15 ms·

The true solution to LA traffic will never happen. And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along. A massive numbe

The true solution to LA traffic will never happen. And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along. A massive number of buses, like 5x the current number. And combined with tolls for cars to get cars off the road. The large number of buses is critical because it greatly reduces wait time between transfers. It also allows adding express bus lines between major areas. But buses have a really bad reputation in LA. They are trying to build more rail which doesn't have the bad reputation, but that will always have the last mile issue. Since the bad reputation of buses will likely never go away, it seems rail + uber pool/lyft line might be an alternative. It won't be as good, but could be good enough. I wish there was a company other than uber/lyft which focused on just this first/last mile issue for rail. Or maybe the metro here could just start a service like that themselves. Something like Rail Pool to get people from/to the rail stations. It combines the best of both transports (the rail covers 90% of the trip, the extensive road network is used for the first and last miles).

felipellrocha 10y ago
That'd be ideal... But while the data says "more public transport", ideology is pushing the other way, and nowadays I feel like people adhere more to ideology than data.
- bit_logic 10y ago
  I think there's some good signs here in LA. People know the situation is bad and we need more public transport. During the last election, a new measure passed to increase sales tax to fund more rail. Tax measures here require 66% to pass and it's kind of incredible that many people want to increase their taxes. It shows how dire the situation is and people here recognize it. The direction for the metro here is massive investment in more rail. But to really fully utilize that, they need to fix the first/last mile issue. They are trying with bike sharing, more dense housing, etc. But those are too slow and just don't have enough impact. LA doesn't have to be a car city, but it will always be a road city. We need to work on connecting that road network to the rail. Buses could've been the solution, but won't happen due to bad reputation. Uber/Lyft could try with their car pooling service, but there's a conflict of interest working with rail because it decreases revenue for them since rail would take a big chunk of the distance traveled. Short distance carpooling is a potential good solution and I hope some startup here or the metro does something about this. This kind of first/last mile carpool + rail solution also has potential in other cities that are investing in rail (like Seattle, Denver, etc.). If it works well, it could become the model for transportation in US cities.
hughes 10y ago
100% agreed. Coming to LA from Toronto, the biggest disappointment was the bus frequency. Toronto transit has some big problems, but on most routes you can get a transfer within 5-10 minutes. When you need to transfer on the LA Metro, it's normal to wait up to half an hour for the connecting bus. If you have to transfer multiple times, it's not feasible to make that part of your daily routine so you are forced to take your car.
Nav_Panel 10y ago
> the bad reputation of buses Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. A political whim could shut down a whole bus route in a day, leaving commuters stranded. Rail signals long-term investment, and neighborhoods will grow around rail because they can guarantee it'll be there for years to come.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Any data to back up that theory? The alternative theory that busses are undependable and low-status is more plausible to me.
  - spollo 10y ago
    Any data to back up that theory? The alternative theory that rail drives neighbourhood growth and has better long-term political safety is more plausible to me. Not that I disagree but it's no less backed up than the theory you support.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Yes of course. Sometimes people ask for data because they would generally like to learn, not as a tactic to win an argument.
  - Nav_Panel 10y ago
    This article[1] has some info and citations and makes my point a bit more clearly. > Several scholars have described Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an attractive modal transit option (R. B. Diaz and Schneck 2000; Levinson et al. 2002; Polzin and Baltes 2002; Vuchic 2002). The attributes favoring BRT are its lower capital cost relative to other modes (such as fixed rail) (US GAO 2001) as well as its implementation and operational flexibility (Jarzab, Lightbody, and Maeda 2002). > There is limited evidence about the relationship between land values and BRT (Rodriguez and Targa 2004; Johnson 2003). Similarly, traditional bus service is rarely considered when discussing the impact of transit on housing costs. In their review of the literature, Hess and Almeida (2007, p. 1043) explain that “…property values near bus routes have only modest gains, if any, from transit proximity, because most bus routes lack the permanence of fixed infrastructure.” ... > In North America, the relationship between accessibility to BRT and land values is only examined by a handful of studies focusing on bus priority treatments (high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)-bus lanes) and transit ways. In an early study, (Knight and Trygg 1977) examined HOV-bus lanes in Washington, DC, California, Seattle, and Florida. They relied on previously published reports, interviews, aerial photographs, and other secondary sources available at the time to conclude that exclusive bus lanes incorporated into highways appear to have no impact on either residential or commercial development. A later study by Mullins, Washington, and Stokes (1990) found that the BRT in Ottawa, Canada, appeared to have some effect on land development in areas surrounding stations. A review of studies from Houston, Texas, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California conducted by Rodriguez and Targa (2004), revealed that bus transit had no impact on either residential or commercial development. A hedonic analysis applied to Los Angeles’s BRT, one year after its initiation, did not detect any evidence of benefits to nearby multi-family parcels (Cervero and Duncan 2002a). Recent work by a UCLA student, however, found that Los Angeles’ Orange Line (BRT) had an effect on the neighborhood real estate market. In between 2000 and 2012, areas near the Orange Line (BRT) fixed-guideway saw median rent increase by 25% compared to 15% in the control area, renter occupied units increased by 9% compared to 0% in the control area, and home value increase by 47% compared to 34% in the control area (Brown 2014). No significant differences in median income or household vehicle ownership were found, however other demographic characteristics (growth, education, and race) were found to significantly change. > Rodriquez and Targa (2004) suggest that these mixed results could be partially explained by the BRT’s lack of fixed guideways, as well as the cross-sectional research design and the newness of the service. Indeed, a study of a 25-year old bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Pittsburgh found a significant price premium for homes selling near the BRT line (Perk and Catala 2009). The implication is that where a BRT system can bring lasting improvements in accessibility on par with a fixed rail transit system housing markets may respond accordingly. 1: http://iurd.berkeley.edu/uploads/Displacement_Lit_Review_Final.pdf http://iurd.berkeley.edu/uploads/Displacement_Lit_Review_Fin...
l1ambda 10y ago
Well, buses and rail attack the congestion problem on the demand side, while tolls attack the problem on the supply side. So they're really complementary.
- gozur88 10y ago
  There's not a lot of point to instituting tolls unless you have an viable alternative for people to use, which isn't the case in Southern California. Well, unless the point is to raise money.
  - l1ambda 10y ago
    That is a very interesting point and it sounds like a similar situation occurs in parts of Texas. Without an efficient urban grid (walkable, cycleable), or a practical car alternative, like rail, buses, the outcome may be you can set prices however high, but people will still pay because there is no other option. I would still argue that prices should be set however high whereas to eliminate congestion, even it is seems "too high", simply because there is a limit to how many lanes can be constructed and no amount of lanes can eliminate congestion, and then we must allow market forces to occur such that development and lifestyle patterns change, which takes time.
nradov 10y ago
Buses in the LA region have a bad reputation because of other bus passengers. If you ride the bus you might have to sit next to someone who smells bad or plays loud music or acts out in inappropriate ways. That's why everyone who can afford it drives their own car: to be alone. The reputation would improve if they could get more "regular" people riding, but it's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem.
- slg 10y ago
  I have sat next to plenty of people who "smell bad or play loud music or act out in inappropriate ways" in London or NYC. The differentiating factor (for me at least) is that those cities provide a legitimate service level with public transit that can get me to almost any place in their city in a reasonable time frame. That allows more "regular" people to forgo cars completely in favor of public transit. In LA it is much more difficult to live without a car and rely totally on public transit. Therefore many have already invested in a car. This makes the choice between using that car over public transit for any individual trip much more slanted in favor of using your car.
  - robk 10y ago
    Seriously? You see more awful things in a single day in a SF or LA bus than 6 months in London
- martinald 10y ago
  Have you seen the central line at rush hour in London? It's horrendous[1]. We are talking >7people per sqm, plus significant waits to even get on the trains. But yet, 100k+s use it every day of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I'd imagine mostly middle class/upper middle class professionals. Why? 1) Traffic is terrible. It will take 1hr+ to do a journey the central line does in 15-20m. 2) Even if you want to drive, parking costs around $1500/month in the square mile. 3) On top of that, you have the congestion charge for entering central London (£11.50/day - soon to be £25/day if you have a particularly polluting vehicle). You're looking at about $2000/month if you want to drive, which takes 4x as long and costs about 15x more than the train. This is what happens when you price effectively for the externalities of traffic congestion. People will switch to transit en masse, and 'loud music' will not be seen as a problem. [1]this also means there is the political will to build massive transit infrastructure, like crossrail, which will relieve the central line at a cost of around $20bn.
kkitay 10y ago
There's a middle ground between buses and rail: building defacto rail lines by transforming far-left lanes and middle dividers into dedicated bus tracks and semipermanent bus stations. Urbanized (Gary Hustwit, 2011) highlights the TransMilenio bus system, which serves the city of Bogota. It specifically covers elevating the experience and status of taking the bus by adopting positive aspects of rail systems: covered waiting areas, dedicated transit lanes, more reliable service. Except it's less expensive to implement and more flexible. TransMilenio bus and station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Av_Am%C3%A9ricas_Transmilenio_Mundo_Aventura.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Av_Am%C3%A9ricas_Transmil... Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio With so much road already laid, LA is a perfect candidate for a system like this!
- melvinmt 10y ago
  They have the same thing in Istanbul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobus_(Istanbul) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobus_(Istanbul)
  - fatihpense 10y ago
    If you need statistics for the maximum people this system can take, you can ask the municipality of Istanbul. They also can't increase the number of buses because of congestion. Here is a well-known joke about it: http://imgur.com/5ZFMoMZ http://imgur.com/5ZFMoMZ
- avn2109 10y ago
  Bus themed solutions would definitely be an improvement over LA's status quo. However a better idea would be to reduce the need to travel long distances by building denser. LA roads are super wide right now, so the easiest way to raise density would be by putting buildings in the middle of the road, leaving a Really Narrow Street (tm) along either side. Ground floors of new buildings could be commercial, upper floors residential. (Some LA roads are so wide we could put 2 or more blocks of Really Narrow Streets in the space consumed by a single car-oriented surface street). This would reduce housing prices by bringing a crazy amount of inventory online, and would greatly lower maintenance expenses by severely curtailing the number of square feet of publicly-funded roads, traffic lights, signage etc. If we structured this correctly, the city could make a giant pile of money in both land sales and new real estate taxes. Maybe they could then use the surplus money to build a real train system or just reduce taxes. Lastly, there would obviously also be large environmental benefits such as smog reduction, CO2 emission reductions etc. Yes, I realize this will never happen, and yes, I realize I'm proposing turning LA into old Paris. Old Paris is great, we should copy it more. I stole these ideas from [0]. [0] http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/
sampo 10y ago
> [rail] will always have the last mile issue That is true only for heavy rail (commuter trains). But light rail (trams, or perhaps called streetcars in American English) can have stops as often as buses. Here is a tram in Karlsruhe, Germany: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3906930335_f3b2e209c2.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3906930335_f3b2e209c2.jp... Here are some in Helsinki, Finland: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/47004637.jpg http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/47004637.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_jhbBeEkiyc/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_jhbBeEkiyc/maxresdefault.jpg
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  > But light rail (trams, or perhaps called streetcars in American English) can have stops as often as buses. I have a hard time justifying trams/streetcars over buses. They largely seem equivalent except that buses are more flexible since they're not bound to a set of tracks. For example, if a car crash or other obstacle blocks the tram tracks, the trams have to wait for the obstacle to be cleared. A bus can just go around it. Buses can (and do, in some places) carry transponders to give them signal priority, just like trams. They can even be given dedicated lanes. And trams don't really carry more passengers per square meter than buses do. The one advantage trams have that I can see is that they avoid the weird cultural stigma that buses tend to carry here in the US.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Trams are more comfortable for the passenger, as the ride is smoother. It's on rails, so no bumps, and acceleration/deceleration generally doesn't have abrupt jerks. On the other hand, buses are far more flexible; a minor glitch like an accident or someone unloading their moving goods stops a tram on the street totally, because it absolutely doesn't go round any obstacle. Buses do.
    - s0rce 10y ago
      Also, no diesel fumes on an electric street car make the journey much more pleasant for many.
SilasX 10y ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive: tolls are a way to force a lot of people to economize at once, which can create the critical mass needed for a functioning bus ecosystem, which could even include private buses.
- ju-st 10y ago
  Yes, tolls make only sense when there is an alternative to driving. When people have no other choice than to drive nothing will change with tolls. Tolls are basically an artificial added cost to driving. However ideally the public transport system should be designed in such a superior way that people would switch without artificial punishment for driving.
  - photojosh 10y ago
    If that's so, then fares on public transport are basically an "artificial added cost". Roads are enormously expensive both for construction and maintenance, and in most places AFAIK fuel taxes and vehicle registrations do not cover that cost, so they are being subsidised by the general taxpayer.
    - ju-st 10y ago
      I didn't meant the actual cost (as in Dollars) for the infrastructure but the associated disincentive. Collecting toll would certainly increase tax justice by relieving the general taxpayer. But that wouldn't solve the traffic problem because people will still need to travel somehow.
revelation 10y ago
Buses are the worst form of public transport due to low capacity, low efficiency and large exposure to delays from individual transport (no personal car can hold up rail) with the resulting scheduling issues and low customer satisfaction. Light rail blows buses away.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  Buses are one of those solutions that look great on paper. Proponents of buses point to flexibility of routing, lack of new infrastructure installation, cost, etc. It's very difficult to argue with any of their points. And yet, bus transit is invariably a dismal experience, simply the worst. I think it's because a bus gives you the worst of both worlds — the stop and go headaches of personal automobiles, and the forced interaction with strangers on trains. (This isn't a real problem on a train, however, because one can usually simply walk away from an unwanted interaction.)
- Balgair 10y ago
  Until some bum sits on the rails lines just on the other side of where it crosses the surface road throwing god-knows-what about at 4:30pm as they have taken to recently at the Bundy crossing. This causes massive gridlock and has made the westside much worse in terms of traffic since the light-rail went in.
- OrwellianChild 10y ago
  This interpretation assumes that buses don't have their own right-of-way. Give buses their own lane, and suddenly they start looking like very cheap, quick-to-implement light-rail substitutes...
  - revelation 10y ago
    No, they still have terrible capacity. Does nobody do basic math anymore? And having bus lanes, which can still be blocked, does not make them cheap light-rail. You also need to upgrade all lights at intersections to allow the bus to override the current signal.
ghobs91 10y ago
I would say building out a comprehensive subway/commuter rail network will make a much bigger difference. Being able to park your car at the nearest suburban station's parking garage and taking the train from there will make it so that cars/buses are only a "last mile" mode of transport. Not to mention, trains are a way more space efficient way to move people, and aren't at the mercy of traffic jams caused by car accidents, construction, and bottlenecks. Granted, this hasn't completely solved the traffic problem in the NYC metro area, but without it, traffic would be a nightmare, and having the option to bypass it is great. The fact that I can take a 15 min walk to my suburban town's train station, take it to Jamaica, Queens, transfer to the Airtrain and arrive at JFK airport without ever stepping foot in a car is something every city needs. Also, buses are notoriously unreliable schedule-wise, and people dont like having to wait in bad weather (not as much of a problem in LA) for it to arrive.
Lukeas14 10y ago
I disagree that the reputation of buses is the reason why more people don't take them in LA. Driving in traffic might be bad, but taking a bus in that same traffic is usually even more inconvenient, efficient and less economically viable. Taking a bus within the same city has never been a problem and these routes are typically pretty full. However, once you're going from one city to another, within LA county, the added time of transfers and making dozens of stops on city streets really starts to add up. A trip that might take 45 minutes by car sitting in traffic could easily take 2+ hours by bus. Nobody who values their time would choose the bus option if they can afford a car. People don't avoid the bus because many of the passengers are downtrodden. Many of the passengers are downtrodden simply because anyone who isn't chooses the quicker more efficient option of driving. The buildout of rail and the addition of more express buses I agree will help alleviate a lot of traffic issues. Buses can be the solution to the last mile issues. But like you said, there needs to be a lot more of them to cut down on waiting time.
- Balgair 10y ago
  How often do you take the Big Blue Bus? People really do drive so they do not have to deal with the bums. Those guys can be really violent and smelly some days.
  - branchless 10y ago
    Perhaps have a society without insane inequality whilst we are drawing up a wish list...
    - Balgair 10y ago
      Ha, yes. Still, many of the bums have severe untreated mental issues; no matter the money they will still be badly off, but maybe not as smelly.
alkonaut 10y ago
> And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along That's why a good toll system should fund the public transit. The higher you set the tolls, the more buses you can offer to those who find it too expensive.
- Balgair 10y ago
  If you think that money from tolls is actually going to go to buses and improved public transit and not just into some Bel-Air businessman's brother's pocket, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    I know things are done differently in America, but the profit from London's congestion charge is invested in public transport by law. For at least the first few years, it was entirely spent on improvements to buses -- giving much more capacity, and faster journeys due to the reduced congestion. * Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to be precise, but the whole act is a 500 page PDF, so my curiosity ended there: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/pdfs/ukpga_19990029_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/pdfs/ukpga_19990...
    - Balgair 10y ago
      This is also true here, but someone has to build or design those improvements to buses. The contract will typically go to someone's brother's shell company or something, especially in California. The approach to the Golden Gate Bridge cost a million dollars per foot of road. Yes, seismic this-and-that, environmental reports, noise studies, etc, but the corruption is just rampant in Cali.
      - dx034 10y ago
        Won't happen in the EU. It's forbidden for any public entity to give a contract such as this one without tendering it. Certainly not a perfect system, but it counteracts corruption pretty well.
timthelion 10y ago
Do you have any experience with busses? Was that experience "great"? For example, have you lived in Hong Kong, which I understand is a Bus city? I live in Prague, and the trams are great. It is a 100% better experience than driving. Smooth, quiet, usually plenty of leg room. Doesn't smell. The busses, however, are hell. That low key vibration of the motor, the smell of the gass, the cramped spaces, the steps, all add up to a horrible experience. I think a lot of people in the US associate mass transit with sociallism and associate socialism with "everyone should live like the dirt poor live". But come to Prague and ride the trams, and you will find that mass transit can be a luxury item.
- jisaacstone 10y ago
  I've had some good bus experiences, in Mexico City and KunMing I've ridden in nice clean busses with dedicated lanes and raised platforms for easy entry/exit[1]. It's near as nice as rail and from what I understand quite a bit cheaper to build [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_SetDominguez.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_SetDomingue...
  - timthelion 10y ago
    It may be cheeper to build, though that is questionable. It is cheeper only because it takes advantage of existing roadway, but if you factor in the root cost of all of the existing infrastructure it uses than there's not much of a difference in cost between steel+gravel and concrete is there? In any case, over time the price of the busses goes up steeply. You need to replace a bus after 20 years, where-as trams last 50-60 years. Prague is replacing their Tatra T3 [1] trams from the 60s, not because they are worn out (they still run like new) but because they are more dangerous in accidents for the driver (they have no crumple zone and worse brakes) and because they don't have wheel chair access. Other, poorer cities have even older trams that still run fine. When they upgrade, those old machines aren't scrapped, but are sold to more eastern ex-soviet contries as working vehicles and actually put into service there. When was the last time you road in a 50 year old bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T3
m-j-fox 10y ago
You might like Sao Paulo. Its like LA but smelly-er and full of buses. In Sao Paulo there's no need to hurry to hop on your bus before it leaves the stop because another one will arrive immediately. Same deal with the metro. Trains arrive and depart every 90 seconds during rush hour. Do an image search for tráfego em sao paulo site:.br if you're curious how that's working out for them. I like this one: http://f.i.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/images/13164124.jpeg http://f.i.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/images/13164124.jpeg
- danesparza 10y ago
  Hmmm ... given the current state of the government in Brazil https://www.ft.com/content/17bd7ffa-3944-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7 https://www.ft.com/content/17bd7ffa-3944-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8...), I wonder how much longer the government can sustain a mass transit system that runs that frequently?
  - ufo 10y ago
    The São Paulo city and state government are doing relatively fine (compared with the rest of the country)
- thiagotomei 10y ago
  This applies only to more or less "central" locations. Buses to the city outskirts are still infrequent and, during rush hour, will still be stuck in traffic. Metro is good, but it is nowhere near 90 seconds - specially with the long stops in between stations.
doctorpangloss 10y ago
> And that solution is buses. At once the singularly most politically and practically incorrect assessment of LA traffic issues. How did this get top comment? I'll agree with you in one key way: it's less ridiculous than Elon Musk's obsession with tunnels. It's a lot less ridiculous than Nolan Bushnell's obsession with self driving cars. Both fundamentally don't get how far away those solutions are from meaningful implementation. More busses, critically, could be added tomorrow, if we wanted to. Yet others have already pointed out that buses have a bad reputation. It's only partly because of poor performance like you say. I'll put it more plainly: Los Angeles is a deeply racially segregated city, in ways that the bourgeois in California rarely admit. It's a travesty but it's also reality. And some people characterize bus reputation as a chicken and egg problem: good riders improve the reputation, but they won't get on board when the reputation is bad. Those commenters don't understand how deeply entrenched racial segregation is in Los Angeles and how naive they sound. They're comparing Los Angeles to cities like London and New York, with huge metro systems, repeating popular whataboutist memes. They don't realize that London and New York have merely had more time to develop segregation underground. Busses have fundamental inefficiencies, like slow patrons, that are basically uncorrelated with the number of busses on the road. And like any transport, capacity tends to get filled. And then we've all seen simulations of how bus transport falls apart due to one vehicle on a line getting behind—called bunching up[1]. I wrote to LA Dept. of Transportation years ago[2], and they characterized the problem then (and now) as fundamentally political: "Such issues require legislation." California and Los Angeles have voting systems that are good for solving many kinds of issues, but transportation is not one of them. In my opinion, increasing licensing requirements, like disqualifying many current drivers from using freeways or vehicles entirely, would at least reduce deaths on the road. [3, 4, 5] Fewer accidents, as a side effect, could reduce congestion. [1] E.g. http://setosa.io/bus/ http://setosa.io/bus/ [2] https://gist.github.com/doctorpangloss/a71db50d371e914a5d4f5dc47861c4cd https://gist.github.com/doctorpangloss/a71db50d371e914a5d4f5... [3] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/56.short http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/56.short [4] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198945 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198945 [5] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437502000816 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437502...
hkmurakami 10y ago
Can someone comment on how well buses work in Seoul? It struck me that it's a major form of transit there with a ton of buses passing by the stops.
scythe 10y ago
I had envisioned a van-based system for the last-mile rail problem. It's a more comfortable ride than a bus, and since you're focusing on short routes you should have pretty low latency with the vans, which fixes the "transfer issue" where transferring between two transit lines can add 15+ minutes to your commute. Van drivers are significantly cheaper than bus drivers, since a normal drivers' license can be used for up to 15 passengers in most states (you probably still want to vet them). I've been semi-expecting to see UberVAN pop up actually. It doesn't seem like the kind of idea strange enough that nobody else would think of it.
Balgair 10y ago
I really like that idea. The last mile issue in LA really is a problem, trying to cross streets is like playing Frogger and that would help a lot. I actually rode the buses in LA for about 2 years (Westside to UCLA). Adding more buses, and I mean a LOT more buses (10x), may actually work. However, the issue with LA buses is not the frequency or the timing of transfers, it is the city and the people themselves. LA is not meant for buses, it is meant for cars. That means you'll have to tear up a lot of road-way to get the proper street design for 10x the buses. Anyone that has lived in LA knows that major road construction is nearly unending and yet is horrific at the same time. Doing that kind of work will not be just 'normal' expensive, but you'll also have to pay for the massive corruption issues along with it. There exists no political willpower to do so and it is unlikely to come about anytime soon as voter participation in LA is abysmal (1 voter for ~50k residents). Also, have you ridden the Big Blue Bus on an August Tuesday in 90+ degree heat at 5 pm? You will discover the surprisingly rank nature of the human body's ability to produce truly nauseous smells and leave them on the seats. The bums man, they are just plain smelly and stabby and awful. The bums prevent most unaccompanied women from even considering taking the bus, they really are that bad. LAPD gives exactly 0 shits about the bums as long as they don't actually try to kill you. You ever make the mistake of getting onto a piss bus? Whatever is left of that dying human being in the far back seat just makes for horrific smells that will not come out of your clothes, you really have to throw them out. I learned that lesson only once. I was not late to work, but I should have been. You just have to skip that bus and be an hour late or come in smelling of death itself. So most single women just take their cars. It is a far safer way to get about town.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  i agree with much of what you're saying, but -- 1 voter for ~50k residents? huh? there are about 4 million residents in LA. 1 voter per 50k residents amounts to 80 voters. i must be misunderstanding your comment...
  - Balgair 10y ago
    You are right. I messed up here. The voter turn out in LA is typically ~10% of the population. Garcetti got ~6% of the population to vote for him in '13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_...
enknamel 10y ago
Buses just make it easier for you to be uncomfortable. We need to eliminate the need for long commutes not make long commutes more sustainable. We should not be spending 10+ hours a week just on commuting.
AJ007 10y ago
Why not the subway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail
CRUDmeariver 10y ago
As a frequent LA bus rider, I agree that the biggest problem is simply the infrequency of service. I can deal with the ride being bumpy, or sitting next to crazy people on occasion. Even the slowness and frequent stops don't bother me. When you subtract time for parking, your trip takes not much longer than driving, especially when traffic is slow. But 20 minutes between each bus during rush hour is just indefensible. It's not a viable transit system, it's just a last ditch option. When two buses get bunched together, now it's suddenly 40 minutes. Throw in a transfer and things can get ridiculous. The Red Line train comes every 13 minutes but at least it actually comes when it says it will (most of the time). The bus is scheduled to come every 15-20 but in practice it's more like two come five minutes apart and then you wait 25-30 for the next one.
pantalaimon 10y ago
> They are trying to build more rail which doesn't have the bad reputation, but that will always have the last mile issue. I'm not convinced. I live in Berlin and hardly ever have to take the bus to get anywhere. In the city center, there is usually a subway or S-Bahn station within 500m.

felipellrocha 10y ago

That'd be ideal... But while the data says "more public transport", ideology is pushing the other way, and nowadays I feel like people adhere more to ideology than data.

bit_logic 10y ago
I think there's some good signs here in LA. People know the situation is bad and we need more public transport. During the last election, a new measure passed to increase sales tax to fund more rail. Tax measures here require 66% to pass and it's kind of incredible that many people want to increase their taxes. It shows how dire the situation is and people here recognize it. The direction for the metro here is massive investment in more rail. But to really fully utilize that, they need to fix the first/last mile issue. They are trying with bike sharing, more dense housing, etc. But those are too slow and just don't have enough impact. LA doesn't have to be a car city, but it will always be a road city. We need to work on connecting that road network to the rail. Buses could've been the solution, but won't happen due to bad reputation. Uber/Lyft could try with their car pooling service, but there's a conflict of interest working with rail because it decreases revenue for them since rail would take a big chunk of the distance traveled. Short distance carpooling is a potential good solution and I hope some startup here or the metro does something about this. This kind of first/last mile carpool + rail solution also has potential in other cities that are investing in rail (like Seattle, Denver, etc.). If it works well, it could become the model for transportation in US cities.

hughes 10y ago

100% agreed. Coming to LA from Toronto, the biggest disappointment was the bus frequency. Toronto transit has some big problems, but on most routes you can get a transfer within 5-10 minutes. When you need to transfer on the LA Metro, it's normal to wait up to half an hour for the connecting bus. If you have to transfer multiple times, it's not feasible to make that part of your daily routine so you are forced to take your car.

Nav_Panel 10y ago

> the bad reputation of buses Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. A political whim could shut down a whole bus route in a day, leaving commuters stranded. Rail signals long-term investment, and neighborhoods will grow around rail because they can guarantee it'll be there for years to come.

jessriedel 10y ago
Any data to back up that theory? The alternative theory that busses are undependable and low-status is more plausible to me.
- spollo 10y ago
  Any data to back up that theory? The alternative theory that rail drives neighbourhood growth and has better long-term political safety is more plausible to me. Not that I disagree but it's no less backed up than the theory you support.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Yes of course. Sometimes people ask for data because they would generally like to learn, not as a tactic to win an argument.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  This article[1] has some info and citations and makes my point a bit more clearly. > Several scholars have described Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an attractive modal transit option (R. B. Diaz and Schneck 2000; Levinson et al. 2002; Polzin and Baltes 2002; Vuchic 2002). The attributes favoring BRT are its lower capital cost relative to other modes (such as fixed rail) (US GAO 2001) as well as its implementation and operational flexibility (Jarzab, Lightbody, and Maeda 2002). > There is limited evidence about the relationship between land values and BRT (Rodriguez and Targa 2004; Johnson 2003). Similarly, traditional bus service is rarely considered when discussing the impact of transit on housing costs. In their review of the literature, Hess and Almeida (2007, p. 1043) explain that “…property values near bus routes have only modest gains, if any, from transit proximity, because most bus routes lack the permanence of fixed infrastructure.” ... > In North America, the relationship between accessibility to BRT and land values is only examined by a handful of studies focusing on bus priority treatments (high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)-bus lanes) and transit ways. In an early study, (Knight and Trygg 1977) examined HOV-bus lanes in Washington, DC, California, Seattle, and Florida. They relied on previously published reports, interviews, aerial photographs, and other secondary sources available at the time to conclude that exclusive bus lanes incorporated into highways appear to have no impact on either residential or commercial development. A later study by Mullins, Washington, and Stokes (1990) found that the BRT in Ottawa, Canada, appeared to have some effect on land development in areas surrounding stations. A review of studies from Houston, Texas, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California conducted by Rodriguez and Targa (2004), revealed that bus transit had no impact on either residential or commercial development. A hedonic analysis applied to Los Angeles’s BRT, one year after its initiation, did not detect any evidence of benefits to nearby multi-family parcels (Cervero and Duncan 2002a). Recent work by a UCLA student, however, found that Los Angeles’ Orange Line (BRT) had an effect on the neighborhood real estate market. In between 2000 and 2012, areas near the Orange Line (BRT) fixed-guideway saw median rent increase by 25% compared to 15% in the control area, renter occupied units increased by 9% compared to 0% in the control area, and home value increase by 47% compared to 34% in the control area (Brown 2014). No significant differences in median income or household vehicle ownership were found, however other demographic characteristics (growth, education, and race) were found to significantly change. > Rodriquez and Targa (2004) suggest that these mixed results could be partially explained by the BRT’s lack of fixed guideways, as well as the cross-sectional research design and the newness of the service. Indeed, a study of a 25-year old bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Pittsburgh found a significant price premium for homes selling near the BRT line (Perk and Catala 2009). The implication is that where a BRT system can bring lasting improvements in accessibility on par with a fixed rail transit system housing markets may respond accordingly. 1: http://iurd.berkeley.edu/uploads/Displacement_Lit_Review_Final.pdf http://iurd.berkeley.edu/uploads/Displacement_Lit_Review_Fin...

l1ambda 10y ago

Well, buses and rail attack the congestion problem on the demand side, while tolls attack the problem on the supply side. So they're really complementary.

gozur88 10y ago
There's not a lot of point to instituting tolls unless you have an viable alternative for people to use, which isn't the case in Southern California. Well, unless the point is to raise money.
- l1ambda 10y ago
  That is a very interesting point and it sounds like a similar situation occurs in parts of Texas. Without an efficient urban grid (walkable, cycleable), or a practical car alternative, like rail, buses, the outcome may be you can set prices however high, but people will still pay because there is no other option. I would still argue that prices should be set however high whereas to eliminate congestion, even it is seems "too high", simply because there is a limit to how many lanes can be constructed and no amount of lanes can eliminate congestion, and then we must allow market forces to occur such that development and lifestyle patterns change, which takes time.

nradov 10y ago

Buses in the LA region have a bad reputation because of other bus passengers. If you ride the bus you might have to sit next to someone who smells bad or plays loud music or acts out in inappropriate ways. That's why everyone who can afford it drives their own car: to be alone. The reputation would improve if they could get more "regular" people riding, but it's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem.

slg 10y ago
I have sat next to plenty of people who "smell bad or play loud music or act out in inappropriate ways" in London or NYC. The differentiating factor (for me at least) is that those cities provide a legitimate service level with public transit that can get me to almost any place in their city in a reasonable time frame. That allows more "regular" people to forgo cars completely in favor of public transit. In LA it is much more difficult to live without a car and rely totally on public transit. Therefore many have already invested in a car. This makes the choice between using that car over public transit for any individual trip much more slanted in favor of using your car.
- robk 10y ago
  Seriously? You see more awful things in a single day in a SF or LA bus than 6 months in London
martinald 10y ago
Have you seen the central line at rush hour in London? It's horrendous[1]. We are talking >7people per sqm, plus significant waits to even get on the trains. But yet, 100k+s use it every day of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I'd imagine mostly middle class/upper middle class professionals. Why? 1) Traffic is terrible. It will take 1hr+ to do a journey the central line does in 15-20m. 2) Even if you want to drive, parking costs around $1500/month in the square mile. 3) On top of that, you have the congestion charge for entering central London (£11.50/day - soon to be £25/day if you have a particularly polluting vehicle). You're looking at about $2000/month if you want to drive, which takes 4x as long and costs about 15x more than the train. This is what happens when you price effectively for the externalities of traffic congestion. People will switch to transit en masse, and 'loud music' will not be seen as a problem. [1]this also means there is the political will to build massive transit infrastructure, like crossrail, which will relieve the central line at a cost of around $20bn.

kkitay 10y ago

There's a middle ground between buses and rail: building defacto rail lines by transforming far-left lanes and middle dividers into dedicated bus tracks and semipermanent bus stations. Urbanized (Gary Hustwit, 2011) highlights the TransMilenio bus system, which serves the city of Bogota. It specifically covers elevating the experience and status of taking the bus by adopting positive aspects of rail systems: covered waiting areas, dedicated transit lanes, more reliable service. Except it's less expensive to implement and more flexible. TransMilenio bus and station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Av_Am%C3%A9ricas_Transmilenio_Mundo_Aventura.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Av_Am%C3%A9ricas_Transmil... Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio With so much road already laid, LA is a perfect candidate for a system like this!

melvinmt 10y ago
They have the same thing in Istanbul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobus_(Istanbul) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobus_(Istanbul)
- fatihpense 10y ago
  If you need statistics for the maximum people this system can take, you can ask the municipality of Istanbul. They also can't increase the number of buses because of congestion. Here is a well-known joke about it: http://imgur.com/5ZFMoMZ http://imgur.com/5ZFMoMZ
avn2109 10y ago
Bus themed solutions would definitely be an improvement over LA's status quo. However a better idea would be to reduce the need to travel long distances by building denser. LA roads are super wide right now, so the easiest way to raise density would be by putting buildings in the middle of the road, leaving a Really Narrow Street (tm) along either side. Ground floors of new buildings could be commercial, upper floors residential. (Some LA roads are so wide we could put 2 or more blocks of Really Narrow Streets in the space consumed by a single car-oriented surface street). This would reduce housing prices by bringing a crazy amount of inventory online, and would greatly lower maintenance expenses by severely curtailing the number of square feet of publicly-funded roads, traffic lights, signage etc. If we structured this correctly, the city could make a giant pile of money in both land sales and new real estate taxes. Maybe they could then use the surplus money to build a real train system or just reduce taxes. Lastly, there would obviously also be large environmental benefits such as smog reduction, CO2 emission reductions etc. Yes, I realize this will never happen, and yes, I realize I'm proposing turning LA into old Paris. Old Paris is great, we should copy it more. I stole these ideas from [0]. [0] http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/ http://newworldeconomics.com/the-eco-metropolis/

sampo 10y ago

> [rail] will always have the last mile issue That is true only for heavy rail (commuter trains). But light rail (trams, or perhaps called streetcars in American English) can have stops as often as buses. Here is a tram in Karlsruhe, Germany: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3906930335_f3b2e209c2.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3906930335_f3b2e209c2.jp... Here are some in Helsinki, Finland: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/47004637.jpg http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/47004637.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_jhbBeEkiyc/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_jhbBeEkiyc/maxresdefault.jpg

tomjakubowski 10y ago
> But light rail (trams, or perhaps called streetcars in American English) can have stops as often as buses. I have a hard time justifying trams/streetcars over buses. They largely seem equivalent except that buses are more flexible since they're not bound to a set of tracks. For example, if a car crash or other obstacle blocks the tram tracks, the trams have to wait for the obstacle to be cleared. A bus can just go around it. Buses can (and do, in some places) carry transponders to give them signal priority, just like trams. They can even be given dedicated lanes. And trams don't really carry more passengers per square meter than buses do. The one advantage trams have that I can see is that they avoid the weird cultural stigma that buses tend to carry here in the US.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Trams are more comfortable for the passenger, as the ride is smoother. It's on rails, so no bumps, and acceleration/deceleration generally doesn't have abrupt jerks. On the other hand, buses are far more flexible; a minor glitch like an accident or someone unloading their moving goods stops a tram on the street totally, because it absolutely doesn't go round any obstacle. Buses do.
  - s0rce 10y ago
    Also, no diesel fumes on an electric street car make the journey much more pleasant for many.

SilasX 10y ago

Those aren't mutually exclusive: tolls are a way to force a lot of people to economize at once, which can create the critical mass needed for a functioning bus ecosystem, which could even include private buses.

ju-st 10y ago
Yes, tolls make only sense when there is an alternative to driving. When people have no other choice than to drive nothing will change with tolls. Tolls are basically an artificial added cost to driving. However ideally the public transport system should be designed in such a superior way that people would switch without artificial punishment for driving.
- photojosh 10y ago
  If that's so, then fares on public transport are basically an "artificial added cost". Roads are enormously expensive both for construction and maintenance, and in most places AFAIK fuel taxes and vehicle registrations do not cover that cost, so they are being subsidised by the general taxpayer.
  - ju-st 10y ago
    I didn't meant the actual cost (as in Dollars) for the infrastructure but the associated disincentive. Collecting toll would certainly increase tax justice by relieving the general taxpayer. But that wouldn't solve the traffic problem because people will still need to travel somehow.

revelation 10y ago

Buses are the worst form of public transport due to low capacity, low efficiency and large exposure to delays from individual transport (no personal car can hold up rail) with the resulting scheduling issues and low customer satisfaction. Light rail blows buses away.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago
Buses are one of those solutions that look great on paper. Proponents of buses point to flexibility of routing, lack of new infrastructure installation, cost, etc. It's very difficult to argue with any of their points. And yet, bus transit is invariably a dismal experience, simply the worst. I think it's because a bus gives you the worst of both worlds — the stop and go headaches of personal automobiles, and the forced interaction with strangers on trains. (This isn't a real problem on a train, however, because one can usually simply walk away from an unwanted interaction.)
Balgair 10y ago
Until some bum sits on the rails lines just on the other side of where it crosses the surface road throwing god-knows-what about at 4:30pm as they have taken to recently at the Bundy crossing. This causes massive gridlock and has made the westside much worse in terms of traffic since the light-rail went in.
OrwellianChild 10y ago
This interpretation assumes that buses don't have their own right-of-way. Give buses their own lane, and suddenly they start looking like very cheap, quick-to-implement light-rail substitutes...
- revelation 10y ago
  No, they still have terrible capacity. Does nobody do basic math anymore? And having bus lanes, which can still be blocked, does not make them cheap light-rail. You also need to upgrade all lights at intersections to allow the bus to override the current signal.

ghobs91 10y ago

I would say building out a comprehensive subway/commuter rail network will make a much bigger difference. Being able to park your car at the nearest suburban station's parking garage and taking the train from there will make it so that cars/buses are only a "last mile" mode of transport. Not to mention, trains are a way more space efficient way to move people, and aren't at the mercy of traffic jams caused by car accidents, construction, and bottlenecks. Granted, this hasn't completely solved the traffic problem in the NYC metro area, but without it, traffic would be a nightmare, and having the option to bypass it is great. The fact that I can take a 15 min walk to my suburban town's train station, take it to Jamaica, Queens, transfer to the Airtrain and arrive at JFK airport without ever stepping foot in a car is something every city needs. Also, buses are notoriously unreliable schedule-wise, and people dont like having to wait in bad weather (not as much of a problem in LA) for it to arrive.

Lukeas14 10y ago

I disagree that the reputation of buses is the reason why more people don't take them in LA. Driving in traffic might be bad, but taking a bus in that same traffic is usually even more inconvenient, efficient and less economically viable. Taking a bus within the same city has never been a problem and these routes are typically pretty full. However, once you're going from one city to another, within LA county, the added time of transfers and making dozens of stops on city streets really starts to add up. A trip that might take 45 minutes by car sitting in traffic could easily take 2+ hours by bus. Nobody who values their time would choose the bus option if they can afford a car. People don't avoid the bus because many of the passengers are downtrodden. Many of the passengers are downtrodden simply because anyone who isn't chooses the quicker more efficient option of driving. The buildout of rail and the addition of more express buses I agree will help alleviate a lot of traffic issues. Buses can be the solution to the last mile issues. But like you said, there needs to be a lot more of them to cut down on waiting time.

Balgair 10y ago
How often do you take the Big Blue Bus? People really do drive so they do not have to deal with the bums. Those guys can be really violent and smelly some days.
- branchless 10y ago
  Perhaps have a society without insane inequality whilst we are drawing up a wish list...
  - Balgair 10y ago
    Ha, yes. Still, many of the bums have severe untreated mental issues; no matter the money they will still be badly off, but maybe not as smelly.

alkonaut 10y ago

> And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along That's why a good toll system should fund the public transit. The higher you set the tolls, the more buses you can offer to those who find it too expensive.

Balgair 10y ago
If you think that money from tolls is actually going to go to buses and improved public transit and not just into some Bel-Air businessman's brother's pocket, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  I know things are done differently in America, but the profit from London's congestion charge is invested in public transport by law. For at least the first few years, it was entirely spent on improvements to buses -- giving much more capacity, and faster journeys due to the reduced congestion. * Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to be precise, but the whole act is a 500 page PDF, so my curiosity ended there: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/pdfs/ukpga_19990029_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/pdfs/ukpga_19990...
  - Balgair 10y ago
    This is also true here, but someone has to build or design those improvements to buses. The contract will typically go to someone's brother's shell company or something, especially in California. The approach to the Golden Gate Bridge cost a million dollars per foot of road. Yes, seismic this-and-that, environmental reports, noise studies, etc, but the corruption is just rampant in Cali.
    - dx034 10y ago
      Won't happen in the EU. It's forbidden for any public entity to give a contract such as this one without tendering it. Certainly not a perfect system, but it counteracts corruption pretty well.

timthelion 10y ago

Do you have any experience with busses? Was that experience "great"? For example, have you lived in Hong Kong, which I understand is a Bus city? I live in Prague, and the trams are great. It is a 100% better experience than driving. Smooth, quiet, usually plenty of leg room. Doesn't smell. The busses, however, are hell. That low key vibration of the motor, the smell of the gass, the cramped spaces, the steps, all add up to a horrible experience. I think a lot of people in the US associate mass transit with sociallism and associate socialism with "everyone should live like the dirt poor live". But come to Prague and ride the trams, and you will find that mass transit can be a luxury item.

jisaacstone 10y ago
I've had some good bus experiences, in Mexico City and KunMing I've ridden in nice clean busses with dedicated lanes and raised platforms for easy entry/exit[1]. It's near as nice as rail and from what I understand quite a bit cheaper to build [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_SetDominguez.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_SetDomingue...
- timthelion 10y ago
  It may be cheeper to build, though that is questionable. It is cheeper only because it takes advantage of existing roadway, but if you factor in the root cost of all of the existing infrastructure it uses than there's not much of a difference in cost between steel+gravel and concrete is there? In any case, over time the price of the busses goes up steeply. You need to replace a bus after 20 years, where-as trams last 50-60 years. Prague is replacing their Tatra T3 [1] trams from the 60s, not because they are worn out (they still run like new) but because they are more dangerous in accidents for the driver (they have no crumple zone and worse brakes) and because they don't have wheel chair access. Other, poorer cities have even older trams that still run fine. When they upgrade, those old machines aren't scrapped, but are sold to more eastern ex-soviet contries as working vehicles and actually put into service there. When was the last time you road in a 50 year old bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T3

m-j-fox 10y ago

You might like Sao Paulo. Its like LA but smelly-er and full of buses. In Sao Paulo there's no need to hurry to hop on your bus before it leaves the stop because another one will arrive immediately. Same deal with the metro. Trains arrive and depart every 90 seconds during rush hour. Do an image search for tráfego em sao paulo site:.br if you're curious how that's working out for them. I like this one: http://f.i.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/images/13164124.jpeg http://f.i.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/images/13164124.jpeg

danesparza 10y ago
Hmmm ... given the current state of the government in Brazil https://www.ft.com/content/17bd7ffa-3944-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7 https://www.ft.com/content/17bd7ffa-3944-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8...), I wonder how much longer the government can sustain a mass transit system that runs that frequently?
- ufo 10y ago
  The São Paulo city and state government are doing relatively fine (compared with the rest of the country)
thiagotomei 10y ago
This applies only to more or less "central" locations. Buses to the city outskirts are still infrequent and, during rush hour, will still be stuck in traffic. Metro is good, but it is nowhere near 90 seconds - specially with the long stops in between stations.

doctorpangloss 10y ago

> And that solution is buses. At once the singularly most politically and practically incorrect assessment of LA traffic issues. How did this get top comment? I'll agree with you in one key way: it's less ridiculous than Elon Musk's obsession with tunnels. It's a lot less ridiculous than Nolan Bushnell's obsession with self driving cars. Both fundamentally don't get how far away those solutions are from meaningful implementation. More busses, critically, could be added tomorrow, if we wanted to. Yet others have already pointed out that buses have a bad reputation. It's only partly because of poor performance like you say. I'll put it more plainly: Los Angeles is a deeply racially segregated city, in ways that the bourgeois in California rarely admit. It's a travesty but it's also reality. And some people characterize bus reputation as a chicken and egg problem: good riders improve the reputation, but they won't get on board when the reputation is bad. Those commenters don't understand how deeply entrenched racial segregation is in Los Angeles and how naive they sound. They're comparing Los Angeles to cities like London and New York, with huge metro systems, repeating popular whataboutist memes. They don't realize that London and New York have merely had more time to develop segregation underground. Busses have fundamental inefficiencies, like slow patrons, that are basically uncorrelated with the number of busses on the road. And like any transport, capacity tends to get filled. And then we've all seen simulations of how bus transport falls apart due to one vehicle on a line getting behind—called bunching up[1]. I wrote to LA Dept. of Transportation years ago[2], and they characterized the problem then (and now) as fundamentally political: "Such issues require legislation." California and Los Angeles have voting systems that are good for solving many kinds of issues, but transportation is not one of them. In my opinion, increasing licensing requirements, like disqualifying many current drivers from using freeways or vehicles entirely, would at least reduce deaths on the road. [3, 4, 5] Fewer accidents, as a side effect, could reduce congestion. [1] E.g. http://setosa.io/bus/ http://setosa.io/bus/ [2] https://gist.github.com/doctorpangloss/a71db50d371e914a5d4f5dc47861c4cd https://gist.github.com/doctorpangloss/a71db50d371e914a5d4f5... [3] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/56.short http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/56.short [4] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198945 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198945 [5] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437502000816 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437502...

hkmurakami 10y ago

Can someone comment on how well buses work in Seoul? It struck me that it's a major form of transit there with a ton of buses passing by the stops.

scythe 10y ago

I had envisioned a van-based system for the last-mile rail problem. It's a more comfortable ride than a bus, and since you're focusing on short routes you should have pretty low latency with the vans, which fixes the "transfer issue" where transferring between two transit lines can add 15+ minutes to your commute. Van drivers are significantly cheaper than bus drivers, since a normal drivers' license can be used for up to 15 passengers in most states (you probably still want to vet them). I've been semi-expecting to see UberVAN pop up actually. It doesn't seem like the kind of idea strange enough that nobody else would think of it.

Balgair 10y ago

I really like that idea. The last mile issue in LA really is a problem, trying to cross streets is like playing Frogger and that would help a lot. I actually rode the buses in LA for about 2 years (Westside to UCLA). Adding more buses, and I mean a LOT more buses (10x), may actually work. However, the issue with LA buses is not the frequency or the timing of transfers, it is the city and the people themselves. LA is not meant for buses, it is meant for cars. That means you'll have to tear up a lot of road-way to get the proper street design for 10x the buses. Anyone that has lived in LA knows that major road construction is nearly unending and yet is horrific at the same time. Doing that kind of work will not be just 'normal' expensive, but you'll also have to pay for the massive corruption issues along with it. There exists no political willpower to do so and it is unlikely to come about anytime soon as voter participation in LA is abysmal (1 voter for ~50k residents). Also, have you ridden the Big Blue Bus on an August Tuesday in 90+ degree heat at 5 pm? You will discover the surprisingly rank nature of the human body's ability to produce truly nauseous smells and leave them on the seats. The bums man, they are just plain smelly and stabby and awful. The bums prevent most unaccompanied women from even considering taking the bus, they really are that bad. LAPD gives exactly 0 shits about the bums as long as they don't actually try to kill you. You ever make the mistake of getting onto a piss bus? Whatever is left of that dying human being in the far back seat just makes for horrific smells that will not come out of your clothes, you really have to throw them out. I learned that lesson only once. I was not late to work, but I should have been. You just have to skip that bus and be an hour late or come in smelling of death itself. So most single women just take their cars. It is a far safer way to get about town.

HillaryBriss 10y ago
i agree with much of what you're saying, but -- 1 voter for ~50k residents? huh? there are about 4 million residents in LA. 1 voter per 50k residents amounts to 80 voters. i must be misunderstanding your comment...
- Balgair 10y ago
  You are right. I messed up here. The voter turn out in LA is typically ~10% of the population. Garcetti got ~6% of the population to vote for him in '13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_...

enknamel 10y ago

Buses just make it easier for you to be uncomfortable. We need to eliminate the need for long commutes not make long commutes more sustainable. We should not be spending 10+ hours a week just on commuting.

AJ007 10y ago

Why not the subway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail

CRUDmeariver 10y ago

As a frequent LA bus rider, I agree that the biggest problem is simply the infrequency of service. I can deal with the ride being bumpy, or sitting next to crazy people on occasion. Even the slowness and frequent stops don't bother me. When you subtract time for parking, your trip takes not much longer than driving, especially when traffic is slow. But 20 minutes between each bus during rush hour is just indefensible. It's not a viable transit system, it's just a last ditch option. When two buses get bunched together, now it's suddenly 40 minutes. Throw in a transfer and things can get ridiculous. The Red Line train comes every 13 minutes but at least it actually comes when it says it will (most of the time). The bus is scheduled to come every 15-20 but in practice it's more like two come five minutes apart and then you wait 25-30 for the next one.

pantalaimon 10y ago

> They are trying to build more rail which doesn't have the bad reputation, but that will always have the last mile issue. I'm not convinced. I live in Berlin and hardly ever have to take the bus to get anywhere. In the city center, there is usually a subway or S-Bahn station within 500m.