3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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.