6 ms·

"I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons" There is nothing worse than buses. I, and many others

by rsync 10y ago

"I can see why they switched. Above ground, busses are better than rail transit for a number of reasons" There is nothing worse than buses. I, and many others, will do almost anything to avoid riding a bus. There is very little I can think of in our built, urban environment that is more aesthetically terrible and ill mannered than big, dumb (and in most cities, black exhaust spewing) buses bonking their way around city streets. Steve Jobs said it best: "If you see a (bus), they blew it."[1] [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus-or-a-task-manager-they-blew-it/ https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus...

et-al 10y ago
Having a bunch of taxis (or Lyft/Uber) is worse than busses. They're definitely less efficient and cause more congestion. Yes, for the riders of the cabs, it's a more pleasant experience, but at the cost of the collective whole. And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail. I agree that the bus experience in general is substandard to rail, but the reality is that when transit planners need to service a new area, they can just route a bus in a few months as opposed to building out a rail line.
- rsync 10y ago
  "And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail." Zurich comes to mind. While there are indeed buses in Zurich, they're somewhat superfluous and only used in (rare) edge cases. Contrary to your assumption, Zurich is almost entirely served by rail.
  - et-al 10y ago
    If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case of Zürich, how did they not fail your metric? If the busses are truly superfluous, then why doesn't the transit agency discontinue those lines? I'd like to think they're there for a reason other than paying bus drivers and lining some pockets. The reality is that cities, because they're changing, will always need busses alongside rail. As new areas become popular and need access, it's far quicker and cheaper to route a new bus line there. Today's bus route might become tomorrow's rail.
eru 10y ago
Buses seem to work fairly well in London and Singapore.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Yes the Singapore buses are great. You can go a long distance, there are enough different routes to obviate connections, fares are low...
pmyteh 10y ago
The same attitude is common in England, where buses are often infrequent, inconvenient, uncomfortable, and used mainly by the poor. Interestingly, it's not true of London, where just about anyone will get the bus, especially for journeys where the tube and rail connections are difficult. The buses are extraordinarily frequent in the centre, serve a wide network, and are full of a wide range of citizens. For all I'm a big fan of rail, bus service can be both excellent and popular. It normally isn't, though.
duaneb 10y ago
Really, your main argument is that it's ugly? At least address the design concerns outlined by your parent post. Also, I believe SF buses are generally electric except to cover excess load. In any case, how do you expect people in the suburbs to get to the light rail? It's just not realistic to entirely discard busses on aesthetic(!!) bases. Also, I'm not sure why you're quoting Steve Jobs that way. I'm enjoying using a stylus with my iPad now. It is a perfect example of pragmatism clearly displacing... whatever it was that irked Jobs about a stylus.
- Decade 10y ago
  Most buses in San Francisco are diesel. Some of them are diesel-electric hybrid, but they still noisily rev up their diesel motors when accelerating. Especially uphill. Besides the noise right outside my window at midnight, from an empty bus, that regulations require to have the hydraulics to kneel and to pick up wheelchairs; I don’t like navigating around buses because they block the road with their bulk and their dangerous mass. I prefer to ride my bike to the train station.
encoderer 10y ago
There are many bus lines in the city, and a number of regional bus lines with Transbay Terminal service that are packed full of downtown office workers. I would much rather ride a transbay bus than take the train during rush hour. Also, many busses in SF are zero-emission and i think all of them are low-emission.

by rsync 10y ago

et-al 10y ago

Having a bunch of taxis (or Lyft/Uber) is worse than busses. They're definitely less efficient and cause more congestion. Yes, for the riders of the cabs, it's a more pleasant experience, but at the cost of the collective whole. And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail. I agree that the bus experience in general is substandard to rail, but the reality is that when transit planners need to service a new area, they can just route a bus in a few months as opposed to building out a rail line.

rsync 10y ago
"And which city does not utilize a bus system? Tokyo is the only one where the busses don't stand out in my memory, but I'm sure they still have busses. It's impossible for a city to be served completely by rail." Zurich comes to mind. While there are indeed buses in Zurich, they're somewhat superfluous and only used in (rare) edge cases. Contrary to your assumption, Zurich is almost entirely served by rail.
- et-al 10y ago
  If I understood your original argument correctly, you believe that if transit planners have to resort to using busses, they've failed ("blew it"). In the case of Zürich, how did they not fail your metric? If the busses are truly superfluous, then why doesn't the transit agency discontinue those lines? I'd like to think they're there for a reason other than paying bus drivers and lining some pockets. The reality is that cities, because they're changing, will always need busses alongside rail. As new areas become popular and need access, it's far quicker and cheaper to route a new bus line there. Today's bus route might become tomorrow's rail.

eru 10y ago

Buses seem to work fairly well in London and Singapore.

jessaustin 10y ago
Yes the Singapore buses are great. You can go a long distance, there are enough different routes to obviate connections, fares are low...

pmyteh 10y ago

The same attitude is common in England, where buses are often infrequent, inconvenient, uncomfortable, and used mainly by the poor. Interestingly, it's not true of London, where just about anyone will get the bus, especially for journeys where the tube and rail connections are difficult. The buses are extraordinarily frequent in the centre, serve a wide network, and are full of a wide range of citizens. For all I'm a big fan of rail, bus service can be both excellent and popular. It normally isn't, though.

duaneb 10y ago

Really, your main argument is that it's ugly? At least address the design concerns outlined by your parent post. Also, I believe SF buses are generally electric except to cover excess load. In any case, how do you expect people in the suburbs to get to the light rail? It's just not realistic to entirely discard busses on aesthetic(!!) bases. Also, I'm not sure why you're quoting Steve Jobs that way. I'm enjoying using a stylus with my iPad now. It is a perfect example of pragmatism clearly displacing... whatever it was that irked Jobs about a stylus.

Decade 10y ago
Most buses in San Francisco are diesel. Some of them are diesel-electric hybrid, but they still noisily rev up their diesel motors when accelerating. Especially uphill. Besides the noise right outside my window at midnight, from an empty bus, that regulations require to have the hydraulics to kneel and to pick up wheelchairs; I don’t like navigating around buses because they block the road with their bulk and their dangerous mass. I prefer to ride my bike to the train station.

encoderer 10y ago

There are many bus lines in the city, and a number of regional bus lines with Transbay Terminal service that are packed full of downtown office workers. I would much rather ride a transbay bus than take the train during rush hour. Also, many busses in SF are zero-emission and i think all of them are low-emission.