4 ms·
I mean, this is true of most public transport even in places like London. Why is sitting on a bus not as comfortable as being a passenger in a mid range car? I
by esotericn 7y ago
I mean, this is true of most public transport even in places like London.
Why is sitting on a bus not as comfortable as being a passenger in a mid range car? It totally could be, but that would cost more than the bare minimum.
So we have broken AC and uncomfortable seats. So it goes.
It's not awful. It's actually quite good. But I really wish sometimes that public transport could be _nice_ rather than tolerable.
- laurencerowe 7y agoBecause that would take up more space letting fewer people fit on the bus. Most are designed to have half the people standing at peak times. Long distance train seats used to be really comfortable, but newer designs opt instead to fit more seats in each carriage. I've found buses in London to be better optimized for people trying to get somewhere than in San Francisco. There are far more bus lanes, no waiting for people paying a cash fare, and wheelchair transport tends to use black cabs. People often take buses by choice as the alternative can mean being packed in like sardines on the Tube at rush hour. (Driving isn't really practical anywhere in central London.)
- esotericn 7y agoYes, as I said, it's not lowest common denominator. There's no reason we couldn't have twice as many buses, there's more than enough space on the road. It'd just cost more than having everyone standing at peak time, so it's impossible. By contrast, an individual (who's not deathly poor) can choose to buy a shitbox for a few hundred quid or a comfortable car for a few thousand. It's a big failing of public transport in my view.