12 ms·
I for one, am extremely dissapointed with the concept of "bus rapid transit". I live in Prague, and so I experience all three froms of mass transit: metro(subwa
by timthelion 11y ago
I for one, am extremely dissapointed with the concept of "bus rapid transit". I live in Prague, and so I experience all three froms of mass transit: metro(subway), tram, and bus. Busses are extremely uncomfortable. They rock as they drive, and they have really awful seating arangements due to the need for tall wheel wells. I don't see the point in including busses as a part of a modern system. They also have a much shorter lifespan, and have horible gas milage/electric efficiency compared to tram cars which last over 50 years. I think that busses are only included in the system due to the convenience of not having to have a line to the depo, and perhaps the corruption of the consultants involved.
As Americans, you may have this impression that mass transit is a horrible thing for poor people. That impression comes from busses, where the bus is rocking around so much that you cannot whip out your cellphone and read on the way to work(one of the big advantages of mass transit over a car). Trams, however, are very comfortable. The floor is always extremely stable, you can comfortably read or do work on your laptop. You no longer feel the stress of driving and your commute can become a "free time" part of your day, rather than a stressfull period between home and work.
- rsync 11y ago"As Americans, you may have this impression that mass transit is a horrible thing for poor people. That impression comes from busses" This cannot be overstated. There is nothing in the urban, built environment that is as terrible aesthetically and functionally as some big lumbering bus bonking its way through the city (and usually belching black smoke as it goes). I am a huge advocate of public transit and I will do anything to not ride a bus. Always remember the quote from Steve Jobs about tablets and the stylus: "If you see a (bus), they blew it." edit: Yes, yes I know all about BRT. Lipstick on a pig.
- munificent 11y ago> There is nothing in the urban, built environment that is as terrible aesthetically and functionally as some big lumbering bus bonking its way through the city (and usually belching black smoke as it goes). I'm pretty sure the NYC subway in the 80s could give it a run for its money: https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+subway+80s&espv=2&biw=1326&bih=805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyneHHpvvLAhVY62MKHU0wBRYQ_AUIBigB&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+subway+80s&espv=2&b... I agree totally that buses have a negative stigma, some of which is rightly deserved.
- AwPoorCarDrone 11y agoAnd yet giant trains are somehow less-whatever-nonsense-you-just-pulled-out-of-your-ass.
- techsupporter 11y agoFor what it is worth, I ride transit a lot in Seattle and really like the electric trolleybuses we have here. The new ones are whisper quiet, have air conditioning, are generally a smooth ride, and belch no black smoke. I will modify trips to be on one of those instead of a diesel bus. My house is on a trolley route, by choice. Metro has almost completely eliminated the older high-floor diesels that are loud and rickety. Next up is ditching the longer, old conversion electric buses.
- seanmcdirmid 11y agoThe only reason they have trolleybuses in Seattle, however, is because of the hills. Electric provides much more torque for getting a big bus up a steep hill. If hills aren't involved, the bus is usually diesel given the flexibility and lack of infrastructure need. (They used to run electric in the bus tunnel, but went with hybrid instead)
- goldent777 11y agoDiesel puts out more torque every day of the week. The reason you use electric in Seattle is because of cheap hydro energy.
- 1024core 11y agoYou are incorrect. At start (speed == 0), an electric motor will put out a lot more torque than a diesel. When you're stopped at a steep hill, this is what matters the most.
- kazinator 11y agoAt speed == 0, a combustion engine doesn't put out any torque; it doesn't work at that speed. It has quite a high minimum speed, below which it stalls (if under load: the idling speed is lower). To get going, you need a low gear and a clutch of some kind. To get going up a steep hill, with a heavy load, you simply need an even lower gear. The problem has a solution. The high low-end torque of electric motors is actually annoying in a transit vehicle. Particularly to those passengers who are standing up. The vehicle moves suddenly, flipping from zero acceleration to high acceleration. The time derivative of acceleration is called "jerk", for a good reason.
- WalterBright 11y agoIronically, there have been topics in HN about the wealthy in San Francisco being privileged enough to ride busses to work, while the lower classes sweat it out in their own cars.
- abritinthebay 11y agoThose people have never been on a Muni bus. They're awful, smelly, dirty, and run at random poorly managed times and you'll arrive late. Rich people Uber. SF needs more light rail. Lots of it.
- rsync 11y ago"SF needs more light rail. Lots of it." ... and more subway.
- abritinthebay 11y agoCan't disagree with that - though it's a lot more expensive and slower to build.
- victorhooi 11y agoOut of curiosity - what does that quote mean? As in, both in this context, and originally?
- smeyer 11y ago>I think that busses are only included in the system due to the convenience of not having to have a line to the depo Busses are just a lot more flexible in general. The costs with starting and stopping bus lines are much less than other forms of transit, the vehicles tend to be more interchangeable, the infrastructure is less substantial, and so on. I'm not saying I generally enjoy riding busses, but the costs to the system are very different than other forms of transit.
- timthelion 11y agoThe bus line you are seeing on that map is literally a "bus only road". It could as easilly have rail on it. I realize that the flexibility is lower. But I thought that America is the richest bestest country ever, and why should you have something that is horribly uncomfortable just because doing it right is "kinda hard"?
- farnsworth 11y agoAre you talking about the orange "Bus rapid transit" line? That's not a bus only road, I'm pretty sure that's I-405, where busses will soon run on the shoulder, or in traffic, wherever there's room. You can't put rail on an interstate shoulder.
- timthelion 11y agoAha, it was origionally proposed to be placed on the Cross Kirkland Corridor trail: http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggling-to-agree-on-st3/ http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggl...
- hamburglar 11y agoThe rapid ride roads are shared but have many sections where buses have dedicated lanes to bypass congestion (and often get signal priority). And you really can't "just as easily" put rail on that road. Laying rail is expensive. To make a dedicated bus lane, you just paint it. Much much cheaper.
- news_to_me 11y agoBusses are a lot more flexible in terms of routing - normal gasoline busses can be rerouted at will, and the cost of changing routes for electric busses (like the ones in Seattle) are much lower than street cars, where you basically have to lay new track. Essentially, there's a lot less buy-in with busses which can be good for expanding transit where you aren't sure about. That said, I agree that busses are the least desirable, and I for one would much prefer a well-thought-out transit system that eliminates the need for busses.
- avn2109 11y ago>> "...good for expanding transit where you aren't sure about." Is Ballard going to move anytime soon?
- tzs 11y ago> Busses are a lot more flexible in terms of routing - normal gasoline busses can be rerouted at will, and the cost of changing routes for electric busses (like the ones in Seattle) are much lower than street cars, where you basically have to lay new track. Essentially, there's a lot less buy-in with busses which can be good for expanding transit where you aren't sure about. On the other hand, that difficulty in changing routes with trains, subways, and street cars means it is much less likely that a route will be shut down completely if ridership falls off. I could at least consider moving to be near a subway or train stop and then giving up my car. With a bus no way am I giving up my car. The risk is too high that some bean counter will decide that ridership could be improved by 5% of they shut down my route and replaced it with a new one a mile away, and then I'd be screwed. I think to really make a transit system be widely used there has to be a long term commitment to (1) keeping certain routes open, and (2) running at certain times on those routes, no matter how low ridership falls.
- quanticle 11y agoBusses are a lot more flexible in terms of routing - normal gasoline busses can be rerouted at will, and the cost of changing routes for electric busses (like the ones in Seattle) are much lower than street cars, where you basically have to lay new track. That's actually a downside of buses when it comes to urban development. As a business owner, there's very little upside in opening up a new business next to a new bus stop, because I know that bus stop may move (or disappear entirely) next year. Compare that with a light rail line, which is guaranteed to be on a fairly fixed route, with fairly fixed stops. The literature I've read about urban development shows that additional bus lines do almost nothing for economic activity along their route, while light rail lines have significant, sustained increases in economic activity near their stations.
- petra 11y agoI think it depends on the bus. If you look at buses of travel companies, or buses which takes people to casinoes - they are much more comfortable, with cushy seats, decent suspension, reasonable seat design, etc. And it shows.
- timthelion 11y agoYou are right about raised busses being more comfortable. Unfortunately, they cannot be used for mass transit, as it takes to long to get a wheelchair or stroller onto them :(.
- petra 11y agoWheel chairs are a special case, maybe they should be handled as such ? And as for strollers taking too much time: if 40 people can spend their time on the bus in peace an quite using their phone/resting, maybe time for strollers is a reasonable price to pay? And we have'nt said anything about trying to solve that design problem somehow.
- mortenjorck 11y agoBRT is compatible with raised buses: the platform can be built at any height, so disabled (or otherwise-rolling) passengers will have already cleared a ramp or elevator when the vehicle arrives.
- quanticle 11y agoUnfortunately, they cannot be used for mass transit, as it takes to long to get a wheelchair or stroller onto them :(. That's not true. When I lived in Minnesota, Southwest Metro Transit used coach-style buses to go to and from Downtown Minneapolis, and they were just fine. The time needed to deploy their wheelchair lifts was about the same as the time needed for a regular "kneeling bus" to deploy its wheelchair ramp.
- saryant 11y agoHouston uses buses like that for its long-distance commuter service. I used to ride it every day from Katy to downtown. 30 miles, no stops along the way. During peak hours buses departed every 5-8 minutes.
- marssaxman 11y agoI am also very frustrated by transit advocates who don't seem to realize just how bad the bus experience is and just how strongly that shapes public attitudes about public transit. Every time a train or trolley proposal comes along you get all these people yammering on about how much money we could save with "BRT", not realizing that you save that money FOR A REASON, by settling for a crappy, uncomfortable experience. [p.s.: there is actually a term in transit-nerd circles, "rail bias" - as though people have an unreasonable preference for trains when other transit modes would do just as well. So far as I can see, "rail bias" is a myth - the truth is merely "bus aversion".]
- maxsilver 11y ago> I am also very frustrated by transit advocates who don't seem to realize just how bad the bus experience is and just how strongly that shapes public attitudes about public transit. This times 1000x. It's common in the Midwest for many people to have never once used any public transit in their entire lives. So it's very easy for our public transit groups to pretend that BRT is "like Light Rail" hoping it will improve the public response to BRT. Instead, it just dampens enthusiasm for real transit. People ride BRT and are underwhelmed. Since they've been told BRT is "just like Light Rail", they decide that Light Rail must suck too. Which is how you get metro areas of 600k+ people which, despite having a dozen or more bus lines, still manage to have no useful public transit of any kind.
- gohrt 11y agoWhat makes a tram different from a bus?
- timthelion 11y agoA tram does not need a suspension system because the rails are flat. That means that the tram doesn't bounce around or sway. The flat rails are also much more efficient due to reduced friction.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoThe rails are never that flat. A tram still needs a suspension system. Not as much as a bus, perhaps, but it still needs one.
- timthelion 11y agoYou are technically right, but in reality, the difference is immense.
- StupidPtsAbove 11y agoIs it? Or are you a whining little baby?
- timthelion 11y agoThe other difference is that a tram can weigh many times more than a bus, because weight doesn't cause a loss of efficiency, due to the way rails work. And this makes the tram much more stable and long lasting.
- deciplex 11y agoI wasn't aware that tram rails had their own physics.
- 11y ago
- hamburglar 11y agoCounterpoint: I am reading this quite comfortably on one of Seattle's "rapid ride" buses out of downtown right now. I agree that the regular buses tend to suck, but the rapidride refinements are quite nice. Dedicated lanes, much more spacious buses and rail-style tolling (meaning you can enter in any door, much improving stop times) help a lot.
- CaptSpify 11y agoThe Rapid-Ride is an exception to a vast majority of the bus experiences I've had in the US though.
- Spooky23 11y agoI rode a bus for years, it wasn't an awful experience at all. Until massive amounts of money stop chasing American real estate, it's the only option. It would be cheaper to provide free uber than to build a train line in any moderate sized American city.
- timthelion 11y agoBut you are investing into the future. As I said, tram cars last 50 years in a nice new state. Here in Prague, we sell 50 year old trams east (to Russia and China) and those trams are selling for a lot more than the price of scrap. Buying busses, is throwing away money, because you have to get new ones every 15-20 years, and you really can't re-sell a 20 year old bus.
- Spooky23 11y agoDebt is cheap and nobody cares about the future. Every Mayor plans to be gone in 1-2 terms. Also, in the US, government mushroomed in the late 60s with the "Great Society" welfare programs and war on drugs. So state and municipal governments in most states are dealing with underfunded pension programs. Transportation that isn't Federally funded is discretionary spending.
- timthelion 11y agoSince debt is cheep, that's all the more reason to invest in the future :) Since intrest rates are so low, it is seriously cheeper, even if rail were more expensive in the long run, just to throw money at rail and let that debt dissapear into inflation.
- CamperBob2 11y agoIt would be cheaper to provide free uber than to build a train line in any moderate sized American city. And it's unfortunate that people don't understand that this is exactly the right thing to do. Once autonomous vehicles are ready for prime time, mass transit will be instantly forgotten. This whole article is about spending $50,000,000,000 on shiny new stables and hitching posts.
- jacobr1 11y ago"Bus Rapid Transit" isn't just regular bus service. It is a specialized system that aims to provide a "Tram" like service that just uses wheels rather than a track. Unlike current bus services, BRT systems use special elevated busses, have a dedicate "track" - special roadways, and dedicated stations. Done right, you really shouldn't realize you that you aren't on light rail or a tram. The biggest advantage really is the cost. It is order of magnitudes cheaper to build BRT systems but only 2-4x more expensive than traditional bus systems.
- timthelion 11y agoIt isn't cheeper in the long run. You have to replace busses every decade or two. Not every 50 years.
- marssaxman 11y agoI have seen this claim made many times and accomplished seldom or never. The BRT which is inexpensive is not the BRT which is good. Roadways are not cheap, and if you actually spent the money and political capital it would take to develop new, dedicated, grade-separated smooth concrete roadways for your BRT system, it would cost so much that you might as well just build a train - people will like it more, they'll use it more, you can expand it later by hitching cars together, and your long term maintenance costs will be far, far lower. I believe that BRT is popular among people making transit proposals because they are thinking about it as designers, not as users; they don't care that it is a bus, so they don't understand why other people do. All they see is a politically expedient way to draw some lines on a map. Ask people who use transit, though, and very few of them will be impressed if you try to sell them a bus when what they want is a train.
- WalterBright 11y agoI don't believe that a concrete roadway is in any way cheaper to build than railroad tracks.
- hamburglar 11y agoExcept they aren't building dedicated roadways -- they're just dedicating existing lanes. Look at the streetview link below. That lane with the red on it used to be a regular traffic lane. This particular stretch of road becomes a nightmare during commute times, and it literally takes you four or five long traffic light cycles to get through this intersection. The bus used to sit in that, and now it whizzes past without noticing. That red lane is only a couple of blocks long, because this is the one really congested spot. You can't spot-apply rail like this. Not to mention, it's just paint -- they can study the effects of these optimizations and adjust them at relatively little cost. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,296.28h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smebVUY4AYqKIq8rxSbNqSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,...
- serge2k 11y agoSimpler reason, I can't ride the bus to work without feeling sick. The uncomfortable seats, constant rocking, often too much heat, etc... all adds up to horrible motion sickness. Compare that to the Skytrain in Vancouver, faster and never had that problem. I also hate being jammed in with people. Just find it uncomfortable. Last time I took a public bus the guy next to me was pretty much asleep on my shoulder. I was tired too, but come on man. :/
- timthelion 11y agoAre the busses diesel? You might be more sensitive to diesel fumes than most people, the fumes can cause light-headedness and heart attacks.
- serge2k 11y agoI get sick in cars too, and planes, just takes longer. Don't get sick if I'm driving (do if I'm piloting though :/ )
- ianbicking 11y agoI personally am disappointed that there's so little will to improve buses. Buses have a lot of good attributes: 1. Turn radius is pretty good: streetcars have 18-20m turn radiuses, buses are comfortable at 12m radius, doable at 9m, and can go lower. Buses are compatible with existing city forms. 2. Because of this you can change routes based on demand. This almost never happens, but it should. 3. Broken buses don't break the line. 4. Express buses can coexist with local service buses. 5. Turns out passing is a useful feature! 6. It would be possible to responsively add buses to meet demand. Never happens, but possible. 7. Variable stop frequency is a possibility. If you are on a late-night bus in New York they'll let you off at any corner you want. (Most cities lack this basic sense of decency, but I won't claim we do buses right.) 8. The vehicles are not proprietary. You don't like your buses? Buy any brand you like! 9. New manufactures could enter the market. Trains are regulated to a degree that makes it very difficult to enter the market. This is especially bad in the U.S., so maybe it's unfair: we have terrible regulation, and local manufacture requirements. This has a lot to do with the high subsidies trains require: it requires so much political will that everyone wants a piece of the pie. 10. Buses don't have to be inefficient. Intercity buses are often more fuel-efficient than intercity trains, for instance (I'm guessing this is mostly because they use variable pricing to run at capacity, but something like that is possible for transit too.) 11. Rubber wheels are pretty awesome for stopping, and stopping is pretty awesome for not killing people. Trains are incompatible with humans and even cars except at very low speeds, and require intense separation, or barriers with long lengths of times to let traffic and pedestrians clear. Surface trains substantially hurt the walkability of their immediate surroundings. 12. Buses can run lines that are more dense than trains, which is important for people with disabilities. Most disabled people I see are using buses. 13. We really do need roads everywhere. I remember making SimCity cities with only trains, but that's not a real thing. You need roads for emergency vehicles, trash collection, utilities and utility repair, your moving truck, and so on. I'd love to see roads scaled back, but they aren't going to disappear, so let's make the best of them. Buses do absolutely suck. But I am not convinced they have to suck. Unfortunately transit systems (buses or trains) have no incentive to meet customer demand, their real customers are the government not the riders. Riders are a liability for transit systems, and so there's painfully little innovation.
- 11y ago
- developer2 11y agoYou're not the only one in the comments talking about buses "rocking". I've never experienced this in my life in the 3 Canadian cities I've lived in. There must be a disparity in the quality of buses depending on who is building them, or the purchase amount a particular city is willing to spend per unit. Combine a low centre of gravity with decent shock absorbers, and there shouldn't be much to worry about.