mindstalk: (YoukoRaku1)

At a bus stop today I realized another advantage of metro trains over buses: you can't miss your train. More precisely, comparing the two situations of being at the stop, you're far less likely to fail to get on your train.

  1. Trains always stop, even if you're bent over a book.

  2. Trains are loud enough that you'll probably notice even if you're reading a book.

  3. Trains are distinct enough that you don't be distracted by many false positives, apart from the opposite-direction train (which there shouldn't be more than one of), or if you're at a station with overlapping lines.

By contrast, if you're the only person who wants a stop and you look like you're not paying attention, a bus driver can easily decide to pass you by. And bus noise blends in with traffic enough that you either risk not being alert to the incoming bus, or else have to pay constant attention to the road so you don't miss it.

I'm not sure how these carry over to streetcars and light rails. I suspect they tend more toward the metro side of things, especially if they have distinct platforms. OTOH the Toronto streetcars, which you board from the street (crossing traffic to get to), might be closer to the bus.

mindstalk: (economics)

I thought of a new angle on just how badly most modern cities have let people down by not enabling safe biking.

Most cities have at least some bus service, whether as a semi-credible public transit system or as a sop to the poor and elderly. How fast are these buses? Pretty slow. NYC buses rarely break 9 MPH / 14 KPH though they're especially slow. City Observatory has easily-graphable data for multiple US cities, 2000-2013; the mean and median are 13 MPH / 21 KPH, big dense cities I'm familiar with are more like 11 MPH / 18 KPH, and very few cities break 15 MPH / 24 KPH. Absolute peak in the US was Salt Lake, almost hitting 19 MPH / 30 KPH for a few years. Even BRT systems around the world rarely break 30 KPH.

Bike speeds vary a lot, but en masse, one source says Dutch riders average 17 KPH. From my experience, it feels hard to go under 15 KPH and stay upright, even on a thick and heavy bike. [Edit: this says 12.4 KPH for the Dutch, and now that I have a bike I see I overestimated my default speeds. I don't know if either Dutch figure is "speed of motion" or door to door "speed of travel".] So being able to bike is like having personal bus-speed service, without the car necessities of a driver's license, insurance, and thousands of dollars per year spent on a car. (Or social cost of the 40,000 lives a year lost to cars, pollution, noise, etc.) Even if buses go faster than you do on a bike, not having to walk and wait means bikes win up to some distance.

Let's do an extremely bus-friendly case. Bike 15 KPH, bus 30 KPH, average of 10 minutes walk and wait to get on a bus. They cover equal distances at

1) 15*t = 30*(t-1/6), t = 1/3 hour, distance = 5 km. So for trips under 5 km or 3 miles, biking is faster.

If bus speed is 20 KPH and the time is 15 minutes to get on, we have

2) 15*t = 20*(t-1/4), t = 1 hour, distance = 15 km.

And this has been assuming that your destination is right at your bus stop; in reality there's potentially more delay there. (Also assuming bike parking right by your destination.)

Note what this means for a city planner wanting to reduce car use. You could invest a lot in public transit, including the high capital costs of metro or the high labor costs of frequent bus service... or you could shape your infrastructure so that lots of people view biking as safe and convenient, providing their own bikes (at a few hundred dollars/year) and labor, with your main job doing sweeping and snow removal.

But of course that low financial cost comes at the high political cost of taking street space away from cars. Easier to drop some buses in and call it a day... easier, but not very effective.

This post owes a lot to this kchoze post, on why buses have low mode share in Japan, and arguing buses have little role in a well-designed city (one with good walkability and metro, not to mention attractive biking.) I'd urge you to read the kchoze as well.

mindstalk: (Default)
Expanding on some bus discussion in the comments of my May Day post, and probably repeating some old calculations:

Read more... )

Summary

It would probably just take a few hundred $million to restore at least daily bus service on all cut Greyhound routes, so people could at least get out of town. Hourly service to all population centers could cost $5 to $60 billion/year, depending on estimation method, and probably closer to $5 billion. Total Mass Transit (Bus) could cost more on the order of $300 billion for something I'd consider reasonable, to $2.7 trillion for massive overkill. Big savings if you ask most people to walk a few blocks to the stop. Also possibly big savings from using different numbers (or more light rail) but I try to be conservative.

Americans would like more public tranport. Even small town or Republican people.

Profile

mindstalk: (Default)
mindstalk

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    1 2 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated 2026-01-05 09:33
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios