3 ms·

I've seen this same argument about buses only taking up the amount of space as a handful of cars, but I think it's based on an incorrect assumption. Namely, it'

by Zanni 8y ago

I've seen this same argument about buses only taking up the amount of space as a handful of cars, but I think it's based on an incorrect assumption. Namely, it's only true in a static picture. If you look at the dynamic picture, cars and buses in motion, then buses take up a lot more "room." They're slow to accelerate. They stop frequently. They block traffic when they stop. They're huge, and people can't get around them as easily as they can around cars. They impede traffic in all sorts of ways that cars don't. Buses might still have an advantage, but I don't think it's as large as is claimed. (Separate peeve: it's always assumed that buses are nearly full and cars are nearly empty.)

emj 8y ago
What you bring up stems from two things, infrastructure needs to prioritize busses, and second comparing busses to single car does not work. Since we are obviously talking about rush hour. At a traffic light in a busy intersection where I live there will be max 15 people in cars, 50-400 people in busses, and about 100 more on the streets walking and bicycling. I think 5 times more people in busses is a pretty good advantage.
- Zanni 8y ago
  I don't disagree (infrastructure should prioritize, or at least accommodate) buses when they're used. But it currently does not. Also, your example seems to be from a dense, urban center, but of course not everyone on those buses started in the city; a lot of them had to get there from somewhere else, and there the advantage is less pronounced the case for dedicated infrastructure harder to make.
wool_gather 8y ago
These all sound like more reasons to put buses and cars into separate paths.
- Zanni 8y ago
  I would love to see separate lanes for buses and cars. In Hawaii, where I live, there was a proposal for an elevated, bus-only, viaduct that ran the length of a major freeway. This would have enabled buses that run as frequently as trains and are unimpeded by rush hour traffic, and are cheaply and easily scalable with demand. Instead we're getting an elevated train that has disrupted traffic already with its construction, that has blown through its budget with no end in sight, will be stopping short of its original end point due to cost overruns, and is only expected to reduce parallel car traffic by 2%. Ugh.

by Zanni 8y ago

emj 8y ago

What you bring up stems from two things, infrastructure needs to prioritize busses, and second comparing busses to single car does not work. Since we are obviously talking about rush hour. At a traffic light in a busy intersection where I live there will be max 15 people in cars, 50-400 people in busses, and about 100 more on the streets walking and bicycling. I think 5 times more people in busses is a pretty good advantage.

Zanni 8y ago
I don't disagree (infrastructure should prioritize, or at least accommodate) buses when they're used. But it currently does not. Also, your example seems to be from a dense, urban center, but of course not everyone on those buses started in the city; a lot of them had to get there from somewhere else, and there the advantage is less pronounced the case for dedicated infrastructure harder to make.

wool_gather 8y ago

These all sound like more reasons to put buses and cars into separate paths.

Zanni 8y ago
I would love to see separate lanes for buses and cars. In Hawaii, where I live, there was a proposal for an elevated, bus-only, viaduct that ran the length of a major freeway. This would have enabled buses that run as frequently as trains and are unimpeded by rush hour traffic, and are cheaply and easily scalable with demand. Instead we're getting an elevated train that has disrupted traffic already with its construction, that has blown through its budget with no end in sight, will be stopping short of its original end point due to cost overruns, and is only expected to reduce parallel car traffic by 2%. Ugh.