5 ms·

For a correct comparison, you would have to combine the 5 car traffic lanes into one to compare throughput to the bus lane. My previous image looks like maybe

For a correct comparison, you would have to combine the 5 car traffic lanes into one to compare throughput to the bus lane. My previous image looks like maybe 500m, so say 2.5km long line of cars. Cars can't travel that close together. For driving at say 70kph which is around 20m/s, for a safe 3s distance between cars you need 60m for each car. I guess around 30 cars in each lane of the photo, so 5x30=150 cars 60m x 150 cars = 9000m= 9km So now we are up to a 9+2.5=11.5km line of cars PER BUS!! I would argue you can get better bus headway than that right now, but if a bus has its own lane you get faster average speed, which means you have less buses on the route at any one point, which means you can keep the original number of buses and run them with high frequency/smaller headway. Cars will never be able to compete with public transport with dedicated right of way. If only cars would get out of the damn way of buses and light rail. Feel free to show me I'm wrong though, happy to learn.

closeparen 9y ago
11.5km at 70kph is 10 minutes. That's on the aggressive side (but plausible) for peak-hours frequency of the most popular bus routes in the top 5 American cities for public transit. Just to break even with car traffic. That was my point. 60m following distance is quite optimistic, the bus's stops count for something, and the only way you're getting 150 people on a bus is with the majority as standees, so you're comparing luxury living-room couches to a sardine can, and the sardine can isn't even doing that well on capacity. I agree that in a theoretical universe with i.e. 2-minute bus headways, the bus wins hands down, but I'm not optimistic that any American BRT project will even try for better than 15.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  Plus the public's usage of public transit is going down. Americans are, for whatever reasons, not interested in public transport unless they're forced to use it. And they don't like to be forced.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    It's not actually clear that this is a lack of interest. Socioeconomically disadvantaged urban populations had the highest rates of transit usage, and resurgent upper-middle-class interest in cities means those populations are displaced to cheaper pastures that don't necessarily have usable transit. It could actually be the case that the gentrifiers are deliberately increasing their transit utilization from zero (just not enough to make up for the loss due to displacement), and displaced populations still want to be transit users, but can't afford areas with good transit anymore.
    - yostrovs 9y ago
      Maybe. In my experience, simply the idea of getting on a bus frightens average Americans. The train seems less scary. So for those that have the freedom to make the choice, the bus is not the choice they make. And trains are rare save for a few cities.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Regardless of the role fear/classism play, the average speed for American bus systems is in the vicinity of a brisk walk, and that's while you're in motion. Throw in a 15 minute headway and it becomes a hilariously poor option to someone who has alternatives.
        wbl 9y ago
        Fixable issues. You'ld be shocked to know the Model T was less reliable than a horse.
  - jakecopp 8y ago
    They're not interested in bad public transport. Why catch a bus when it is caught in the same traffic as a car? When a bus is faster than a car, including the last mile time - hopefully people will make the rational choice. This is why I think dedicated bus lanes are important - they are a cheap and cost effective method of increasing transport ridership and also increasing throughput.
- cimmanom 9y ago
  Say what? The busiest bus lines in NY run a bus every 2-3 min during rush hours. Many of the streets with bus lanes are ones where multiple lines run. My pet peeve is Livingston St. in Brooklyn, where 5 different bus lines temporarily converge. At rush hour it's common to see 2-3 buses (each one standing room only) with every traffic light cycle (so every 90 sec or so; a bus every 30 sec). The bus lane is completely unenforced - double parking in the bus lane and general traffic lane is more common than bus lane enforcement. Enforcing it would not only quadruple the commute speed for the hundreds of people per minute on buses, it would also speed up traffic for everyone who has to wait behind buses stopping for passengers; but god forbid placard holders obey the rules that apply to their placards. Oh, and if you tried to replace those buses with individual cars, even at 4 people per car, it'd take about 2 blocks worth of cars bumper to bumper for each bus. They would not only not fit on the street, they'd stretch for miles down neighboring Flatbush, even if Flatbush weren't already bumper to bumper itself. The solution to traffic congestion is moving more people per vehicle. Transit does that. The more efficient transit is, the more people take it. You add a bus lane and enforce it, people start taking the bus more. Then it makes economic sense to run more buses to keep those lanes even busier.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >The busiest bus lines in NY run a bus every 2-3 min during rush hours. Hmm. I double-checked; the lines I've depended on in Chicago and San Francisco get to 9-minute frequency at best. I guess this is another axis on which New York destroys the competition.
- organsnyder 9y ago
  My mid-sized city of 200k has buses that run at 6-7 minute peak frequency. 10 minutes is table stakes for any decent-sized transit system.
- Steltek 9y ago
  You're optimizing for pure "throughput", which is a good start, but the bus may win on "latency" as well. The bus will make the moving journey faster than cars waiting in traffic. You could argue time spent at the start/end however. Walking to/from the bus stop or finding/paying for parking. From my experience, my downtown walk from transit to work is very short, on the order of a few minutes. There are also larger societal reasons to support transit over cars, even if the math doesn't immediately work out: 1. It's healthier for people ("active" transportation) 2. A functioning transit system will attract more ridership and a bus lane is scalable in exactly the way you pointed out. 3. It's environmentally friendly, locally (smog) and globally (carbon) 4. It's safer for society. Car crashes are a significant cause of death.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    >2. A functioning transit system will attract more ridership and a bus lane is scalable in exactly the way you pointed out. If transit planners actually took increased ridership as a reason to increase service, that might be relevant. As it stands, the revenue from crush-loaded commuter routes in my area is spent on any and all political priorities (concessions to labor, subsidized fares for favored groups, running highly frequent empty buses where no one wants them) other than the popular routes themselves.

closeparen 9y ago

11.5km at 70kph is 10 minutes. That's on the aggressive side (but plausible) for peak-hours frequency of the most popular bus routes in the top 5 American cities for public transit. Just to break even with car traffic. That was my point. 60m following distance is quite optimistic, the bus's stops count for something, and the only way you're getting 150 people on a bus is with the majority as standees, so you're comparing luxury living-room couches to a sardine can, and the sardine can isn't even doing that well on capacity. I agree that in a theoretical universe with i.e. 2-minute bus headways, the bus wins hands down, but I'm not optimistic that any American BRT project will even try for better than 15.

yostrovs 9y ago
Plus the public's usage of public transit is going down. Americans are, for whatever reasons, not interested in public transport unless they're forced to use it. And they don't like to be forced.
- closeparen 9y ago
  It's not actually clear that this is a lack of interest. Socioeconomically disadvantaged urban populations had the highest rates of transit usage, and resurgent upper-middle-class interest in cities means those populations are displaced to cheaper pastures that don't necessarily have usable transit. It could actually be the case that the gentrifiers are deliberately increasing their transit utilization from zero (just not enough to make up for the loss due to displacement), and displaced populations still want to be transit users, but can't afford areas with good transit anymore.
  - yostrovs 9y ago
    Maybe. In my experience, simply the idea of getting on a bus frightens average Americans. The train seems less scary. So for those that have the freedom to make the choice, the bus is not the choice they make. And trains are rare save for a few cities.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Regardless of the role fear/classism play, the average speed for American bus systems is in the vicinity of a brisk walk, and that's while you're in motion. Throw in a 15 minute headway and it becomes a hilariously poor option to someone who has alternatives.
      - wbl 9y ago
        Fixable issues. You'ld be shocked to know the Model T was less reliable than a horse.
- jakecopp 8y ago
  They're not interested in bad public transport. Why catch a bus when it is caught in the same traffic as a car? When a bus is faster than a car, including the last mile time - hopefully people will make the rational choice. This is why I think dedicated bus lanes are important - they are a cheap and cost effective method of increasing transport ridership and also increasing throughput.
cimmanom 9y ago
Say what? The busiest bus lines in NY run a bus every 2-3 min during rush hours. Many of the streets with bus lanes are ones where multiple lines run. My pet peeve is Livingston St. in Brooklyn, where 5 different bus lines temporarily converge. At rush hour it's common to see 2-3 buses (each one standing room only) with every traffic light cycle (so every 90 sec or so; a bus every 30 sec). The bus lane is completely unenforced - double parking in the bus lane and general traffic lane is more common than bus lane enforcement. Enforcing it would not only quadruple the commute speed for the hundreds of people per minute on buses, it would also speed up traffic for everyone who has to wait behind buses stopping for passengers; but god forbid placard holders obey the rules that apply to their placards. Oh, and if you tried to replace those buses with individual cars, even at 4 people per car, it'd take about 2 blocks worth of cars bumper to bumper for each bus. They would not only not fit on the street, they'd stretch for miles down neighboring Flatbush, even if Flatbush weren't already bumper to bumper itself. The solution to traffic congestion is moving more people per vehicle. Transit does that. The more efficient transit is, the more people take it. You add a bus lane and enforce it, people start taking the bus more. Then it makes economic sense to run more buses to keep those lanes even busier.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >The busiest bus lines in NY run a bus every 2-3 min during rush hours. Hmm. I double-checked; the lines I've depended on in Chicago and San Francisco get to 9-minute frequency at best. I guess this is another axis on which New York destroys the competition.
organsnyder 9y ago
My mid-sized city of 200k has buses that run at 6-7 minute peak frequency. 10 minutes is table stakes for any decent-sized transit system.
Steltek 9y ago
You're optimizing for pure "throughput", which is a good start, but the bus may win on "latency" as well. The bus will make the moving journey faster than cars waiting in traffic. You could argue time spent at the start/end however. Walking to/from the bus stop or finding/paying for parking. From my experience, my downtown walk from transit to work is very short, on the order of a few minutes. There are also larger societal reasons to support transit over cars, even if the math doesn't immediately work out: 1. It's healthier for people ("active" transportation) 2. A functioning transit system will attract more ridership and a bus lane is scalable in exactly the way you pointed out. 3. It's environmentally friendly, locally (smog) and globally (carbon) 4. It's safer for society. Car crashes are a significant cause of death.
- closeparen 8y ago
  >2. A functioning transit system will attract more ridership and a bus lane is scalable in exactly the way you pointed out. If transit planners actually took increased ridership as a reason to increase service, that might be relevant. As it stands, the revenue from crush-loaded commuter routes in my area is spent on any and all political priorities (concessions to labor, subsidized fares for favored groups, running highly frequent empty buses where no one wants them) other than the popular routes themselves.