2 ms·

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

by 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.

by nomel 4y ago

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.