5 ms·
And the bus is really slow (many stops, multiple bus changes to get to a final destination, infrequent runs) compared to driving, and you don't get to choose wh
by 24gttghh 9y ago
And the bus is really slow (many stops, multiple bus changes to get to a final destination, infrequent runs) compared to driving, and you don't get to choose who your fellow riders are. These are not my qualms, but the ones I hear most often as the basic reason why people hate on riding the bus. Money is certainly a factor, but it's not the whole story here.
- Tiktaalik 9y agoThese are implementation details tied to low funding and car oriented infrastructure. For example a bus route becomes significantly faster when it has dedicated lanes and doesn't need to share the lane with cars.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> These are implementation details tied to low funding and car oriented infrastructure No, it’s fundamental to the technology. The deadweight cost of the driver mandates a minimum economic size. If you have a big bus, you need a route with lots of people. My long and skinny Cupertino —> Mountain View 6AM/9PM will ne inefficient, or the system will be inefficient—no other options with big buses. A derogatory comparison to Uber is appropriate; it’s amortising the same driver across fewer people. Comparing busses to carpooling is not; I get from and to my precise destination, minimal walking or transferring, and take up no deadweight driver. If you want, think of carpooling as mutualised modularised busses.
- Tiktaalik 9y agoLow ridership routes are a necessary part of a complete public transit system. The reluctance to subsidize low ridership routes is part of what creates a poor mass transit system. The result in a limited public transit system that doesn't match people's needs and people turn to cars. This is exactly what I'm talking about.