6 ms·

Oh I certainly hope usage of buses doesn't decrease. One person hailing an Uber takes up an entire car's worth of space on the road: 4 seats, an engine, and a t

by acabal 9y ago

Oh I certainly hope usage of buses doesn't decrease. One person hailing an Uber takes up an entire car's worth of space on the road: 4 seats, an engine, and a trunk. One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space. If each individual hailed a single Uber for each ride, it's obvious congestion would greatly increase versus each individual taking a bus, simple because one person in a private car takes up much more physical space than one person on a shared bus. (I hope Uber doesn't continue to increase for many other reasons, congestion being just one of them.)

lopmotr 9y ago
That's not simply wasted congestion. Ride sharing provides better service than busses as evidenced by people paying more to use it. So that's a good thing - people getting what they want. Congestion is caused by all road users, not just the latest group to join, so it's not fair to blame them any more than the people who still drive the same way they always did.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  This is entirely ignoring the externalities: congestion, localized pollution[1], more inefficient use of subsidized resources like roads (and the expansion of said subsidies). It's certainly not "simply" wasted congestion, but it's very much on-net wasted, by the same cost argument you make (which doesn't include externalities). [1]Regardles of your views on macro environmentalism, the detrimental effects of localized air pollution is pretty well documented IIUC
- zaarn 9y ago
  It's not a better service just because people pay more or it costs more. A service can be better and cheaper. If congestion starts to worse, I'd also definitely not blame the people who haven't changed behavior when there is another group that has changed behavior in a way that can directly impact this problem.
ballenf 9y ago
The only time public transport is efficient space-wise is during rush/peak hours. But the same buses/trams are used during off-peak hours. Haven't we all ridden nearly-empty public transport many times? Maybe just restricting ridesharing during peak hours and reducing public transport during off-peak (even subsidize ride shares like has been tried).
- zaroth 9y ago
  Not to mention that the bus’s limited maneuverability and constant stopping, and pulling over (usually not out of the flow of traffic) to discharge/pickup passengers, means it contributes to traffic congestion significantly more than the equivalent number of cars taking the same linear feet.
  - ufo 9y ago
    Instead of looking at it as buses using up a lane that could have been used for cars, look at it as cars using a lane that could have been bus exclusive. The throughput of a bus is so massively larger than that of cars that it will outweighs the frequent stopping. And if you give buses a dedicated lane they become much more efficient as well.
    - vkou 9y ago
      I don't understand why you're being downvoted. Ever since bus-only lanes, as well an HOV has been added to SR-520, my commute by bus during peak became faster then my commute by car. That one HOV lane has more throughput then both of the regular, non-HOV lanes on the highway combined.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Looking for a proper study... I find articles like this are too obviously pushing a specific viewpoint [1]. They use hard data to come up with 900 passenger vehicles per hour on a single lane at 25mph times an average of 1.6 passengers per vehicle = 1,440 people per hour. Then they use hard data to come up with 50 buses / lane / hour. But then for the final calculation; “A 60-foot articulated low-floor bus typically has 65 seats and can carry 55 standees (per manufacturer specification) meaning that we get a throughput of 6,000 people per hour.” So they do the comparison based on every bus filled to absolute maximum capacity? But their own linked source claims average bus occupancy is 43 making the passenger volume 2,150. The DOT has a great passage on their site worth quoting in its entirety; The Bus Lane Paradox “Bus lanes can provide a strong identity for public transit. They can reduce travel time, but only if they are designed to work properly. A single curbside lane is rarely effective. Designs which are self-enforcing, which accommodate commercial deliveries, and which permit stopped buses to be passed by other buses can be most useful. However, such designs may occupy a significant amount of street space. Where traffic is severely congested, bus lanes can provide the biggest benefit to bus passengers, but it is precisely in these places where it may be difficult to reduce the amount of space available for general traffic— and thereby seem to worsen congestion. Conversely, where there is plenty of road space available, it may be easy to install bus lanes, but they will provide few benefits, given that traffic is not likely to be congested. On some urban streets, bus passengers account for a surprisingly high percentage of total person throughput. Focusing on moving people instead of simply moving vehicles will help to justify priority treatments for buses. Where transit users are a small fraction of street users, it will be more difficult to justify such treatments.” [3] [1] - https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/26/the-supply-and-demand-of-street-space/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/26/the-supply-and-demand... [2] - http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-b.pdf http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-b.pd... [3] - https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-lanes https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-lanes
forapurpose 9y ago
> One person hailing an Uber takes up an entire car's worth of space on the road: 4 seats, an engine, and a trunk. One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space. I was on a train the other day and counted around 35 people in my car (there were other cars too). I was imagining the energy and congestion generated by 35 cars compared to the one train car. If more people used public transit, there would be more availability (more routes and more frequent vehicles on each route).
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space. The problem with this kind of theory is that it assumes there are actually 20+ people on the bus. Half the time you have a bus which is three times the size of a car with only two people on it. The real solution here is to get riding sharing apps to actually share rides. Use the fact that the app can tell there are six people near Point A who all want to go near Point B and provide an appropriate discount to put them all in the same minivan. Then you have something which is effectively mass transit except that it doesn't drive around aimlessly in a gigantic bus when there are no passengers to transport.
- zaarn 9y ago
  I would argue that the efficiency of public transport during peak hours compensates for inefficiency during off-peak hours. Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak (there are 3 trains after 2200 to 0500, from 0500 to 0900 and 1800 to 2200 there are 8, from 0900 to 1800 about 9, total: 30 trains, of which >50% are used during peak hours). Today the train cart I used held about 40 people while being about as long as 4-5 cars (which would hold about 4 people each, or 16-20 total) Since 50% of the trains drive during peak hour, the overall efficieny is 50% peak hour: 20 people (0.5 * 40). Which would be equivalent to the number of people transported in the car. Now keep in mind; trains are much more efficient than a car per passenger, use no roadspace, are much safer and faster and cheaper (0.50€ to 5€ depending on ticket for my particular route, which includes all costs, gasoline used for route costs about 1€ per trip, which does not include other costs incurred by the operator).
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak Ah, but that's the trouble, right? If you only operate mass transit at the times and places where it's efficient, it doesn't serve the majority of people. Trains are great for the people who want to travel between two train stations during peak hours, but then there is everybody else. If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. Efficient mass transit requires high density. As long as there is sprawl there will be cars. So if you want less cars, have less sprawl.
cimmanom 9y ago
20 is a low number. A full bus holds about 40 people and a packed one 75-80.

by acabal 9y ago

lopmotr 9y ago

That's not simply wasted congestion. Ride sharing provides better service than busses as evidenced by people paying more to use it. So that's a good thing - people getting what they want. Congestion is caused by all road users, not just the latest group to join, so it's not fair to blame them any more than the people who still drive the same way they always did.

wutbrodo 9y ago
This is entirely ignoring the externalities: congestion, localized pollution[1], more inefficient use of subsidized resources like roads (and the expansion of said subsidies). It's certainly not "simply" wasted congestion, but it's very much on-net wasted, by the same cost argument you make (which doesn't include externalities). [1]Regardles of your views on macro environmentalism, the detrimental effects of localized air pollution is pretty well documented IIUC
zaarn 9y ago
It's not a better service just because people pay more or it costs more. A service can be better and cheaper. If congestion starts to worse, I'd also definitely not blame the people who haven't changed behavior when there is another group that has changed behavior in a way that can directly impact this problem.

ballenf 9y ago

The only time public transport is efficient space-wise is during rush/peak hours. But the same buses/trams are used during off-peak hours. Haven't we all ridden nearly-empty public transport many times? Maybe just restricting ridesharing during peak hours and reducing public transport during off-peak (even subsidize ride shares like has been tried).

zaroth 9y ago
Not to mention that the bus’s limited maneuverability and constant stopping, and pulling over (usually not out of the flow of traffic) to discharge/pickup passengers, means it contributes to traffic congestion significantly more than the equivalent number of cars taking the same linear feet.
- ufo 9y ago
  Instead of looking at it as buses using up a lane that could have been used for cars, look at it as cars using a lane that could have been bus exclusive. The throughput of a bus is so massively larger than that of cars that it will outweighs the frequent stopping. And if you give buses a dedicated lane they become much more efficient as well.
  - vkou 9y ago
    I don't understand why you're being downvoted. Ever since bus-only lanes, as well an HOV has been added to SR-520, my commute by bus during peak became faster then my commute by car. That one HOV lane has more throughput then both of the regular, non-HOV lanes on the highway combined.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    Looking for a proper study... I find articles like this are too obviously pushing a specific viewpoint [1]. They use hard data to come up with 900 passenger vehicles per hour on a single lane at 25mph times an average of 1.6 passengers per vehicle = 1,440 people per hour. Then they use hard data to come up with 50 buses / lane / hour. But then for the final calculation; “A 60-foot articulated low-floor bus typically has 65 seats and can carry 55 standees (per manufacturer specification) meaning that we get a throughput of 6,000 people per hour.” So they do the comparison based on every bus filled to absolute maximum capacity? But their own linked source claims average bus occupancy is 43 making the passenger volume 2,150. The DOT has a great passage on their site worth quoting in its entirety; The Bus Lane Paradox “Bus lanes can provide a strong identity for public transit. They can reduce travel time, but only if they are designed to work properly. A single curbside lane is rarely effective. Designs which are self-enforcing, which accommodate commercial deliveries, and which permit stopped buses to be passed by other buses can be most useful. However, such designs may occupy a significant amount of street space. Where traffic is severely congested, bus lanes can provide the biggest benefit to bus passengers, but it is precisely in these places where it may be difficult to reduce the amount of space available for general traffic— and thereby seem to worsen congestion. Conversely, where there is plenty of road space available, it may be easy to install bus lanes, but they will provide few benefits, given that traffic is not likely to be congested. On some urban streets, bus passengers account for a surprisingly high percentage of total person throughput. Focusing on moving people instead of simply moving vehicles will help to justify priority treatments for buses. Where transit users are a small fraction of street users, it will be more difficult to justify such treatments.” [3] [1] - https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/26/the-supply-and-demand-of-street-space/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/26/the-supply-and-demand... [2] - http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-b.pdf http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-b.pd... [3] - https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-lanes https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-lanes

forapurpose 9y ago

> One person hailing an Uber takes up an entire car's worth of space on the road: 4 seats, an engine, and a trunk. One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space. I was on a train the other day and counted around 35 people in my car (there were other cars too). I was imagining the energy and congestion generated by 35 cars compared to the one train car. If more people used public transit, there would be more availability (more routes and more frequent vehicles on each route).

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> One person riding a bus takes a single bus seat on a vehicle that can hold 20+ people in a minimum of space. The problem with this kind of theory is that it assumes there are actually 20+ people on the bus. Half the time you have a bus which is three times the size of a car with only two people on it. The real solution here is to get riding sharing apps to actually share rides. Use the fact that the app can tell there are six people near Point A who all want to go near Point B and provide an appropriate discount to put them all in the same minivan. Then you have something which is effectively mass transit except that it doesn't drive around aimlessly in a gigantic bus when there are no passengers to transport.

zaarn 9y ago
I would argue that the efficiency of public transport during peak hours compensates for inefficiency during off-peak hours. Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak (there are 3 trains after 2200 to 0500, from 0500 to 0900 and 1800 to 2200 there are 8, from 0900 to 1800 about 9, total: 30 trains, of which >50% are used during peak hours). Today the train cart I used held about 40 people while being about as long as 4-5 cars (which would hold about 4 people each, or 16-20 total) Since 50% of the trains drive during peak hour, the overall efficieny is 50% peak hour: 20 people (0.5 * 40). Which would be equivalent to the number of people transported in the car. Now keep in mind; trains are much more efficient than a car per passenger, use no roadspace, are much safer and faster and cheaper (0.50€ to 5€ depending on ticket for my particular route, which includes all costs, gasoline used for route costs about 1€ per trip, which does not include other costs incurred by the operator).
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Most public transports reduce the frequency of transports during off peak Ah, but that's the trouble, right? If you only operate mass transit at the times and places where it's efficient, it doesn't serve the majority of people. Trains are great for the people who want to travel between two train stations during peak hours, but then there is everybody else. If you don't live and work adjacent to a train station then you can take a full and timely train during peak hours, but how do you get the rest of the way once the people get off the train and their paths diverge in twenty directions? Even if you do live and work near the train, if you work the late shift and leave between 2200 and 0500 you're waiting two hours for a train every night. And if you start operating mostly-empty buses to cover the rest of the people then you're back to operating mostly-empty buses. There is actually a solution to this but it has almost nothing to do with cars and everything to do with building more taller buildings near train stations. Efficient mass transit requires high density. As long as there is sprawl there will be cars. So if you want less cars, have less sprawl.

cimmanom 9y ago

20 is a low number. A full bus holds about 40 people and a packed one 75-80.