2 ms·
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
by 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 9y 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.