3 ms·

Why would you think it would just make more traffic and not take cars off the road? A bus takes up the space of 3-4 cars. If there are more than 4 people on th

Why would you think it would just make more traffic and not take cars off the road? A bus takes up the space of 3-4 cars. If there are more than 4 people on the bus, it is increasing the capacity of the road. Surely there are some negative effects because busses stop & take longer to turn, but I also don't think their business plan involves driving busses with only 4 people on them.

a2kadet 12y ago
That's assuming the bus would only be converting drivers and not other forms of commuters. I have a fifteen minute walk to work. If there was a convenient bus that cut that in half, I would use it. I used to ride the subway to work. That took about 40 minutes. I would definitely consider using a bus instead if the circumstances were right.
whatok 12y ago
untog was mentioning NYC. Majority of people commuting in that I know already catch public transportation into the city. I can't imagine this working very well for transportation within Manhattan but I could be wrong.
- cauterized 12y ago
  Manhattan's buses are already extremely frequent on popular routes (double-length buses scheduled every 2-3 min during rush hour on routes that aren't redundant to subway service, and even on a few that are -- and still packed) and limited by traffic more than anything. AFAICT most people who drive to work in Manhattan on a regular basis do so because they live far enough out in the boroughs or suburbs that getting to the subway/commuter rail is a PITA. There is a large contingent in residential areas of Manhattan above 59th St. that take cabs to work -- especially on the East Side where the subway is often too crowded to get on. Although the 2nd Ave subway (if it opens as projected in 2017) will probably make the subway a more palatable option, I could see something like this being an alternative for some of those riders -- cabs can be difficult to find in the morning, and this would be far less expensive.
untog 12y ago
That assumes everyone on the bus was previously driving. This is more likely to take people who currently ride public transit, so you'll have two buses, half as full as the previous one was.
michaelt 12y ago
"Emergent demand" is the idea that there are people who would like to drive in the centre of big cities, and the only reason they don't is because the congestion is so bad. This often comes up in the context of building more roads to alleviate congestion. It won't work, the theory goes, because when congestion reduces more people start driving, until the congestion reaches equilibrium again. If buses take cars off the street and reduce congestion, the same argument applies; emergent demand will mean any cars taken off the street will soon be replaced. Personally emergent demand has always struck me as a rather defeatist idea :)
- ProblemFactory 12y ago
  > It won't work, the theory goes, because when congestion reduces more people start driving, until the congestion reaches equilibrium again. While this sounds plausible, it doesn't follow that building roads or adding buses is a bad idea. Even if the congestion stays constant, now more people get to travel.

a2kadet 12y ago

That's assuming the bus would only be converting drivers and not other forms of commuters. I have a fifteen minute walk to work. If there was a convenient bus that cut that in half, I would use it. I used to ride the subway to work. That took about 40 minutes. I would definitely consider using a bus instead if the circumstances were right.

whatok 12y ago

untog was mentioning NYC. Majority of people commuting in that I know already catch public transportation into the city. I can't imagine this working very well for transportation within Manhattan but I could be wrong.

cauterized 12y ago
Manhattan's buses are already extremely frequent on popular routes (double-length buses scheduled every 2-3 min during rush hour on routes that aren't redundant to subway service, and even on a few that are -- and still packed) and limited by traffic more than anything. AFAICT most people who drive to work in Manhattan on a regular basis do so because they live far enough out in the boroughs or suburbs that getting to the subway/commuter rail is a PITA. There is a large contingent in residential areas of Manhattan above 59th St. that take cabs to work -- especially on the East Side where the subway is often too crowded to get on. Although the 2nd Ave subway (if it opens as projected in 2017) will probably make the subway a more palatable option, I could see something like this being an alternative for some of those riders -- cabs can be difficult to find in the morning, and this would be far less expensive.

untog 12y ago

That assumes everyone on the bus was previously driving. This is more likely to take people who currently ride public transit, so you'll have two buses, half as full as the previous one was.

michaelt 12y ago

"Emergent demand" is the idea that there are people who would like to drive in the centre of big cities, and the only reason they don't is because the congestion is so bad. This often comes up in the context of building more roads to alleviate congestion. It won't work, the theory goes, because when congestion reduces more people start driving, until the congestion reaches equilibrium again. If buses take cars off the street and reduce congestion, the same argument applies; emergent demand will mean any cars taken off the street will soon be replaced. Personally emergent demand has always struck me as a rather defeatist idea :)

ProblemFactory 12y ago
> It won't work, the theory goes, because when congestion reduces more people start driving, until the congestion reaches equilibrium again. While this sounds plausible, it doesn't follow that building roads or adding buses is a bad idea. Even if the congestion stays constant, now more people get to travel.