7 ms·

Aren't buses better then subways for most places, given their lower costs and greater flexibility? Isn't this true for most of Europe, also? Or does the typical

Aren't buses better then subways for most places, given their lower costs and greater flexibility? Isn't this true for most of Europe, also? Or does the typical mid-sized city in Europe have subways like London, Paris, and NYC?

xxpor 6y ago
>greater flexibility This is actually a negative. Build a train, and it's really hard to move. This actually spurs investment. A bus line can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Train lines can be discontinued quite easily as well. And it's more wasteful when it happens.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    Abandoning subway lines is virtually unheard of, which is why this article exists in the first place.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Many light rail systems discontinue or change portions of their system. It doesn't happen often in underground sections because those are usually built only in the densest portions of a city which would tend to have high ridership. I think it's more the tunnel that makes these lines less likely to be discontinued, rather than the train. Tunnels are just expensive to move whether they're for trains or for busses. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City_Subway_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City...
      - eropple 6y ago
        Most subways are heavy rail, not light rail. And, as you note, underground subways rarely go away--particularly after the age of multiple competing lines, often redundant. All save one of the defunct lines in NYC went defunct because they were demolished for other stuff--because they were elevated or at-grade lines. (The one underground line that went defunct was split into three lines in active use today.) Putting it underground definitely increases political and budget survivability.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
No - bus routes are ephemeral. People won't build businesses and apartment buildings near them, or arrange their lives around them unless the city is blanketed in frequent bus lines (which is a huge investment itself). Because a bus route can be changed in a day, they don't have the attraction of a subway station that is going to be there no matter what the budget looks like.
chrismcb 6y ago
Pretty much every city in Europe has some sort of train service. Maybe a tram system, or a metro/subway, or just regional train service.
graeme 6y ago
They often have above ground trams that go down the middle of the street and/or share space with cars. Buses too but they’re not as dominant as in north america. Trams are generally quieter, prettier and less obtrusive. And with quite frequent service. Also easy to know your way around without knowing the routes as they’ll have lines on a map.
supertrope 6y ago
Lower upfront capital costs. At a higher level of passengers per hour labor costs of needing one driver per bus start to dominate. 70% of mass transit operating cost in developed countries is staff. A train can have many cars but only one operator. Buses use existing roads and the increased wear of a 35,000 lb vehicle on roads is part of another organization's budget (notice bus stops use concrete instead of asphalt). Methods of improving bus service like more drivers and buses to reduce wait time, and dedicated lanes bring up the cost.
- mikem170 6y ago
  That makes sense. And above-ground tracks also make sense as some other replies mentioned, less capital costs. Maybe driver-less buses would be a new sweet spot? Maintain detailed road maps for the driving software instead of tracks?
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    > Maybe driver-less buses would be a new sweet spot? Maintain detailed road maps for the driving software instead of tracks? Would be a political nightmare. One of these autonomous busses hit a passenger and it becomes a policy nightmare. Public control center gets hacked, its a technical nightmare. To problems like this, sometimes the solution isn't tech.
corty 6y ago
Busses are very slow compared to any subway. Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, follow the roads, yield to pedestrians, pull into stops, etc. Speed limits need to be obeyed as well. Compare that to a subway that just goes below most obstacles in a straight line, travels at >80km/h and usually has no places to yield whatsoever. Fast travel in a predictable way, independent of traffic, weather, whatever. Maybe rush hour will make getting into the subway a little slower, but that's about it. Subway is far superior to everything, including trams and trains for urban environments. It is expensive to build however, which is why in Europe it is usually supplemented with trams and busses for outlying routes or to fill the gaps between tunnels. Flexibility is rather a minus actually, because it leads to bus routes being subject to "snaking" through neighborhoods to satisfy the occasional political whim. Planted 5 trees and a bench? Call it "Mayour Mueller Park", add a bus stop with a 5min detour. Lather, rinse, repeat. Subways are somewhat immune to that.
- supertrope 6y ago
  An interesting in-between is a transitway (bus only road). Very nearly as fast as a subway due also only stopping at stations and only being delayed by other mass transit vehicles. Obviously cheaper than tunneling or elevated railways if the land is available.
  - corty 6y ago
    That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that. And even if it were, land prices are high enough that tunneling costs start to look cheap.
    - ginko 6y ago
      >That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that Bus/Taxi-only lanes are pretty common actually.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
p_l 6y ago
Honestly? At least in Poland, I get the feeling that most cities would jump on having a subway, the problem is getting it started (as for various reasons Poland isn't exactly flush with investment capacity) Some built other alternatives to buses or shared-grade trams, for example by putting fast local trains under same ticket system (train-based local transit was very popular in UK till Beeching Axe, too), others experiment with things like separate-grade trams - cheaper than proper train-line, but still achieve separation from car traffic. Because the same thing that gives buses flexibility and cheap start, is the thing that makes the biggest problem - sharing space with car traffic. If there's a traffic jam, buses stop too. If something takes out part of car infrastructure, the dedicated lanes might be lost for a time, too. When Lazienkowski Bridge burned down in 2015 in Warsaw, figuring a connection that allowed one to take train or subway became crucial, as previously very fast buses (bus/taxi lanes!) would give me a commute longer than commuting from Amsterdam to London by train.
adrianN 6y ago
The transport capacity of busses isn't even in the same ballpark as the capacity of a subway. Subways (and surface rail) are the most capable mass transport system we have by a very wide margin. Busses only make sense to close gaps in the train network.
kumarsw 6y ago
A lot of people are disagreeing with you, but subways are extremely expensive compared buses and only make sense for capitols or very large cities. Public transit must match the city. Mid-sized cities like Nice or Denver will have light rail systems. Smaller cities like Boulder will have buses. Buses get a stigma in North America but they are good because the initial cost is low so it's easy to get routes with the magical <= 15 minutes between buses which is needed to attract "casual" riders. Something no one brought up is the recent-ish idea of bus rapid transit (BRT), which solves the problem of not having exact change, because who does these days? BRT gives some of the advantages of rail like fare machines and dedicated right-of-ways. Albuquerque (which is far too small for a subway) just put in its first line.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Buses are also stigmatized by many in the U.S. as being for poor people, aka losers who can't afford cars.

xxpor 6y ago

>greater flexibility This is actually a negative. Build a train, and it's really hard to move. This actually spurs investment. A bus line can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.

kube-system 6y ago
Train lines can be discontinued quite easily as well. And it's more wasteful when it happens.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  Abandoning subway lines is virtually unheard of, which is why this article exists in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Many light rail systems discontinue or change portions of their system. It doesn't happen often in underground sections because those are usually built only in the densest portions of a city which would tend to have high ridership. I think it's more the tunnel that makes these lines less likely to be discontinued, rather than the train. Tunnels are just expensive to move whether they're for trains or for busses. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City_Subway_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City...
    - eropple 6y ago
      Most subways are heavy rail, not light rail. And, as you note, underground subways rarely go away--particularly after the age of multiple competing lines, often redundant. All save one of the defunct lines in NYC went defunct because they were demolished for other stuff--because they were elevated or at-grade lines. (The one underground line that went defunct was split into three lines in active use today.) Putting it underground definitely increases political and budget survivability.

lazyasciiart 6y ago

No - bus routes are ephemeral. People won't build businesses and apartment buildings near them, or arrange their lives around them unless the city is blanketed in frequent bus lines (which is a huge investment itself). Because a bus route can be changed in a day, they don't have the attraction of a subway station that is going to be there no matter what the budget looks like.

chrismcb 6y ago

Pretty much every city in Europe has some sort of train service. Maybe a tram system, or a metro/subway, or just regional train service.

graeme 6y ago

They often have above ground trams that go down the middle of the street and/or share space with cars. Buses too but they’re not as dominant as in north america. Trams are generally quieter, prettier and less obtrusive. And with quite frequent service. Also easy to know your way around without knowing the routes as they’ll have lines on a map.

supertrope 6y ago

Lower upfront capital costs. At a higher level of passengers per hour labor costs of needing one driver per bus start to dominate. 70% of mass transit operating cost in developed countries is staff. A train can have many cars but only one operator. Buses use existing roads and the increased wear of a 35,000 lb vehicle on roads is part of another organization's budget (notice bus stops use concrete instead of asphalt). Methods of improving bus service like more drivers and buses to reduce wait time, and dedicated lanes bring up the cost.

mikem170 6y ago
That makes sense. And above-ground tracks also make sense as some other replies mentioned, less capital costs. Maybe driver-less buses would be a new sweet spot? Maintain detailed road maps for the driving software instead of tracks?
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  > Maybe driver-less buses would be a new sweet spot? Maintain detailed road maps for the driving software instead of tracks? Would be a political nightmare. One of these autonomous busses hit a passenger and it becomes a policy nightmare. Public control center gets hacked, its a technical nightmare. To problems like this, sometimes the solution isn't tech.

corty 6y ago

Busses are very slow compared to any subway. Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, follow the roads, yield to pedestrians, pull into stops, etc. Speed limits need to be obeyed as well. Compare that to a subway that just goes below most obstacles in a straight line, travels at >80km/h and usually has no places to yield whatsoever. Fast travel in a predictable way, independent of traffic, weather, whatever. Maybe rush hour will make getting into the subway a little slower, but that's about it. Subway is far superior to everything, including trams and trains for urban environments. It is expensive to build however, which is why in Europe it is usually supplemented with trams and busses for outlying routes or to fill the gaps between tunnels. Flexibility is rather a minus actually, because it leads to bus routes being subject to "snaking" through neighborhoods to satisfy the occasional political whim. Planted 5 trees and a bench? Call it "Mayour Mueller Park", add a bus stop with a 5min detour. Lather, rinse, repeat. Subways are somewhat immune to that.

supertrope 6y ago
An interesting in-between is a transitway (bus only road). Very nearly as fast as a subway due also only stopping at stations and only being delayed by other mass transit vehicles. Obviously cheaper than tunneling or elevated railways if the land is available.
- corty 6y ago
  That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that. And even if it were, land prices are high enough that tunneling costs start to look cheap.
  - ginko 6y ago
    >That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that Bus/Taxi-only lanes are pretty common actually.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago

p_l 6y ago

Honestly? At least in Poland, I get the feeling that most cities would jump on having a subway, the problem is getting it started (as for various reasons Poland isn't exactly flush with investment capacity) Some built other alternatives to buses or shared-grade trams, for example by putting fast local trains under same ticket system (train-based local transit was very popular in UK till Beeching Axe, too), others experiment with things like separate-grade trams - cheaper than proper train-line, but still achieve separation from car traffic. Because the same thing that gives buses flexibility and cheap start, is the thing that makes the biggest problem - sharing space with car traffic. If there's a traffic jam, buses stop too. If something takes out part of car infrastructure, the dedicated lanes might be lost for a time, too. When Lazienkowski Bridge burned down in 2015 in Warsaw, figuring a connection that allowed one to take train or subway became crucial, as previously very fast buses (bus/taxi lanes!) would give me a commute longer than commuting from Amsterdam to London by train.

adrianN 6y ago

The transport capacity of busses isn't even in the same ballpark as the capacity of a subway. Subways (and surface rail) are the most capable mass transport system we have by a very wide margin. Busses only make sense to close gaps in the train network.

kumarsw 6y ago

A lot of people are disagreeing with you, but subways are extremely expensive compared buses and only make sense for capitols or very large cities. Public transit must match the city. Mid-sized cities like Nice or Denver will have light rail systems. Smaller cities like Boulder will have buses. Buses get a stigma in North America but they are good because the initial cost is low so it's easy to get routes with the magical <= 15 minutes between buses which is needed to attract "casual" riders. Something no one brought up is the recent-ish idea of bus rapid transit (BRT), which solves the problem of not having exact change, because who does these days? BRT gives some of the advantages of rail like fare machines and dedicated right-of-ways. Albuquerque (which is far too small for a subway) just put in its first line.

mikem170 6y ago
Buses are also stigmatized by many in the U.S. as being for poor people, aka losers who can't afford cars.