43 ms·

Problem is, in LA at least, the bus and the car are about the same amount of time. Maybe a smidge longer for the bus. So most people that can afford to will tak

by Balgair 10y ago

Problem is, in LA at least, the bus and the car are about the same amount of time. Maybe a smidge longer for the bus. So most people that can afford to will take a car to avoid the cranksters, shockingly rude bus patrons, and the chance of a 'piss bus' on their way home.

engx 10y ago
A bus anyway in LA is substantially longer than driving. LA traffic is so annoying that a lot of people would likely take the bus if it was faster. If there were 10x more busses, and I could pay $10 for an all day pass, I'd take the bus every other day. Especially if the higher cost limited those who unfortunately use mass transit as temporary shelter. (And find some alternative temporary no strings attached shelter for them.)
- Balgair 10y ago
  Depending on traffic, the bus is typically about the same, maybe 5 minutes more on the hour long ride I took for 2 years under the 405 everyday. You have to add in the time it takes to find parking for your car, which a bus does not do. Yes, some days are worse, some are better, but for me it was about the same for a hour+ commute.
  - bestnameever 10y ago
    According to Google maps, taking the bus to my job would increase my travel time by at least 50 minutes each way.
    - Balgair 10y ago
      Well then don't take the bus
  - wj 10y ago
    That is only true if you don't have a transfer.
cvwright 10y ago
> the chance of a 'piss bus' Oh my. Is this a regular enough occurrence that there's a name for it?
alkonaut 10y ago
Something needs to be done about the bus lanes then. Buses should drive in dedicated lanes, that's the whole point. If you are stuck in traffic on a bus then something isn't right.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them. And if you are stuck in traffic in anything then something isn't right. If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good. Obviously it might be tempting to say "look we can't sacrifice one lane of 4 here to buses when cars are jammed bumper to bumper in the other 3 lanes" but that's how bus lanes work. With too few buses, they are just an ineficcient demonstration to the people in cars that they really should be riding the bus. > If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares. If petrol taxes, parking and tolls are high enough, then the buses are already almost free in comparison. Whether it costs $0 or $4 to ride the bus to work shouldn't matter - if parking, gas and tolls are 10 times that for one day of driving. Eliminating fares is one way of making the bus relatively cheaper compared to cars - but there is very little room there. The room to increase the cost of driving is almost infinite and it can be tweaked with gas taxes, congestion fees and parking costs. Btw: do people in US metro areas usually pay to park at work in inner cities? If metro area parking is a taxable comp then that's also a cost (e.g. if my marginal tax rate is 50% and free parking would be valued at $100 so I'd be taxed $50 per day for that benefit).
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good. Only if you actually add the buses, and people actually ride them, neither of which is a given. > Obviously it might be tempting to say "look we can't sacrifice one lane of 4 here to buses when cars are jammed bumper to bumper in the other 3 lanes" but that's how bus lanes work. That's the problem. > With too few buses, they are just an ineficcient demonstration to the people in cars that they really should be riding the bus. That only works if they can ride the bus. The problem in most of the US is that you have a big congested highway, and then you get off the highway and drive another five or ten minutes on side streets to your destination. You can't just tell those people to ride the bus, there aren't regular buses on the side streets because there isn't enough traffic there to justify them. And a bus that only takes you to the edge of the congested highway and then leaves you with an hour walk to your destination is useless. > Whether it costs $0 or $4 to ride the bus to work shouldn't matter It does matter to the tune of $4, and eliminating fares increases efficiency because you don't have to pay for a fare collection infrastructure, as opposed to bus lanes which dramatically decrease it because you're paying the full cost of a lane and then wasting most of it. > if parking, gas and tolls are 10 times that for one day of driving Stop trying to make driving worse. First you have to make the alternatives to driving better, and as soon as you do that, you don't need anything else. Nobody actually likes driving to work, the only reason anybody does is that the alternatives are broken and terrible. In order to make driving as bad as the alternatives without making the alternatives better, you would literally end up causing people and companies to move out of the city to avoid the expense. It's the same logic as arguing that burning down the city will reduce traffic congestion. Even if it does, that doesn't make it a good idea.

by Balgair 10y ago

engx 10y ago

A bus anyway in LA is substantially longer than driving. LA traffic is so annoying that a lot of people would likely take the bus if it was faster. If there were 10x more busses, and I could pay $10 for an all day pass, I'd take the bus every other day. Especially if the higher cost limited those who unfortunately use mass transit as temporary shelter. (And find some alternative temporary no strings attached shelter for them.)

Balgair 10y ago
Depending on traffic, the bus is typically about the same, maybe 5 minutes more on the hour long ride I took for 2 years under the 405 everyday. You have to add in the time it takes to find parking for your car, which a bus does not do. Yes, some days are worse, some are better, but for me it was about the same for a hour+ commute.
- bestnameever 10y ago
  According to Google maps, taking the bus to my job would increase my travel time by at least 50 minutes each way.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    Well then don't take the bus
- wj 10y ago
  That is only true if you don't have a transfer.

cvwright 10y ago

> the chance of a 'piss bus' Oh my. Is this a regular enough occurrence that there's a name for it?

alkonaut 10y ago

Something needs to be done about the bus lanes then. Buses should drive in dedicated lanes, that's the whole point. If you are stuck in traffic on a bus then something isn't right.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them. And if you are stuck in traffic in anything then something isn't right. If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  > The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good. Obviously it might be tempting to say "look we can't sacrifice one lane of 4 here to buses when cars are jammed bumper to bumper in the other 3 lanes" but that's how bus lanes work. With too few buses, they are just an ineficcient demonstration to the people in cars that they really should be riding the bus. > If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares. If petrol taxes, parking and tolls are high enough, then the buses are already almost free in comparison. Whether it costs $0 or $4 to ride the bus to work shouldn't matter - if parking, gas and tolls are 10 times that for one day of driving. Eliminating fares is one way of making the bus relatively cheaper compared to cars - but there is very little room there. The room to increase the cost of driving is almost infinite and it can be tweaked with gas taxes, congestion fees and parking costs. Btw: do people in US metro areas usually pay to park at work in inner cities? If metro area parking is a taxable comp then that's also a cost (e.g. if my marginal tax rate is 50% and free parking would be valued at $100 so I'd be taxed $50 per day for that benefit).
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good. Only if you actually add the buses, and people actually ride them, neither of which is a given. > Obviously it might be tempting to say "look we can't sacrifice one lane of 4 here to buses when cars are jammed bumper to bumper in the other 3 lanes" but that's how bus lanes work. That's the problem. > With too few buses, they are just an ineficcient demonstration to the people in cars that they really should be riding the bus. That only works if they can ride the bus. The problem in most of the US is that you have a big congested highway, and then you get off the highway and drive another five or ten minutes on side streets to your destination. You can't just tell those people to ride the bus, there aren't regular buses on the side streets because there isn't enough traffic there to justify them. And a bus that only takes you to the edge of the congested highway and then leaves you with an hour walk to your destination is useless. > Whether it costs $0 or $4 to ride the bus to work shouldn't matter It does matter to the tune of $4, and eliminating fares increases efficiency because you don't have to pay for a fare collection infrastructure, as opposed to bus lanes which dramatically decrease it because you're paying the full cost of a lane and then wasting most of it. > if parking, gas and tolls are 10 times that for one day of driving Stop trying to make driving worse. First you have to make the alternatives to driving better, and as soon as you do that, you don't need anything else. Nobody actually likes driving to work, the only reason anybody does is that the alternatives are broken and terrible. In order to make driving as bad as the alternatives without making the alternatives better, you would literally end up causing people and companies to move out of the city to avoid the expense. It's the same logic as arguing that burning down the city will reduce traffic congestion. Even if it does, that doesn't make it a good idea.