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...
In addition to that, the US has a stigma: "only poor people ride buses".
Get on a bus in Europe to see the difference.
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.