3 ms·

For some reason car drivers always think that bus service needs to be reduced (fewer stops) in order to provide "better" bus service. The studies show that dec

For some reason car drivers always think that bus service needs to be reduced (fewer stops) in order to provide "better" bus service. The studies show that decreasing stops has minimal effect on transit times. Two stops with ten people each only takes a bit longer to board than one stop with twenty people. You save a couple of minutes across the entire length of a bus route. And each stop removal increases rider commute times - now I have to walk 5 minutes longer to get a bus that's 2 minutes faster. Overall commute: 3 minutes longer. Plus each stop removal decreases the number of people served - if the old stop was a ten minute walk and the new one is a fifteen minute walk, you'll just stop taking transit altogether. So in general, stop removal is not at all a panacea and is often a 100% negative to transit riders. What actually works: getting rid of ride-hailing and other things that tend to clog the streets with empty, dead-heading vehicles; dedicated bus lanes and general banning of single-passenger automobiles; congestion charges; making sure transit is frequent and inexpensive so that it works well for people; etc.

kevindong 7y ago
> The studies show that decreasing stops has minimal effect on transit times. Two stops with ten people each only takes a bit longer to board than one stop with twenty people. You save a couple of minutes across the entire length of a bus route. As someone with only empirical evidence: 2 stops with 10 people each vs. 1 stop with 20 people isn't a fair comparison. The fair comparison is 10 stops with 1 person each vs. ~2 stops with 5 people each. Over a longer route, the majority of a bus's travel time comes from stopping at/departing a stop. When I lived in Chicago, I would sometimes take a bus to work. The route I took, 29, had a minimum of one stop per block. In some cases, there were two stops per block. In one particularly bad case, the distance between the stops was literally <500 feet (150 m) [0]. [0]: Go to this link, select route 29, and look between Cermak Rd. and 23rd St. for the two stops in between: http://www.ctabustracker.com/bustime/map/displaymap.jsp http://www.ctabustracker.com/bustime/map/displaymap.jsp

kevindong 7y ago

> The studies show that decreasing stops has minimal effect on transit times. Two stops with ten people each only takes a bit longer to board than one stop with twenty people. You save a couple of minutes across the entire length of a bus route. As someone with only empirical evidence: 2 stops with 10 people each vs. 1 stop with 20 people isn't a fair comparison. The fair comparison is 10 stops with 1 person each vs. ~2 stops with 5 people each. Over a longer route, the majority of a bus's travel time comes from stopping at/departing a stop. When I lived in Chicago, I would sometimes take a bus to work. The route I took, 29, had a minimum of one stop per block. In some cases, there were two stops per block. In one particularly bad case, the distance between the stops was literally <500 feet (150 m) [0]. [0]: Go to this link, select route 29, and look between Cermak Rd. and 23rd St. for the two stops in between: http://www.ctabustracker.com/bustime/map/displaymap.jsp http://www.ctabustracker.com/bustime/map/displaymap.jsp