5 ms·

More capacity than a bus in cars seems unlikely given that they probably wouldn’t be packed to capacity most times. I guess if you purchased say, 40 honda civi

by codyb 6y ago

More capacity than a bus in cars seems unlikely given that they probably wouldn’t be packed to capacity most times. I guess if you purchased say, 40 honda civics? There’s a lot of other considerations to consider here as well. Cars and vans would both take up more space for the same amount of people which means more traffic which leads to slower speeds and more noise and air pollution. Cleaning all these cars and vans would require more workers than cleaning the equivalent number of busses either by capitol or by riders. Cars and vans require more space to park. There’d be far more maintenance for cars and vans than busses. Busses are equipped with handicap ramps, bike racks, and seats to accomodate the differently abled, as well as payment processors. These features all drive up costs. Tech only solutions can prevent access to transportation for indigent and differently abled populations. More cars and vans means more road wear. And of course the lifetimes of the vehicles may differ adding in other costs.

cozzyd 6y ago
Other than road wear, I think you're right about everything else (pretty sure the road wear is much worse from a bus than any number of cars).
perl4ever 6y ago
It's really hard to fill buses to capacity too. If you want people to be able to rely on the buses, then they have to go everywhere all the time. But if they go everywhere, there will be enough of them that are mostly empty that the average efficiency might be less than cars. In reality, they compromise. I live in a not-very large city. I used to rent an apartment in a suburb to the southeast just a few miles out, and the bus only made one trip in the morning to the city and one trip in the afternoon back, and if you didn't work the exact hours that you could catch the bus, like my job was 9-6 or 2-11, etc., you were out of luck. Now, I live within city limits, in the southwest, but there is no bus route going north-south to where I work (or did before covid), because most of the traffic goes east to downtown and back, so that's how all the routes go. There aren't many routes or stops to the north and west. When I was living in an apartment in a slightly different suburb, there were more frequent buses, but they were almost empty when I rode them. You can't assume that they're saving resources in any circumstance.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  You're just describing a government unwilling to invest in public transit infrastructure. It's a very American thing.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    No that's completely false as well as gratuitously insulting. I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between investment and cost effectiveness relative to individual transportation. A bus gets like 6 mpg. You have to have a certain average number of people on it per time or distance for it to be more efficient than a person in a car. A network is more valuable the larger it is. But the more routes you have, the less traffic each one will have. Being willing to invest is irrelevant, unless you think investing in something that makes people worse off is a no-brainer.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The 800k hybrid buses and the 1.2M pure EV buses don't get 6mpg. The average number of people you need for simply the fuel is like, 5. But as far as all other factors, a lot are fixed costs, so number of trips is more important that average people. Not to forget, again, electric buses exist and work well.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        Some buses are more fuel efficient than average; so are some cars. I was not promoting specific numbers; the point is there's a tradeoff and a tipping point where more trips make things worse, whatever the numbers are. Averages have a way of being a lot lower than peak numbers, too.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Yeah, but the averages don't matter as much as the max in this case. The total carrying capacity between 8-10 and 4-6 is what's important, as traditionally, this is when most of the people moving occurred. It doesn't really matter if the buses are less efficient than cars the rest of the time, as long as they take enough of the overall journeys at peak times that the whole city traffic system moves quicker.

by codyb 6y ago

cozzyd 6y ago

Other than road wear, I think you're right about everything else (pretty sure the road wear is much worse from a bus than any number of cars).

perl4ever 6y ago

It's really hard to fill buses to capacity too. If you want people to be able to rely on the buses, then they have to go everywhere all the time. But if they go everywhere, there will be enough of them that are mostly empty that the average efficiency might be less than cars. In reality, they compromise. I live in a not-very large city. I used to rent an apartment in a suburb to the southeast just a few miles out, and the bus only made one trip in the morning to the city and one trip in the afternoon back, and if you didn't work the exact hours that you could catch the bus, like my job was 9-6 or 2-11, etc., you were out of luck. Now, I live within city limits, in the southwest, but there is no bus route going north-south to where I work (or did before covid), because most of the traffic goes east to downtown and back, so that's how all the routes go. There aren't many routes or stops to the north and west. When I was living in an apartment in a slightly different suburb, there were more frequent buses, but they were almost empty when I rode them. You can't assume that they're saving resources in any circumstance.

arcticbull 6y ago
You're just describing a government unwilling to invest in public transit infrastructure. It's a very American thing.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  No that's completely false as well as gratuitously insulting. I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between investment and cost effectiveness relative to individual transportation. A bus gets like 6 mpg. You have to have a certain average number of people on it per time or distance for it to be more efficient than a person in a car. A network is more valuable the larger it is. But the more routes you have, the less traffic each one will have. Being willing to invest is irrelevant, unless you think investing in something that makes people worse off is a no-brainer.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The 800k hybrid buses and the 1.2M pure EV buses don't get 6mpg. The average number of people you need for simply the fuel is like, 5. But as far as all other factors, a lot are fixed costs, so number of trips is more important that average people. Not to forget, again, electric buses exist and work well.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Some buses are more fuel efficient than average; so are some cars. I was not promoting specific numbers; the point is there's a tradeoff and a tipping point where more trips make things worse, whatever the numbers are. Averages have a way of being a lot lower than peak numbers, too.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Yeah, but the averages don't matter as much as the max in this case. The total carrying capacity between 8-10 and 4-6 is what's important, as traditionally, this is when most of the people moving occurred. It doesn't really matter if the buses are less efficient than cars the rest of the time, as long as they take enough of the overall journeys at peak times that the whole city traffic system moves quicker.