5 ms·

I'd love this. If American public transportation fans would stop fantasizing about trains and instead do what really works for most people -- buses -- then we

I'd love this. If American public transportation fans would stop fantasizing about trains and instead do what really works for most people -- buses -- then we could have things a lot better. I've been waiting for years for a service that dispatches a nice bus to ride in on my way to work without me having to walk/drive to a bus stop and hope the schedule is right. I'd accept a modest increase in the commute time if I could read/sleep/play/watch TV for the duration of the commute.

untog 13y ago
If American public transportation fans would stop fantasizing about trains and instead do what really works for most people -- buses Trains really work for large numbers of people. A single NYC subway train can carry something like 2,400 people. A bus can carry something like 1/10 of that at best. Once you factor in the subway and local train services to New Jersey, CT, Long Island and Upstate New York you really, really don't want to think of buses as the future of mass transit in dense urban areas.
- benesch 13y ago
  Oh god. Even a bi-articulated bus with 240 people on it is emphatically not a bus I would want to be on.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Sure. Trains work great where you already have them and lots of people that want to ride them. They also work pretty well if you have a massive budget and the political will and power to build out sensible routes. So they don't work for a whole bunch of the U.S.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Budget, political will, and power are three sides of the same coin (you heard me), and one person's "fantasizing about trains" is another person's "trying to convince the public that it's worth spending the money".
- soperj 13y ago
  Helsinki has a subway though. This is on top of that.
  - tricolon 13y ago
    Helsinki has a tram system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_tram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_tram) and bus system. The metro is mostly for getting to/from East Helsinki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_metro).
    - tuukkah 13y ago
      The single metro/subway line is nothing compared to bigger cities, but don't forget the three urban railways and the hugely popular bus rapid transit (line 550)! These form the basis for a network of high-service trunk lines in this wide urban area of only 1.4 million inhabitants. Here's a nice schematic of what the system will look like in 2016 when the subway extension west of Ruoholahti is complete, the lines 560 and 500 have started, and the M and I trains have expanded to become the airport trains V and P: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29682104@N04/9711135644/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/29682104@N04/9711135644/
- willyt 13y ago
  The trouble is, trains require a certain density to be economic and to run a frequent enough service to be convenient. The ideal city density for an efficient metro service is roughly equivalent to streets of 4 or 5 storey apartment blocks. If you've ever been to Barcelona then you'll have an idea of the ideal density. Very few urbanised areas of the US meet this requirement and most of the areas that do fit the bill date back to before the 1920's and already have mass transit. Buses can operate in cities of lower density, but still require a certain critical mass. I don't have the figures to hand but there has to be a certain number of households within 5 minutes walk of a bus stop to make it viable and many suburbs aren't dense enough for this. See the book 'Cities for a small planet'. Also the Reith lectures on this topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gxns8 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gxns8
- danielweber 13y ago
  Yes, keep the trains where you have them. But to reduce car ridership, work on making buses good enough that professionals want to take them to get to work.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  The story that trains are superior for high density is not necessarily true. Buses with dedicated lanes appear to have high throughputs and lower infrastructure costs ( not to mention can continue to run into lower density areas or have routes more easily changed as the population density shifts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#Comparison_with_light_rail.2F_metro_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#Comparison_wi...
  - tacticus 13y ago
    But significantly greater operational costs. Those comparisons are with light rail not heavy rail like the new york subway.
jasondemeuse 13y ago
>do what really works for most people -- buses Do buses really work better for most people? I live in Chicago and it seems like most people I know (including me) ride the trains unless it can be avoided.
- mikeash 13y ago
  It seems to be universal. I've seen it in places from SF to DC to small-town France to Beijing: the bus a second choice that you only take when the train doesn't go where you need it to go. I'm still trying to figure out why, though. Despite sharing that opinion myself, I still can't quite figure out what the concrete reasons are. It seems to come down to: subway routes are much easier to figure out, stops are much better labeled, and the ride is much more comfortable. However, those first two don't seem like inherent problems with buses, merely how they happen to be built, but it seems like they're that way everywhere.
  - TillE 13y ago
    I agree with all three of your reasons, and I'll add another big one: speed. Trains are faster, both inherently and because they make fewer stops.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    > I'm still trying to figure out why, though. I'm in Chicago, same as OP. The elevated train has exclusive access to the tracks, whereas busses have to compete with private vehicles on the road. I'd rather be on the El.
  - Fishkins 13y ago
    I'd say the biggest reason is they aren't subject to traffic or (usually) weather, which makes them much faster and more consistent in urban areas. All the other factors are just little perks IMO. Although I personally like that I can read on a train without getting motion sickness, but not on a bus.
  - mradamh 13y ago
    I'm sure I am in the minority, but avoid bus trips wherever possible because I get horribly motion sick on them. I few years ago I had a job with a 20 minute bus commute and it was torture. I'd break out in a cold sweat every time and stagger off the bus feeling light headed and dizzy. This does seem to be an inherent problem for me with road vehicles. I experience a similar problem riding in the back of a car. I'm not immune from motion sickness on trains, but it is an order of magnitude better.
galago 13y ago
The reason light rail makes sense, at least in Portland, Oregon is that its cheaper per ride to operate. Personally, I would rather ride MAX than a bus. http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm#efficiency http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm#efficiency
adambard 13y ago
You might be interested to learn about the successful bus rapid transit system in Curitiba, Brazil: "Buses running in the dedicated lanes stop at cylindrical, clear-walled tube stations with turnstiles, steps, and wheelchair lifts. Passengers pay their fares as they enter the stations, and wait for buses on raised platforms. Instead of steps, buses have extra wide doors and ramps that extend out to the station platform when the doors open. The tube stations serve the dual purpose of providing shelter from the elements, and facilitating the simultaneous loading and unloading of passengers, including wheelchairs, efficiently. This system of same-level bus boarding, plus the pre-boarding fare payment, results in a typical dwell time of no more than 15 to 19 seconds at a stop."[1] [1] http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344 http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344

untog 13y ago

If American public transportation fans would stop fantasizing about trains and instead do what really works for most people -- buses Trains really work for large numbers of people. A single NYC subway train can carry something like 2,400 people. A bus can carry something like 1/10 of that at best. Once you factor in the subway and local train services to New Jersey, CT, Long Island and Upstate New York you really, really don't want to think of buses as the future of mass transit in dense urban areas.

benesch 13y ago
Oh god. Even a bi-articulated bus with 240 people on it is emphatically not a bus I would want to be on.
maxerickson 13y ago
Sure. Trains work great where you already have them and lots of people that want to ride them. They also work pretty well if you have a massive budget and the political will and power to build out sensible routes. So they don't work for a whole bunch of the U.S.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Budget, political will, and power are three sides of the same coin (you heard me), and one person's "fantasizing about trains" is another person's "trying to convince the public that it's worth spending the money".
soperj 13y ago
Helsinki has a subway though. This is on top of that.
- tricolon 13y ago
  Helsinki has a tram system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_tram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_tram) and bus system. The metro is mostly for getting to/from East Helsinki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_metro).
  - tuukkah 13y ago
    The single metro/subway line is nothing compared to bigger cities, but don't forget the three urban railways and the hugely popular bus rapid transit (line 550)! These form the basis for a network of high-service trunk lines in this wide urban area of only 1.4 million inhabitants. Here's a nice schematic of what the system will look like in 2016 when the subway extension west of Ruoholahti is complete, the lines 560 and 500 have started, and the M and I trains have expanded to become the airport trains V and P: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29682104@N04/9711135644/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/29682104@N04/9711135644/
willyt 13y ago
The trouble is, trains require a certain density to be economic and to run a frequent enough service to be convenient. The ideal city density for an efficient metro service is roughly equivalent to streets of 4 or 5 storey apartment blocks. If you've ever been to Barcelona then you'll have an idea of the ideal density. Very few urbanised areas of the US meet this requirement and most of the areas that do fit the bill date back to before the 1920's and already have mass transit. Buses can operate in cities of lower density, but still require a certain critical mass. I don't have the figures to hand but there has to be a certain number of households within 5 minutes walk of a bus stop to make it viable and many suburbs aren't dense enough for this. See the book 'Cities for a small planet'. Also the Reith lectures on this topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gxns8 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gxns8
danielweber 13y ago
Yes, keep the trains where you have them. But to reduce car ridership, work on making buses good enough that professionals want to take them to get to work.
anologwintermut 13y ago
The story that trains are superior for high density is not necessarily true. Buses with dedicated lanes appear to have high throughputs and lower infrastructure costs ( not to mention can continue to run into lower density areas or have routes more easily changed as the population density shifts). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#Comparison_with_light_rail.2F_metro_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#Comparison_wi...
- tacticus 13y ago
  But significantly greater operational costs. Those comparisons are with light rail not heavy rail like the new york subway.

jasondemeuse 13y ago

>do what really works for most people -- buses Do buses really work better for most people? I live in Chicago and it seems like most people I know (including me) ride the trains unless it can be avoided.

mikeash 13y ago
It seems to be universal. I've seen it in places from SF to DC to small-town France to Beijing: the bus a second choice that you only take when the train doesn't go where you need it to go. I'm still trying to figure out why, though. Despite sharing that opinion myself, I still can't quite figure out what the concrete reasons are. It seems to come down to: subway routes are much easier to figure out, stops are much better labeled, and the ride is much more comfortable. However, those first two don't seem like inherent problems with buses, merely how they happen to be built, but it seems like they're that way everywhere.
- TillE 13y ago
  I agree with all three of your reasons, and I'll add another big one: speed. Trains are faster, both inherently and because they make fewer stops.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  > I'm still trying to figure out why, though. I'm in Chicago, same as OP. The elevated train has exclusive access to the tracks, whereas busses have to compete with private vehicles on the road. I'd rather be on the El.
- Fishkins 13y ago
  I'd say the biggest reason is they aren't subject to traffic or (usually) weather, which makes them much faster and more consistent in urban areas. All the other factors are just little perks IMO. Although I personally like that I can read on a train without getting motion sickness, but not on a bus.
- mradamh 13y ago
  I'm sure I am in the minority, but avoid bus trips wherever possible because I get horribly motion sick on them. I few years ago I had a job with a 20 minute bus commute and it was torture. I'd break out in a cold sweat every time and stagger off the bus feeling light headed and dizzy. This does seem to be an inherent problem for me with road vehicles. I experience a similar problem riding in the back of a car. I'm not immune from motion sickness on trains, but it is an order of magnitude better.

galago 13y ago

The reason light rail makes sense, at least in Portland, Oregon is that its cheaper per ride to operate. Personally, I would rather ride MAX than a bus. http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm#efficiency http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm#efficiency

adambard 13y ago

You might be interested to learn about the successful bus rapid transit system in Curitiba, Brazil: "Buses running in the dedicated lanes stop at cylindrical, clear-walled tube stations with turnstiles, steps, and wheelchair lifts. Passengers pay their fares as they enter the stations, and wait for buses on raised platforms. Instead of steps, buses have extra wide doors and ramps that extend out to the station platform when the doors open. The tube stations serve the dual purpose of providing shelter from the elements, and facilitating the simultaneous loading and unloading of passengers, including wheelchairs, efficiently. This system of same-level bus boarding, plus the pre-boarding fare payment, results in a typical dwell time of no more than 15 to 19 seconds at a stop."[1] [1] http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344 http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344