3 ms·

Trolleys have a fixed route, which is not ideal. Fixed routes is why you see buses going down the road empty, or with one person on them.

by nomel 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
I don't understand this point. Buses don't have inherently fixed routes, so that isn't why they go down the road empty. It's because, in many places, their routes haven't been replanned to compensate for suburban sprawl, and their service is bad. The fixed-route nature of trolleys is not an inherently bad thing. In fact, it was the dominant (and eminently sustainable) form of urban expansion for over 75 years[1]. It turns out that fixed routes mean stability, which in turn means that businesses feel comfortable investing in long-term presence. Residents similarly find them desirable, since they can be certain that their streetcar won't be taken away from them (unlike a bus). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
- nomel 4y ago
  > Buses don't have inherently fixed routes In my city, they haven't changed the bus routes in several decades.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Right, that was the point about bad service: trolleys and buses can have stable routes but, paradoxically, that stability is generally good for trolleys and not good for buses.
    - secabeen 4y ago
      Stability is good, but only to a point. A bus can divert around double-parked car, or a closed road, but a trolley is stuck until the blockage is cleared.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        This is absolutely true, and is why both European cities (and slowly, American cities) have taken pains to minimize interconnections between trolley and automotive traffic.
nomel 4y ago
I'm surprised this comment is so controversial. Imagine if a bus had on demand stops, rather than stopping at 50 empty stops to get from point a to b. Those 49 extra stops are why nobody uses buses. It literally takes 4 flipping hours to go as what it takes 20 minutes by car, all while on a mostly empty bus, taking a fixed route, with fixed stops. Maybe it's better in other parts of the country, but in every city I've lived in, including San Jose, the nobody uses the buses, because nobody has that kind of time. Trolleys for congested down town areas, sure.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  For what it's worth, I think it's unreasonable that it was downvoted. But also: most municipalities that I know of do not require their buses to make stops if nobody is either waiting or signaling to get off the bus. NYC goes beyond that, and allows you to request a drop-off anywhere along the route during night service[1]. [1]: https://new.mta.info/guides/riding-the-bus https://new.mta.info/guides/riding-the-bus
- omg_ponies 4y ago
  FWIW, I've never heard of or seen a bus halt at an empty stop when no one on board wanted to get off. The only exception to this is if they are running ahead of schedule, in which case a halt to return to the set timetable is the right thing to do. Maybe this behavour is very locale dependent?
  - nomel 4y ago
    > Maybe this behavour is very locale dependent? That could be. Maybe they were ahead of schedule the few times I went, and the few times I observed them stopping at empty stops. This would make sense with the fact that they are almost always empty. They would come to a complete stop, open the door, immediately close the door, then peel away. It was comically discouraging. With the stop near my place, they would often just drive up, slow down to walking pace, then speed off. Even if they were ahead of schedule, this would still mean the posted trip times were still many times greater than driving, which I assume is why they're empty.

Trolleys have a fixed route, which is not ideal. Fixed routes is why you see buses going down the road empty, or with one person on them.

by nomel 4y ago

Trolleys have a fixed route, which is not ideal. Fixed routes is why you see buses going down the road empty, or with one person on them.

woodruffw 4y ago

I don't understand this point. Buses don't have inherently fixed routes, so that isn't why they go down the road empty. It's because, in many places, their routes haven't been replanned to compensate for suburban sprawl, and their service is bad. The fixed-route nature of trolleys is not an inherently bad thing. In fact, it was the dominant (and eminently sustainable) form of urban expansion for over 75 years[1]. It turns out that fixed routes mean stability, which in turn means that businesses feel comfortable investing in long-term presence. Residents similarly find them desirable, since they can be certain that their streetcar won't be taken away from them (unlike a bus). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

nomel 4y ago
> Buses don't have inherently fixed routes In my city, they haven't changed the bus routes in several decades.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Right, that was the point about bad service: trolleys and buses can have stable routes but, paradoxically, that stability is generally good for trolleys and not good for buses.
  - secabeen 4y ago
    Stability is good, but only to a point. A bus can divert around double-parked car, or a closed road, but a trolley is stuck until the blockage is cleared.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      This is absolutely true, and is why both European cities (and slowly, American cities) have taken pains to minimize interconnections between trolley and automotive traffic.

nomel 4y ago

I'm surprised this comment is so controversial. Imagine if a bus had on demand stops, rather than stopping at 50 empty stops to get from point a to b. Those 49 extra stops are why nobody uses buses. It literally takes 4 flipping hours to go as what it takes 20 minutes by car, all while on a mostly empty bus, taking a fixed route, with fixed stops. Maybe it's better in other parts of the country, but in every city I've lived in, including San Jose, the nobody uses the buses, because nobody has that kind of time. Trolleys for congested down town areas, sure.

woodruffw 4y ago
For what it's worth, I think it's unreasonable that it was downvoted. But also: most municipalities that I know of do not require their buses to make stops if nobody is either waiting or signaling to get off the bus. NYC goes beyond that, and allows you to request a drop-off anywhere along the route during night service[1]. [1]: https://new.mta.info/guides/riding-the-bus https://new.mta.info/guides/riding-the-bus
omg_ponies 4y ago
FWIW, I've never heard of or seen a bus halt at an empty stop when no one on board wanted to get off. The only exception to this is if they are running ahead of schedule, in which case a halt to return to the set timetable is the right thing to do. Maybe this behavour is very locale dependent?
- nomel 4y ago
  > Maybe this behavour is very locale dependent? That could be. Maybe they were ahead of schedule the few times I went, and the few times I observed them stopping at empty stops. This would make sense with the fact that they are almost always empty. They would come to a complete stop, open the door, immediately close the door, then peel away. It was comically discouraging. With the stop near my place, they would often just drive up, slow down to walking pace, then speed off. Even if they were ahead of schedule, this would still mean the posted trip times were still many times greater than driving, which I assume is why they're empty.