by drivers, which while having some correlation to cost, really doesn't have anything to do with the cost of operating the bus. An oversimplification of this is to posit a magic bus that runs 24 hours a day with 8 hours shifts by 3 drivers. That means that the drivers take up 24 person-hours of capacity on the bus. If we say they have 15 passengers on average, then the passengers take 360 person-hours of capacity on the bus. Thus, drivers take up 24 / 384 or 6.25% of the capacity.

Honestly, I never really cared enough to convince you that transit is a good thing because that feels like a fool's errand. But these weird claims and fallacies bother me. If you want to claim that a bus isn't cost effective, then great. Just cite an actually relevant metric and actually calculate it correctly.

Definitely mistaken for London - currently (according to DFT's numbers) about 18 people per bus average (not per day, though.)

Ultimately the thing you want to transport is not cars, it's people. Walking fits the most people in a limited amount of space, then bikes, buses and other forms of public transport, then cars with 4 people in them, then cars with 3 people in them, then cars with 2 people in them, then cars with only 1 person in them, and finally empty cars. More cars will never reduce congestion.

But to address your point: A bus in a dedicated lane takes up more space than a bus that's stuck in car traffic, you are right about that. On the other hand, when congestion is so bad that cars simply don't move, no matter how many lanes they have, getting people out of cars into more efficient forms of transport, will also help cars. And a bus that actually goes, can do that. If you look in cities with good public transport, more people go by public transport than by car. In cities with good bicycle infrastructure, more people go by bike than by car. That means even cars are less likely to get stuck in traffic in those cities. Even if you take away a car lane.

I don't know where you got the idea that a bus needs 3 drivers.

And? There are also buses that trundle around with nobody but the driver in it. Or unused bikes and e-scooters that litter the sidewalks.

> Ultimately the thing you want to transport is not cars, it's people.

Yeah. And let's make it efficient. Put these people into 3-level bunk beds. This way they can travel all together in just 1 bus to their assigned workplace. And you don't need to run buses until they're allowed to clock off their shift.

Efficiency!

> On the other hand, when congestion is so bad that cars simply don't move

In this case you close the downtown offices and force them to work on alternate days, like they do in India with cars. Remote work already can replace 70% of all work, and with AI this number will grow.

Apart from that, mild carpooling will decrease the number of cars by 2x. Small vans with 6 seats can _easily_ remove all congestion.

> no matter how many lanes they have, getting people out of cars into more efficient forms of transport, will also help cars.

Just one ask for urbanists. Can you just stop lying, please? Just one thing. Don't say that "transit help cars". It doesn't. There is a lot of research from _you_ (e.g. https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ) that proves this. Transit does NOT decrease the travel time for cars ("traffic") it _increases_ it by increasing congestion due to increased housing density that transit forces.

You want to pack people into 3x3 jails ("microapartments")? Fine. But be honest about it.

Where I grew up in NW Scotland, it's a five hour round trip to go to the supermarket. You pretty much need a car for that.

Where I live right now it's a five minute walk to the supermarket, but I still need a car because the things I work on are a long way from where I live, often up steep muddy mountain tracks.

When I lived in the middle of Glasgow people used to come up and have a go at me about driving a massive V8 4x4 in the middle of a city. What am I supposed to do with it? Bike to the suburbs and then go and drive up a mountain?

"But why not get a job where you don't need to drive hundreds of miles in a massive 4x4?"

Because then the things on the tops of mountains don't get fixed when they break, and the radios don't work properly, and then people like you die in a fire.

Sometimes it's hard for people to grasp that just because their not-really-a-job tapping numbers into an Excel spreadsheet all day can be done from home or from an easily walkable city centre location, it doesn't mean that everyone's job looks like that.

I do wish I could usefully use a cargo bike. Those things are awesome.

We just want there to be viable public transportation options for situations where it makes sense. This even makes it easier for the people who do have to drive, like you, as there will be less congestion because a single bus can replace literally dozens of cars, combine that with a single tram and a single metro car and you're replacing literally hundreds of cars that would otherwise be on the roads instead.

I find this statement utterly hypocritical. Sure, we're not killing off driving. We are just choking off the roads with bike lanes, forcing extra-high density ("just build more"), removing parking, forcing the drivers to pay for transit that they don't use, and just to pay in general.

But no, we're not preventing driving. Not at all.

Urbanists want to stop people from using cars as much as they can force that.

And the fact that you're complaining about "removing parking" is hilarious. Street parking is objectively the most useless, wasteful allocation of already limited public space imaginable. You expect cities to dedicate premium real estate to act as a subsidized storage locker for your private, empty vehicle for the 95% of the day you aren't even using it. Then you complain about non-drivers "forcing" you to pay for transit, while everyone else's taxes are literally subsidizing the free public storage of your personal property.

Let's also talk about your entitlement to those roads. When you complain about "choking off" streets, what you're really whining about is that cities are finally prioritizing actual residents over commuters who are just driving through. Most car traffic in urban centers is just people transiting. Why should a neighborhood sacrifice its safety, noise pollution levels, air quality, and public space just to act as a high-speed shortcut for people who don't even live there?

And please, spare me the inevitable "but what about rural areas" argument. We are talking about dense cities. Nobody is coming for your car in bumfuck nowhere; you can keep driving there all you want. (Though honestly, here in the Netherlands, you don't even have to drive in the countryside because you can usually just grab a train or get anywhere by bike, but that's beside the point.) Urban planning applies to urban areas.

I live in the Netherlands. Millions of people here take transit and ride bikes every single day. And guess what? Nobody banned cars. In fact, it's widely considered one of the best places in the world to drive specifically because everyone who doesn't want or need to drive isn't forced to be on the road getting in your way. We just realized that sacrificing huge swaths of our cities so commuters can treat our neighborhoods as a shortcut is incredibly stupid, and there are infinitely better ways of using the limited space in cities than to let drivers park their cars there.

Giving people viable choices isn't a totalitarian conspiracy to oppress drivers, it's just good urban design. It's wild that you are so used to forced car dependency that simply offering people an alternative feels like a personal attack.

P.S., I'm also a driver, I just don't need to do it 90% of the time because I live in a sane country where I can just bike to the other side of the city in 20 minutes.

Except that bike lanes in the US, on average, carry fewer people than car lanes that they replaced. So yes, it's indeed "choking off". It's done to force the density increases. After all, if you can't commute anymore (roads are sabotaged and transit is slooooowwww), you'll have an option to live closer to the workplace. In a new expensive apartment in a high-rise.

Bike lanes also kill businesses. There were studies showing otherwise, so I replicated them, and they now show the opposite. Places in Seattle and Portland with bike lanes that displaced traffic lanes are declining faster than areas around them. The previous positive results were caused by spurious correlations during the general upswing in the urban economy after the 2008 crisis.

> Then you complain about non-drivers "forcing" you to pay for transit, while everyone else's taxes are literally subsidizing the free public storage of your personal property.

There is no free parking around me anywhere. And I'm also paying around $2000 a year in car tab and property taxes for transit that I don't use. And before you ask, in my state user fees pay for 90%+ of the total road maintenance expenses.

> We are talking about dense cities.

Yeah. They need to be _de_-densified in the longer term. But even dense cities will benefit from removing bike lanes and adding self-driving taxis.

> I live in the Netherlands. Millions of people here take transit and ride bikes every single day. And guess what? Nobody banned cars.

I got my driving license at the age of almost 30, and I lived in several large cities. And I _also_ lived in Amsterdam. People ride bikes in Amsterdam because there usually are no other comparable options. Transit typically takes ages longer, and car parking is non-existant. Of course, people justify that by telling themselves how they love to ride bikes even in cold wind and rain.

If you live in a city, you probably don't need a car.

Consider that the "one size fits all" approach into forcing people out of cars breaks down very rapidly once you get out of sight of the sickly LED glow of streetlights.

Suburbs are _cheaper_ than dense cities. In fact, they generate most of the wealth of the country. It's easily proven by checking the amount of personal income taxes from suburbs versus cities.

People who claim that "suburbs are subsidized" typically check the _corporate_ taxes that are paid (surprise!) usually at their headquarters' locations. Usually in downtowns. But _people_ who create wealth overwhelmingly prefer suburbs.

And yeah, if your goal is to maximize the profit that you're extracting from companies by exploiting people, then dense cities are perfect.

But growing up in a rural area where there are two buses a day none of which are useful for anything other than high school pupils (although they're not school buses) it does tend to limit everyone's options.

Decreasing the number of As and Bs by half might reduce that 20% start/stop time by half, shaving 10% off the total time. (This is ignoring the fact that more people will need to board and leave at each stop, which might mean in reality you’re saving like 8%.)

But you will also increase the distance walked to the bus stop. That means battling cars and weather.

Just like a little 4 seat bus you could just have all the time. I bet that would be popular!

I simply don’t believe that eliminating that closet stop would worsen my commute. When I’m leaving home, I would walk a block further, but probably 80+% of the time it would not increase the time I spend out in the elements because I’d just replace time standing at the bus stop with time walking to the next one. The only time it would hurt me is on the rare occasion that the bus passes me while I’m walking that extra block. (Pessimistically assuming 2 minutes to walk one block, and with buses coming every 10 minutes on average, is how I get 80%.) But I bet doing that all up and down the route would make the bus much more predictable. That closest stop is within the distance that cars back up from a traffic light at that next intersection when there’s traffic, and when the bus stops at my intersection it can often get pinned in the stop for a while when motorists aren’t in the mood to let the bus re-enter traffic. Multiply that phenomenon by, say, 20 extra stops and you get to some pretty unreliable service for people trying to get to work in the morning. I bet most of us would happily walk an extra block if it means we no longer have to leave for work half an hour early. 2 minutes extra walking on either end adds up to 4 minutes “wasted” time walking (I also am not sure I count walking as wasted time, by the way - physical activity is good for me) is a lot less than 30 minutes wasted time padding my commute to account for less reliable service.

And then when I’m coming home I get off at that stop that’s a block further away anyway. Because there’s a light at that intersection but not at the one where the close stop lies. I can easily spend more time waiting for a gap in traffic large enough to cross a busy street during the evening rush than it takes to walk that extra block.

And beyond that, the 6% of average time savings seen in studies of similar systems would be about the same improvement as adding curb bump outs which would save the bus time by not needing to repeatedly merge back into traffic. And that work is already happening across the city without inconveniencing anyone or causing users with disabilities from being discriminated against by armchair urban planners.

A single bus carries on average 20 times the people cars occupying the same space would (as you rarely get more than 1 person per car in peak hours).

I'd rather take buses than the car in any city. Cars make cities dangerous, noisy, polluted, congestions make people nervous behind the wheel, fights are far from uncommon. Finding parking, paying for it is another issue, common in Europe where (luckily) city centers are often millenia older than cars.

At no point of me living in the US I found the car-centric model anywhere better.

The things you say about noise and pollution are also true in the US, and American drivers are acutely aware of them. But the alternative is not a European bus, so people drive.

Taking the bus around sf makes it immediately clear why (not all, but most) people who have options choose them.

Even factoring in parking, traffic, and bus lanes, it's much faster to drive within SF than take the bus. Stopping every 2 blocks and missing every other green light kills throughput.

My local bus stop to connect to BART supposedly had service every 20 mins, but often a bus would be out of service and the wait would be 30-40 minutes. Unless a bus was right there, it was faster to walk.

But yeah the fact that it's often faster to walk (and definitely faster to take a bike/scooter) is also an issue.

Everyone can form their own opinion on the acceptable number of visibly intoxicated people they’d like to encounter. That said, my understanding of the law is that the correct number is zero. So seeing more than zero is an indication that laws are not being enforced.

People can debate whether particular laws regarding drug use are justified. However, if enforcement itself is optional, one might reasonably question whether that applies to other, less controversial laws as well.

As many as you'd expect to meet given how many choose to use the bus to go somewhere.

Retorts:

"Buses shouldn't be mobile homeless shelters." Sure, I agree. But I also agree that someone who has paid their fare and isn't disrupting the safe operation of the bus is entitled to ride the bus. If I want to purchase a ticket and sit my ass down for an hour and a half [0] to watch the city go by, then -assuming there's a seat available for my ass- I'm entitled to do that.

"I shouldn't have to sit next to smelly people." It's not just the poor or crazy that can be smelly. Your diet influences your odor, and some diets make you smell very strongly. Some folks just douse on the perfumes and that sort of thing triggers the migraine headaches of some other folks. As you age, you may lose reliable control of your bladder and bowels. ("Adult undergarments" are a thing people buy for a reason, after all.)

"I shouldn't feel uncomfortable in public." I'm sympathetic, but it's simply a fact of life that you will sometimes feel uncomfortable when around other people.

[0] Last I checked, Muni tickets offer gratis transfers to any other bus or train for 90 minutes after the time of purchase. OTOH, operators rarely check the validity of the tickets of riders, so -IMO- sitting on transit all damn day is fine by me... just so long as you get another ticket if yours is expired and the operator requests that you do so.

Because of Muni's inability to stick to schedule, [0] the Nextbus displays are absolutely essential for making the "Do I walk, or do I wait?" decision. I hate stops that don't have them.

It's a damn shame that the city didn't build many more subway lines during the boom times.

[0] Granted, it's not entirely their fault; they have to contend with SF traffic, too.

That said, if you only look at driving in a city like SF, this is likely less of an issue.

Actually I think it is both. Car culture in Europe is nowhere as dominant as it is in the US. Many Europeans grow up with public transportation as the default mode of getting around. So they are more likely to be accustomed to things that become grievances for Americans.

I was born and raised in Turkey, and now live in the US. In Turkey when you take a bus or train during rush hour you’re often packed like sardines. No concept of personal space. Same with many cities in Europe. That type of thing wouldn’t fly anywhere in the US, except maybe NYC. Even then though New Yorkers tend to dislike it.

Do you have any sources on that? In basically any European country the car dominates and is used far more than public transport. Even in cycle-friendly Netherlands the majority of people go to work by car.

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...

Basically in the Netherlands, if you're within 5-10km, you go by bike. If public transport is reasonable, which it mostly is in urban areas, you take it. You'd almost never choose car within a major city, unless it's on the outskirts.

https://www.pbl.nl/en/latest/blog/putting-dutch-urban-sprawl...

It has always baffled me why they make it so hard for first-time users in particular. Sure, they mostly care about the regular customers who make up 99% of their passengers, but everyone has to be a first-timer before they can be a long-timer. It's not just UX papercuts, the experience seems designed to be maximally hostile. Is it because one more marginal person is a little more delay, a little more crowding, etc? It feels like there are perverse incentives at work.

On every pay-in-cabin bus I've ever ridden, this is synonymous with "No change given". The machines are quite happy to accept more money than is needed for a single ticket, and the reason for that is pretty obvious.

> It has always baffled me why they make it so hard for first-time users in particular.

The SFMTA (the San Francisco bus/train operator) provides a document that addresses almost everything you brought up. [0] The "unhelpful and condescending and impatient drivers" thing isn't addressed, but I've never run into a Muni driver that was anything but helpful. [3] As an added bonus, the most useful information about fares is posted on the paybox inside the bus.

[0] <https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/how-ride-muni-quic...> (via [1])

[1] <https://www.sfmta.com/visitors> (via [2])

[2] <https://www.sfmta.com>

[3] Granted, sometimes that help is "I don't know where that is, but I know you can't get to it on this line.".

> On every pay-in-cabin bus I've ever ridden, this is synonymous with "No change given". The machines are quite happy to accept more money than is needed for a single ticket, and the reason for that is pretty obvious....the most useful information about fares is posted on the paybox inside the bus

That's fair, but (1) when I was a kid and starting out riding a bus, I didn't know that; and (2) as that same kid, neither my family nor I had very much money at all and paying "extra" for something is just not something you do. Consider it a cultural thing. "inside the bus" is good but insufficient when I'm deciding between walking a mile or chancing the bus that I don't understand. (I almost always walked the mile. I was cheap, and I hated looking stupid in front of unsympathetic people.)

As for Muni, I didn't live where I could use it until I was no longer that kid. But adult me fully agrees with you. My experience with Muni has been much better than with most other busses I've used.

There's not much the transit authority can do about your parents' decision to leave you ill-informed. I can tell you that obligating the solo driver to handle change would be significantly user-hostile for the passengers currently on the vehicle. The tradeoff made is the correct one.

As you're probably aware, there's also good news: for a while now, many (most?) transit systems permit payment with radio cards that are linked to a preexisting pool of money, rather than having to handle cash inside the vehicle.

I don't want the driver to handle change. I want to know what the price is before I board the bus and possibly discover that I do not have the right change (or enough money at all). Yes, I would also like the machine to give me change if I overpay. I'm demanding.

My parents do not know so cannot teach me. They live on a farm. When they visit cities, they rely on their social ties and meet someone to take them around. Plus, well, it was a farm; I had no need for buses until I moved away. There is no mass transit in the area I grew up, so there's no literature to peruse.

I apologize for not being gifted with the evidently superior parents you had.

I was not unusual. Many rural people moved to cities and ran into all this implicit knowledge that they were looked down on for not possessing. It's ok; we laughed at the city folks who came visiting or relocating to the country too. We also helped them with a straight face, or at least helped those who could be helped. The social contract is stronger in the country than in the city.

But anyway, this is veering away from the crappy UX of most buses. It is true that I could have researched bus systems before I ever encountered one and trained myself such that I could survive the bad UX. But that's kind of the point, right? UX design should require as little prior knowledge or understanding as possible (as in, as possible without harming the experience of regular riders too much or increasing cost excessively; I acknowledge the existence of tradeoffs.) You try to make it useful to country bumpkins, non-native speakers, youth, the poor, etc.

Make it legal for kids to move around on their own and take transit to school, just like they do in most of Europe and beyond. Parents are lazy, so many kids will. That's a lesson in public transportation use right there.

... it is legal though? But if you live in the typical US suburb then good luck with that. You'll catch a district provided bus to school and if your parents don't want to drive you somewhere you'll ride a bike or just not go.

Taking the bus in the suburbs often means walking 15 minutes, waiting on 45+ minute service, and switching routes at a transfer station. It's an ordeal to say the least.

Even if you are poor in the US cars are remarkably accessible. You can finance a used car with no credit and a couple dozen dollars a month.

Europe builds apartment complexes which are ~3 to ~10 stories tall, the US builds sprawling suburbs, zoned so that there's no grocery store in sight.

If you're packed 3 to an apartment in a 10-story complex, it's unlikely there's enough parking for all of you.

Do Americans really have to practice walking before going to visit Europe?

In the rare cases where you need a second car, you can rent one extremely easily.

> Even if you are poor in the US cars are remarkably accessible. You can finance a used car with no credit and a couple dozen dollars a month.

This partly true but also really ignores a lot of issue that it creates.

The amount of car debt in the US is crazy. Lots of people get cars at absolutely absurd interest rates because their credit is bad and the need a car. Stretching out payment over many, many years. Its extremely predatory.

And then because of the arms race where everybody needs an ever bigger car or get killed, people buy more and more expensive cars all the time.

And of course because of the lack of safety inspections, people driving these really badly maintained crap cars that cause issues for everybody.

And even worse, people are so afraid of being without a car that people rather give up their homes and live in their cars then the other way around. Letting people slip into homelessness because if they want any hope in the future they need a car.

People paying interest on car loans rather then investing in their 401k isn't a great deal for society.

So yeah, my parents could defiantly afford two cars, but very, very rarely did we have 2 cars. And the only in special circumstances where that second car would be shared with some other people as well. Its just bad business and not that useful.

Still went by car. Car was 35 minutes door to door in a climate controlled environment with a good seat and good stereo system. Public transport was two hours, multiple legs with various trains and busses, various payment systems, problems with missing connections, waiting outside in the cold, being packed with others.

Gladly paid that €250 a month for 31 hours of my time and having a peaceful commute.

Plus a weekend trip was typically around €30 for four people versus €150 for four people by public transport.

Also, you example is just that. It will depend on many things. In places that are properly designed often the difference is nowhere near as large and the difference in money is bigger.

Also, in places where there is lots of public transport, when you get a universal ticket, you can also use it for free for everything other then commuting. Its completely normal to do all your other activities by public transport as well. When I go out and I want to have a drink, a car is not an option (unless people are just pieces of garbage, witch the US system makes almost inevitable).

> having a peaceful commute

Except of course that all of US popular media is full of people who have horrible long commutes suffering from stress and road rage.

Sitting in a train is more peaceful then driving by a lot. I can literally read a book and drink coffee or as I often do simply have a nap.

This was in The Netherlands, which has one of the best public transport in the EU so I expect it to be worse elsewhere.

If you already have a car, you typically do your other activities by car as well since you already paid for insurance and road tax and it is significantly cheaper to go by car as you only have gas, wear and depreciation to pay for.

The universal ticket does not exist in The Netherlands. Train only is €399 a month for standing. Bus is typically €100 per month per region.

My commutes by car were always peaceful. A lot more peaceful than standing in a train worrying if I would catch my bus connection because the train is behind schedule. That would add another 30 minutes to the trip. You could read a book standing but I would recommend against taking a nap or drinking coffee. I find taking public transport infinitely more stressful than taking a car. With a car you will always make it to your destination, often within reasonable time. With public transport you have no idea if you will make it. Sometimes you have to go home or find a hotel and try again the next day.

I'm wondering now if you have ever experienced European public transport or if you have just read about it on the internet.

First of all, you are still talking about a single point to point example.

In the Netherlands you have the happiest drivers exactly because the government invests so much money into public transport and bikes. That takes massive amount of cars of the road, making it more pleasant to drive for you.

And thankfully data pretty clearly shows that people tend to take what is better for that situation mostly based on time. So the fact that so many people choice public transport (or bikes) is a clear indication that it works for some people. And that helps you as a driver. If everybody thought like you, it would be worse for everybody.

If on a society we followed your logic and everybody would drive, then you would have the problem the US has, just 10x worse because in Europe, unlike in the US we don't have cities splatted over so much space with gigantic roads everywhere.

Netherland is the perfect example that proves that large investment in public transit and biking pays of for everybody. I would argue cars are still subsidized to much. And Neiterlands while doing many things well still needs a huge amount of improvement, specifically outside the cities and Randstad.

I would also not say that 'there is no concept of personal space'. Even in rush hour most of the time its not that bad in place I have been. You are sitting next to people, and rarely standing next to people. But its usually not a big issue.

Its often more comfortable then flying in a plane.

Successful transit systems work when the political will is there to support it.

the top comment is right and this article is a good exmaple of what transit people do. they get so excited about transit and how awesome it is that they forget about some of the more fundamental issues.

But to call NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, etc sparse doesn't seem very accurate. Yes, LA is vast, but I wouldn't call it sparse.

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf CTRL+F for "BUILT-UP URBAN AREAS BY URBAN POPULATION DENSITY: 2025"

America is the exception for population density in general.

Busses go places I care about: two blocks from my work, and to the airport.

My US city is dense. Not like Europe, but unless the argument is that major metropolitan areas in the US are not dense enough (LA?), I don’t buy it.

Bus transit has problems, but I don’t think it’s as simple as the parent is asserting.

I wish it had better public transport in general but I honestly wish that about pretty much any place.

COTA provides decent service to get around in the downtown and directly adjacent neighborhoods, but it drops off sharply as soon as you get outside of that area.

Part of the problem is the typical US sprawl of the place. The area inside the beltway is ~200 square miles - https://urbandecisiongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/fc...

I live just outside the beltway. Driving to the OSU stadium just north of downtown would take me about 25 minutes. According to Google maps, the nearest COTA stop is a 20 minute walk away, then it's an hour and ten minutes to get to the stadium.

Agreed it would be lovely to be able to hop on a bus or train and get somewhere within a reasonable amount of time.

If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right and physically separate bus lanes is doing it right.

If you are elevating, don't use a bus.

1: you live with ADHD: "Oh my God, I need to leave five minutes ago" scheduling method. To anyone who says, "You just need to be more disciplined about time," I refer you to the part about ADHD.

2: If your quality of life depends on activities that are more wilderness/far away from cities, such as hiking, astronomy, camping, bird watching, and don't include (actively exclude?) urban experiences that require amenities.

3: Friends and family live 30 minutes to 6 hours away.

I have no problem with improving bus service for people and getting them out of cars because that means there'll be more room for me to go to where I want to go when I want to go.

You're not asked to give up going to the wilderness.

Regarding scheduling, in my eyes public transport where the mean time between busses is not under 15 minutes is not public transport. Running after a bus is a signal that the frequency is too low. "I need to leave five minutes ago to take the bus I intended" should be followed by "if I leave now I'll be a few minutes early for the next one".

Funny thing about scheduling. I have to plan to leave an hour earlier than I need to, and even then, I'm frequently late. Yet, my hyperfocus kicks in when I sit in the car and go through the rituals of "I'm driving now." The vigilance can be exhausting, but usually only bothers me when I'm leaving an observing site at 3 o'clock in the morning or I'm driving at twilight in deer country.

ADHD is a big part of the reason I don't drive. I'm lucky enough to live in Berkeley which is very walkable with decent transit, and I would hesitate to move anywhere more car-oriented exactly because I have ADHD.

I think the reason I've been hypervigilant about safe driving practices is that my father owned a rigging company, and I was driving forklifts and stake trucks in the yard from about 13. I understood the impact a vehicle could have on other things, people included. Living in that world from about age nine on teaches you to be obsessive about properly securing a load (Molding machines, air handling units, lathes, etc.).

I've often thought people would be better drivers if they started their driving experience with the motorcycle safety training course curriculum and drove for a year on motorized two wheels, taking up the lane and keeping up with traffic.

2. This is why non-car-centric countries don't ban cars. If you're that kind of person (and not everybody is), you buy a car. You may not use it beyond these wilderness activities though.

3. Trains.

Trains are an interesting subject. For them to be useful, you would need to have rails covering the same destinations and paths as the highway system. One should also be aware of network effects when adding another layer of transportation services, including how they affect the distribution of services and residences. From experience, we know that roadways encourage spread because they allow you to cover a greater area with little time cost. Rail will likely encourage denser development and a higher cost of living due to a greater influence of rent-seeking entities.

One of the tensions one would need to explore is the tension between the need/desire of a chunk of the population to keep their distance, keep their living space separate from others, and be acoustically and physically isolated from them, while still needing services a 30-minute drive away.

Its funny to me that you suggest that trains need to cover what they highway system covers. When of course trains existed first and already covered many more places then highway system ever covered in most places. And with buses countries got the opportunity to cover things away from train-station and that was really not all that expensive even in rural areas.

Its just that in some countries, many of these trains were removed and the countries focused all their finances on new highway systems. And often demolished large part of productive cities to achieve it. For more so then trains ever did.

> Rail will likely encourage denser development and a higher cost of living due to a greater influence of rent-seeking entities.

No actually when you do it properly, then rail makes it so you can have a dense core around each station where you have everything you need locally while also having access to a city center in a short time.

While you subburb example misses that all subburbs are massively subsidized and make negative money. Its the poor people in the cities that are paying extra to finance these subburbs. Urban3 has done tons of analysis of this. The subburbs are the rent seekers, you just don't think of them that way because you see it as 'normal'.

There are plenty of examples, for example how in the 60s Sweden used subway trains to build massive amounts of housing alone those new lines.

> between the need/desire of a chunk of the population to keep their distance

You can have that, but you will find that once you properly account for the cost, people are much less willing to spend that money. That's why before extensive zoning codes, minimum lot sizes as requirements, parking minimum, free street parking, free highways people lived closer together. And of course the massive federal top down intensive given subburban development Post-WW2, along with the redlining of cities. All these are hidden cost on society that you simply hide and put on county, state and federal taxes.

Thus you get more done when using public transport. Nowadays with phones and portables you can even read your email and work rather than justb read the newspaper as commuterts did 20 years ago.

As for getting work done, back when I was an employee and using transit, two factors kept me from doing work on the transit system. First, my employer already got enough uncompensated labor from me. I wasn't going to give them any more. Second, I use speech recognition, and dictating company confidential information in a public setting is unwise at best.

I want good public transport in urban areas as I don't want to take the car, but I still own one for many uses.

I hate it to be mandatory to live.

Your first point does not apply to, say, Switzerland. Missed your train? Just wait 5-10 minutes. 30 if you're in bumfuck nowhere.

Busses, at least the one where I live in Europe, are very loud, noisy and smelly. I'd rather have 20 cars pass my home than one bus. I don't hear or feel those cars but once that bus passes my coffee cup visibly shakes. I also don't mind cycling behind most cars but cycling behind a bus is a terrible experience. You feel the heat blasting out of the rear-right side and the diesel smoke is terrible.

20% of London's busses are zero emission - agree that London is dense enough for this to work - long didtance busses still have to be diesel, although Tfl have some 15 mile routes that are electric

Trams and trains generally offer far more reliable schedules, frequencies and journey times than busses because they either have completely dedicated alignments or have priority where there is any interface with normal traffic.

Most buses inevitably bunch (see https://setosa.io/bus/ for a nice simulation) and/or get stuck in traffic as a matter of routine. The inconvenience may be less per delay but busses are delayed far more frequently than trams and trains on most of the public transport systems I've used. So for regular users, the cumulative inconvenience is much worse on busses than on trains/trams. Which is why people flock to trains and trams when available as an alternative to busses.

Specifically with regard to the parent, the frequency at which unplanned outages happens with tram services in Zurich is extremely low in my experience - certainly planned changes to schedules or routes (for maintenance, upgrades, etc.) are far more frequent. And when "something happens" (i.e. a traffic accident), the path for trams is cleared as quickly as possible - often in 30 minutes or less - so you'd really have to be unlucky to be inconvenienced by such an occurrence.

Some animated GIFs illustrating how much space automobiles take up compared to alternatives:

* https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/9ft67...

* https://torontolife.com/city/transit-versus-cars-gif/

In addition to that, the US has a stigma: "only poor people ride buses".

Get on a bus in Europe to see the difference.

But that’s not at all what the article is about? The thesis is not that having bus stops with music and heating and free drinks will make more people take the bus, it’s that in the U.S., the slowness of buses is making them an unattractive option. And stopping too often is a major reason.

As someone living in SF I 100% agree. The bus stops all the time. The muni is also crazy slow on the west side because it has to mark every single stop at every block just like any car instead of just having priority.

The muni (tram), stops at stop signs at every block on the west side like the N line, so it’s extreeeemly slow. A system where the tram has priority over cars and does not need to stop at every single block would be life changing.

What? I see English words, but it’s still not parseable.

My first transfer was in Sacramento. The entire bus got held up for over an hour because someone saw a man with a knife and security had to search absolutely everyone to try to find it.

Half the stations were literally crumbling, as in the ceilings were falling down and covered in water stains and flecks of black mould. The drivers often turned up hours late, which is apparently expected and normal. The stations tended to be in exciting hotspots such as Skid Row, to cater for the desperate clientele who had no choice but to run the gauntlet.

Also, after the first time I rode it and told everyone about the knife that nobody ever found, people started showing me news stories about the man who got beheaded on a Greyhound in Canada.

Overall I think they have very patchy bus and coach systems and over-index on the worst examples.

I have a car, which I use when the weather is not nice, or when it would be inconvenient to take public transportation.

Otherwise, on sunny week-ends i often chose public transports. Here they are efficient , clean, secure and most importantly predictable. We have apps for payment and bus status that show us , on the phone, exactly where every bus is at any moment.

You know your bus will be there for you in exactly 2 minutes. Like a Uber, but much much cheaper.

Predictability is a game changer.

Works very well.

One reason that trains "work" is that the rails on the ground is a promise that a train is coming.

n = 1 but this is precisely why I seldom rode the bus in college. Except for going clear across campus in the evening to apartment complexes that were a semi-substantial trek down the highway it was always quicker to walk. Walking 1.5 miles in 25 minutes was faster than a bus that made 14 stops before it got to where you were going.

I like light rail. It has the advantages of cutting through traffic and being more efficient to boot. I'd say we should adapt buses to a similar modality but anecdotally bus-only lanes don't work as well as they ought to because, as a surprise to nobody, people are bad drivers and interfere with their operation.

The only time in recent memory that this screwed me was in SF trying to get a Muni that I thought was a surface route and was in fact underground. So I was standing at a trollybus stop directly over top of the station where I was missing my train.

The one major gap I still feel a lot as a visitor is wanting a transit-aware business search. In Google Maps the "search for X in this area" is a completely distinct workflow from "how to get to X by <mode>", and implicit in the first workflow is that you can infer how long it will take based on the crow-flies distance. And that assumption is very much not true if you are using transit. For example, I would love to be able to be like "show me three-star hotels ordered by transit convenience to X airport and Y event venue" and have it figure out both rides, and call out which ones will have what service level in the evening, overnight, etc.

I would recommend Citymapper (https://citymapper.com/) in such a situation.

My internal thought process as a tourist is that I have a starting point and end point in a city, and some number of hours in between. I want to do some touristy things in that time, and I don't want to waste it all waiting for transfers. I'm not asking Google Maps to be a tour operator for me, but it also can't even help when I have a specific thing I need of which there are many instances, and I'm like... I don't care which electronics store I go to, I just need an electronics store and would like one that's convenient to where I am by transit. Or like, there are four Apple Stores in this city, which one is fastest to get to by transit?

Another recent example was having a seven hour layover in Tokyo where I had to do the Narita -> Haneda shuffle, and wanted to eat something not-airport-food during that time. I really struggled with getting Google Maps to show me where would be a good point to aim for a stop that was convenient by train to both airports; in the end I asked ChatGPT which suggested Ueno Station and I ate monjayaki which was delicious.

That said, I do agree that this being the number one issue everywhere or even where I live is far from certain.

As a driver, the number one thing I hate are bus stops near intersections without dedicated bus lanes.

Ultimately public transport that doesn't get its own infrastructure (lanes, rails, or tunnels), is just a economic compromise to move people for cheaper than a car... It's not better for the user in any way.

And if it does need special infrastructure to make sense, it gets harder and harder to justify at all once autonomy is in the mix.

I don’t think public transit is ever that pleasant, but I rarely felt unsafe in Vancouver or even NYC compared to LA.

One thing that I disagree with is the timing. In a lot of cases I’d rather spend 20 minutes more on the bus than driving. It’s much easier to hop on a bus, listen to music and walk to my destination than deal with traffic or parking. Also, in cities that have properly invested in transit, there are things to do around the transit points. Grocery stores, coffee shops, general stores etc, so I’m often doing 2-3 things in a single trip. Whereas in LA, each of those things is a separate car journey away for me, so overall things are less efficient.

I went to Seattle for one weekend and experienced the sad view of only the poorest people taking the bus. It was enlightening and changed my outlook on life.

With all due respect, I feel the one asserting things without argument might be you. The whole article is about how number of stops is too high and so drives low ridership.

I am incapable of even trying to provide quotes from the text, as that would mean simply restating the text in its entirety.

- removing stops makes the bus faster: obviously true.

- bus stops in america are closer together than bus stops in other places: backed up by data in the article.

- making the bus faster makes it better for riders. subjective, but as a bus rider i very much agree.

i don't understand how you can read this article and come to the conclusion that it's about making bus stops "nicer". that's just a little tangent it mentions. it'd be nice if bus stops were nicer.

That's not what I read. The article is saying that you can get meaningful service improvements via what is essentially a free measure: cutting the number of stops. I personally regularly take a route in San Francisco that would unquestionably be better off by cutting a swathe of stops through the Mission, where it stops every two blocks on a street with painful light cycles and tons of pedestrian traffic.

The result is that by the afternoon, two or three buses on this route have piled up, one right behind the other, and passengers have to wait 45 minutes for the next one if they miss one of those.

This depends very much on where you are in the world.

Full disclosure: I have visited a lot of cities/countries, approx 70k flown miles last year. I almost always try to use public transport where possible.

The last "not nice" experience in a bus was in SFO, travelling back to my hotel from the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption. Make of that what you will.

It is possible to have faster buses, even time competitive ones. Though stop spacing is only one component of such a system, the other being dedicated infrastructure and traffic priority.

The article points to case studies where reducing stops increased ridership: clearly this does make a difference

But I agree that truly good bus service requires commitment and budget. A city that only improves its transit in fast, cheap ways is doomed to bad transit.

Buses running between full on stations are faster than buses that comprise the network edges. Because the core of the network is focused on capacity. Buses that meander around to provide coverage, minimize walking, and stop every other block are really slow. Like 6 MPH end to end, no faster than riding a bicycle! Do we want a bus network to compete with walking/biking or with driving downtown?

Low ridership actually makes public transit feel even worse. Encourages loitering and restricts ridership to only the most desperate people. In NYC at least the buses tend to be pretty heavily utilized and I've personally never felt unsafe or put off by the condition of a bus. It's marginally more pleasant than riding the subway.

You believe wrong. The article gives examples of cities that have already done that, and have seen average speeds go up and total ridership go up as well.

> Cities aren’t thinking about how to allocate a fixed bus budget.

Lol, dude.

It's incredibly unlikely that there is one coherent cause for low or high ridership. All we can do is improve the utility of the service. That means improving comfort (keeping it clean), reliability (running on time with minimal detours), throughput (carrying enough people), speed (minimizing the number of stops on the route), latency (minimizing the wait until the next bus), availability (more stops that service potential destinations), and coherence (more routes that take you directly from A to B, minimizing transfers).

Personally, I feel most undeserved by latency: the routes that are convenient to me run every 30min, and the routes that run most often run every 15min. I would ride the bus way more often if routes ran every 10min. I would ride them all the time if they ran more often than that. This seems like a pretty obvious opportunity that will never happen so long as prospective budget is determined by current ridership.

The central argument of reducing stops is increasing bus speed, not reducing margins, It's in the second paragraph.

[edit]

Top comment is a straw man, attempt to correct course downvoted... I'm not sure how much value HN has left for useful discourse, who the fuck are you people, if you even are people.

...but then your "In my experience..." section repeats the article's assertions? As in, everything you list as a drawback of riding the bus is exactly what the article claims can be improved by intelligently cutting out some percentage of stops.

Also, I didn't see the claim that "too many stops is the main cause of low ridership." That would be an overreach. The central claim that I see is that optimizing the number of stops, which turns out to result in a net reduction in pretty much all major American cities, is a relatively easy way to marginally improve many aspects of bus systems.

I think your counterarguments are valid, but they're just fleshing out the article's thesis. Simply reducing bus stops and holding everything else constant would not magically improve ridership and the overall experience. And as you say, reducing bus stops and removing money supporting the system will definitely not result in improvements. (And I agree that it is the likely way it would transpire politically.)

You would need to reduce stops and direct the savings into improving the remaining stops. You would need to convert the change into more reliable schedules. To make sense, that would need to increase ridership, and adjust the demographics of riders to include people who don't have to accept "dirty, unsafe and hostile" because they have no other choice. There's little incentive to improve things when the audience is captive and powerless. Also, increased ridership leads to more resources to accomplish the rest.

Of course, the dependencies between all these changes make the improvements more speculative and harder to achieve politically, so I do agree that you can't "just" reduce the number of stops and improve everything. As you said, that would more likely just drain more blood from an already anemic system. But the article is talking about a relatively cheap and easy way to improve things; everything else transit agencies can do is harder and/or more expensive.

> So while the number of bus stops might matter at the margins, we’re not talking about a system where marginal improvements will matter. If you want to improve ridership, you need to make the bus an attractive option for more people.

That first sentence says marginal improvements won't matter. The second sentence says that marginal improvements ("an attractive option for more people") are what are needed. Maybe you're saying that marginal improvements have to reach a threshold in order to be worth doing or achieve any noticeable gains?

Compare that to the subway which several stories below city hall, nasty, dirty, filthy, stinking air, human excrement, rats, etc... I love the bus

It's not marginal at all. Stops rebalancing actually address your core issues. Less stops also mean more money per stop to provide nice shelters which solves your second issue.

Autonomy could improve responsiveness to demand but you still run into other issues. DRT usually won't be able to take advantage of things proven to make buses faster and more consistent (bus lanes, reducing stop count, transit priority signals). Futher, consistency and response times gained by dynamic routing can easily be overshadowed by increased variability in trip time as the route adjusts to add new passengers or make out of the way drop-offs.

Has it? When, where and with what technology?

> Predictability is really important and ridership drops as soon as users start having to plan too far ahead

Uber etc have proven this to be patently false. Existing buses are experiencing dropping ridership - Uber is not.

> won't be able to take advantage of things proven to make buses faster and more consistent

You're replacing buses with auto-shuttles. Just let the shuttles use the bus lanes.

> bus lanes, reducing stop count, transit priority signals

All of these are usable if you widen the scope to include auto-shuttles.

> consistency and response times gained by dynamic routing can easily be overshadowed by increased variability

What is the difference between Busing and Shuttles here? A bus user can keep yanking the stop cord, there can be 1 or 2 disabled passengers who take several minutes to board, there can be 50 children getting on / off. These issues are constants and all are improved with demand based shuttles.

As an example, all throughout the Eastern Caribbean this system works really well (in my experience better than most centrally planned bus systems in large cities). On any given island you can go to any main road and within a few minutes a minibus will come along. Most of the time if your aren't familiar with the geography, you just tell the conductor where you are trying to get to, and they will make sure that you get off in the right spot to get where you are going or connect to another minibus. Typical cost was ~$2.

Predictability was pretty low, but because of the small size of busses, there were a lot of them roaming around, I don't think I ever waited more than 15 minutes, and that was in very out of the way places.

The GP was arguing that it NEVER works out, and I'm just pointing out that it does work in many places.

I would much rather rely on the Caribbean minibus systems than try to rely on transit in cities like Phoenix.

How do scheduled bus routes standardize a journey time vs a demand shuttle?

> out of the way journeys in my experience.

How do buses fair in this regard?

> It's really not ideal

Are buses?

    How do buses fair in this regard?

The app would say - meet here.

> One might call such a meeting point a “bus stop” :)

Call it what you want, it could be in a strip mall parking lot, a convenient corner or just in front of the apartment building. Optimized for traveling distance between the passengers.

Are we still talking about how to optimize public transportation on city streets?

You can't just have buses stopping randomly everywhere, it doesn't scale.

This is based on the observation that people, including police, tolerate taxi drivers stopping at places where it's technically illegal.

Which results in the trams being incredibly slow compared to driving even if they are frequent, clean, and generally nice. Since the network already needs total overhaul to be wheelchair accessible, there has been a plan to combine 3 stops in to two wheelchair accessible ones. Which will also speed up the trams since they don’t have to stop as often.

Americans think everything is unsafe, except for things that actually are unsafe.

A primary issue of buses competing with other forms of transportation is simply that they're too slow, and the main thrust of the article is that intelligently reducing the the number of stops only increases walking time a very small amount but can reduce travel time significantly.

This is certainly my main issue with taking buses sometimes - I often think taking a bus would be easier than driving (e.g. no parking, I could read or do something else while traveling, etc.), and I'd be willing to do that is the bus took, say, 1.5x driving time, but often times it's just much slower than driving.

Not buy itself, but as a strategy for the operator to focus on fewer high quality stops, over time that will have an effect.

> So while the number of bus stops might matter at the margins

You are ignoring that some of the things you complain about would be helped by fewer stops.

> we’re not talking about a system where marginal improvements will matter.

Its crazy to say marginal will not matter. Then nothing will ever matter. There is no revolutionary solution anywhere in sight. You need to improve on the margin with the budget you have.

> you need to make the bus an attractive option for more people.

... by marginally improving every aspect as much as you can.

Combine that with improvements to things like waiting areas (i.e. introducing shade), frequency of services, price (in my closest city they introduced essentially free public transport for all - it's been a boon), and you've got something that can be effectively weighed against other forms of transport.

No it doesn't fit all situations and people, but it serves the majority well.

This is an odd argument to make. Just as a correlation doesn't prove that there is a causal relationship, the lack of a correlation cannot prove that there isn't.

Which can be caused by having too many stops and having to choose a suboptimal route that can service them all. In the town I live in I try to avoid almost all buses except the express ones that have just a few stops but choose a reasonable route and thus are rarely late.