| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago |
| > increasing the distance between stops from 700–800 feet [...] to 1,300 feet I suspect that removing half of the bus stops in a city will piss people off and cause even less ridership. This feels like it's optimizing for the wrong thing. Also, the example given cites New York City buses. But New York City is always the worst example because it's the most extreme of everything. The vast majority of US cities do not suffer from crawling buses. Maybe this should say New York City needs fewer bus stops? I'd like to see you try. |
|
| ▲ | stetrain 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are two groups of people that you can optimize for. One is the group of people who already rides the bus. In most US cities this is a small group of people who have no real alternative. The other is the group of people who might ride the bus if it were convenient. Not just in terms of accessibility to a stop, but also accounting for the journey time. If someone tries riding the bus and finds that a 20 minute drive becomes an hour with stops every single block, they might never ride it again. In most US cities (outside of the few big ones with decent transit), public transit is basically treated as a welfare service for those who cannot get around by any other means. Not saying that this service doesn't have value, but making all decisions in that mindset isn't going to attract more ridership from those who could choose to drive instead. |
| |
| ▲ | janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In my experience, the problem was long wait times between buses and unreliable pickup times. That meant you realistically had to add buffer at each end of your trip: in case the bus was early and in case the bus was late. Not only was that more than 20% of my trip time, it was also mental overhead of worrying whether you already missed the bus. The bus might come 2x per hour. Maybe 2:18 and 2:48. But it might come at 2:15 or 2:25. So you need to arrive at 2:13 and possibly wait 12 minutes. Or if you arrive late you might be waiting 30+ minutes. Make the buses fast and safe. | | |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Removing unnecessary bus stops is a prerequisite to making busses fast. You can't run a fast bus service if the bus is stopping every single block. | | |
| ▲ | janalsncm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There already are “express” buses that don’t stop at every stop. They don’t solve the issues I described above. Cutting the time between bus arrivals would be a much more effective solution. | |
| ▲ | oblio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are 2 big prerequisites for fast bus service : 1. Dedicated bus lanes (speed, predictability). 2. Traffic light priority ( speed, predictability). How many US cities implement even one of those? | | | |
| ▲ | thomastjeffery 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That optimizes speed, not latency. I don't care how long it takes to get off the bus nearly as much as I care how long it takes to get on. | | |
| ▲ | enragedcacti 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For fixed route transit, speed is latency. The faster the bus can make the average trip, the tighter the timetable can be given the same number of buses. Fewer stops also improves consistency which means you can plan to arrive at the stop closer to the scheduled time, and timetables can be tightened even more by reducing the layover times that keep the bus synchronized with the time table. Separately, the variability problem can be somewhat solved with the real-time location updates that many agencies provide. You'll still have to wait the same amount of time, but some of it can be done comfortably in your house when the bus is running late. | |
| ▲ | paddy_m 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It helps with latency too or schedule padding. Bus schedules are unreliable because of all the stops which slow them down and encourage bunching of busses on a route with a lot of service. | | |
| ▲ | tartoran 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bus bunching is often blamed on traffic or scheduling, but in my experience in NYC, a lack of enforcement and/or accountability plays a role too. I live near one end of a bus line and commute to the other end 5 days day a week. On a daily basis, there are large gaps where buses miss their scheduled times. Then, as they approach the end of the line, they arrive and depart in groups of three or four, which only worsens the problem. |
| |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For a fixed number of busses, the faster the busses are traveling the less time there is between busses. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hinkley 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I reliably pickup times are amplified by the number of stops that are made. The stop and go time is fixed. The amount of time it takes 2 people to exit a bus versus four is lot linear. It depends on how full the bus is. But it definitely does slow down when people are getting off and on at every single stop. |
| |
| ▲ | maldev 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would ride the bus if it wasn't filled with crackheads. Stopped Bart when it went downhill and all the white collar people stopped riding it and it just became desperate people, homeless, or crackheads. | | |
| ▲ | janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The public services death spiral is real. Services get defunded -> they get worse -> reduced user base -> more cuts. The only way to break the cycle is to improve the services. Safety is only one of the issues. Convenience and comfort are others. Basically a city needs to decide whether it wants people to use the bus, and then act like it. | |
| ▲ | jacobolus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | BART is full of white-collar people who use it to commute and to travel around the area (alongside all sorts of other kinds of people, as you would expect for a broadly used service). Ridership collapsed in 2020 because of the pandemic, for obvious reasons, but it's hard to really blame that on the service itself, or the riders. Ridership has been gradually recovering since then. Total trips are now up to something like 70% of 2019 levels, and continuing to rise. Number of unique riders is actually above the 2019 level now. Maybe you haven't tried riding BART again within the past several years? | | |
| ▲ | maldev an hour ago | parent [-] | | I left SF ~2021, but even in 2019 it was kind of in a death spiral. Hopefully it's better now, loved it back when I lived there. But still hear mixed reports from friends. |
| |
| ▲ | supertrope 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mass transit systems generally reduce anti-social behavior with either fare gates or heavy policing. For whatever reason, when you crack down on fare evasion you filter out a lot of troublemakers. | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was in SF middle of last year and was on the BART a good bit, and it was... fine? It remains the most objectionably noisy mode of transport I've ever been on, but it didn't feel any less safe than when I've been there previously. |
| |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are very, very few people in America who - when given a choice between driving and taking public transit - will take public transit, no matter how convenient the public transit is. And in this example, how many stops would you have to cut to turn an hour-long bus ride into a 20 minute one, to compete with the car? You're effectively cutting it down to two stops - where you board, and where you disembark. That's just not a plausible way to organize a bus route, aiming it at one person with a car. | | |
| ▲ | ambicapter 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > There are very, very few people in America who - when given a choice between driving and taking public transit - will take public transit, no matter how convenient the public transit is. I find this very unlikely to be true for people who have spent any amount of time driving in a city. | | |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the majority of city residents tend not to own cars, but I could be wrong about that. | | |
| ▲ | ambicapter an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They don't own cars because owning a car in the city sucks in a lot of ways, more so than in rural areas. So yeah, if your point is that if you take away all the bad parts of using a car, and leave public transit as is, then using a car comes out ahead. Splendid. | |
| ▲ | stetrain 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That feels like you've made a tautology here. In places where public transit is more convenient than driving (and parking), many people choose not to own and drive a car. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Owning a car is not mutually exclusive with commuting via transit. > I think the majority of city residents tend not to own cars This depends a HUGE amount on the city. NYC/London/Paris probably true. LA? It is not uncommon for a household to have more cars than drivers |
|
| |
| ▲ | janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Counterpoint: many people are driving cars they cannot afford and car loan delinquencies are at record highs. People would take public transit if it were an option. | |
| ▲ | kenjackson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If public transit was super convenient I think way more people would take it. There are things and places I don’t frequent purely because of parking and public transit isn’t convenient. But I don’t want to drive three miles to park in a sketchy lot to hop on a train that will drop me off a mile from the venue. | |
| ▲ | selimthegrim 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re assuming parking is free. Donald Shoup’s shade is shaking its head at you |
|
|
|
| ▲ | krzyk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When I was in SF, my European mind was astonished why bus stops are so often (and why there is a cable to pull, but that's a different thing). Considering that the area was less populated than my city. And we also have speedbuses that stop every second or third bus stop. It was unreal. In my city bus stops have 1km between them (sometimes it is 700m sometimes 1.3km) so about 3200 feet. It is about 15min walk between each bus stop, so when I need to wait for bit longer I prefer to walk to the next bus stop, just to have something to do. |
| |
| ▲ | ipdashc 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > and why there is a cable to pull, but that's a different thing Huh... How is it set up where you live? I've ridden buses in Europe and I remember them having cables, or at least buttons. | | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's usually buttons in Europe. The cord things always make me think of train emergency stop cords (though these days those are usually "break glass" buttons). | |
| ▲ | Symbiote 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've never seen the pull-cord things in Europe, but they seem to be common in the US. To European eyes they seem old fashioned, untidy, and possibly dirty. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you clarify what you mean by dirty? Or why that would be any more dirty than anything else in public? European buses frequently have stop buttons, not sure how those would be any cleaner than a plastic covered cord. Also not sure what is old-fashioned about a pull cord compared to a bunch of buttons. Just a different way of activating an electrical circuit. | | |
| ▲ | Symbiote 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's just the impression I get. Buses I've used in the USA are usually older and tattier than here, and the cord is part of that. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You need to clarify what you mean by "here" and what part of the US you are talking about. The US and Europe are big places and the transit systems are as different inter as they are intra. The Paris Metro is an absolute run-down antique compared to the trains in Seattle. It would be silly for me to declare that all European metro systems are therefore run down and tatty. If I compare the Barcelona metro to New York, it makes Europe look great. Meanwhile the London Tube is cramped, frequently dilapidated and has its own species of mosquito. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bojan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's different per country, and even per city within the country. As a rule of thumb, big cities don't have buttons/cords, smaller ones do. | | |
| ▲ | ragall 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've never seen cords in Europe, neither in a big city nor little towns. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hirsin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As someone on the great, late 8 (https://fixthel8.com/) in Seattle, I'd happily give up my stop to help it be on time more often. I have three other stops I can walk to within ten minutes of me. SF is another good example of too many stops. It's honestly comical and I stopped riding the bus in SF at times because the stop count was painful. |
| |
| ▲ | pvtmert 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Imagine the delays are so prominent, someone decides to make a website for CTA (call-to-action) and semi-regularly shares updates on it... I've been to Seattle once, (ex-Amazon here) where the DevCon was held in the town while my team was located in Bellevue. I took initiative to rent a bike for a day (60$ for drop-bar gravel bike) I must say although I did not beat the time between Day-1 (Office across spheres) and Bingo (Bellevue office), it was not far off. Even comparing the "Shuttles" Amazon operated, shuttle took about 1h while ride takes around 1h15m. (Plus sweat) > P.S: I would say I am in a "fair" shape as I ride quite a lot throughout the year. |
|
|
| ▲ | bluGill 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nyc has a subway for longer trips. So shorter stops make sense as anyone with a longer trip should be on the subway. However most cities (in the world) are not dense enough to support almost redundant system and in those I believe the speed optimizationis correct. time is important to bus riders, speeding up the buses helps them. It also attracts others. Only a few are harmed more than helped - but they tend to complain the most even though they are a minority |
| |
| ▲ | lxgr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Nyc has a subway for longer trips. So shorter stops make sense as anyone with a longer trip should be on the subway. That’s not how bus routes in NYC are organized at all. | | |
| ▲ | benleejamin 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | To further elaborate — NYC subway routing is not effective for some kinds of trips
(notoriously: moving north-south through brooklyn/queens, east-west across much of manhattan, etc) |
| |
| ▲ | MisterTea 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nyc has a subway for longer trips. Only if your trip is to Manhattan or along the line. Otherwise, in Brooklyn and queens, North-south subway service is almost non-existent. I live in South Queens a block from the A train. However, If I wanted to go shopping at Queenscenter Mall or along Queens Blvd, I have to take a bus up Woodhaven Blvd. |
|
|
| ▲ | wnevets 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We can optimize this further and remove all of the stops between the buses first and last stops. Drive time would be so much faster. |
| |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We can also make the bus smaller. And to give the passengers more agency, we can let them drive it. Instead of paying bus fare every time they board, they can pay a larger up-front cost for this bus, and of course, ongoing gas & maintenance. To make sure they don't pose a danger to others, they can also purchase insurance, and of course have some sort of license to operate it. | | |
| ▲ | wnevets 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We can't forget to add more lanes to support all of these new buses on the road, we need to keep our drive time low! | | |
| ▲ | dqv 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not to mention we need places to park these buses. We should require every commercial location to have multi-level parking decks so that there is ample parking. | | |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's ludicrous. Think of the property values that would be decreased by thusly besmirching the precious skyline! Instead, we should mandate that people build out, wider & longer, rather than taller. Commercial locations should have parking lots for these microbuses (should really come up with a better name for them, too.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | vkou 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We should also quadruple the road space, so that these buses don't just sit in gridlock all day. |
| |
| ▲ | toast0 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where I live, the bus line that serves me only has maybe one marked stop. There's a bus depot at the ferry; every where else, you can just stand on the side of the road and wave your hand when the bus comes by and it'll stop for you; when you want to get off on your way home from the ferry, you push the button and let the driver know where to stop. But that only works because density is low and there's only one plausible destination. | |
| ▲ | pkulak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most optimization is a curve. Arguing for moving closer to the top of the curve is not the same as arguing for moving all the way to the minima on the other side. But why do I have to say that? | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Some bus systems actually essentially do this for a fraction of buses. |
|
|
| ▲ | amiga386 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| New York City already has fewer bus stops, or rather it has express buses that stop at fewer stops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_Bus_Service |
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| NYC is interesting as it has examples of everything. Dense urban, inner suburb-like service and a huge core. Crawling busses are an issue all over the place. The easy way to spot it is when noticing stacked busses during peak periods. These issues are really hard because they are fundamentally local and change is difficult and fraught with NIMBY bullshit. There is a strong inertia. My small city has a pretty good bus service that winnowed out surplus stops and added BRT. In the public hearing, one of the loud objectors to moving a bus stop 1000ft was that it would encourage inner-city youth to "rape and pillage" in the "good" neighborhood. We're literally talking two blocks away. |
|
| ▲ | bpodgursky 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't wanna be rude but when someone spends months researching an issue, which systems work and which don't, you should probably give some level of grace and understand how they came to those numbers rather than spit out your first mindless critique. |
| |
| ▲ | ryandrake 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whenever I see an article, and the top comment is StudMan69 saying "Uh, no, the article's conclusions are all wrong!" I think to myself: "Gosh! If only the article's author had consulted StudMan69 before writing the article, he could have avoided making such a grave mistake! | | | |
| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I ride the bus and I can tell you right now that I would be pissed if this guy took away my bus stop. That's my critique. I think it's perfectly valid. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Only because you know your loss but cannot imagine your gains in time. | | |
| ▲ | petcat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The gains just mean that I sit on the bus while twice as many people are trying to board at every stop. The bus is stopped for twice as long. | | |
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The bus is stopped for twice as long. I'd like to see your math, as it isn't just the loading of passengers that takes time. It would seem that slowing down, completely stopping, lowering the bus, opening the doors, and then closing the doors takes up at least some of the time at each bus stop. | |
| ▲ | pkulak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've watched 30 kids get off at their school in the morning. It takes 15 seconds. By your logic, 30 stops adds 15 seconds to a bus's schedule, which is pants-on-head crazy. | | |
| ▲ | petcat 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Emptying a school bus completely is a lot faster than a city bus stop where people are simultaneously trying to get off the bus and then the new people are also trying to get on the bus and jockey for position and for a seat before the bus can start moving again | | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So this used to happen on Dublin Bus, but a while back they solved it with an astonishing innovation... a second door! You get on at the front and off at the back. Given that this has been common elsewhere forever, it's unclear why it took them so long, but... (Bafflingly, they went through a transition period where ~all of the buses had two doors, but the driver rarely opened the back door. It wasn't really until covid that using the back door became standard. Improved things greatly.) > and jockey for position and for a seat before the bus can start moving again Do urban buses where you are require people to be seated? Didn't realise that was a thing anywhere. Any (urban, non-intercity) bus I've ever been on takes off as soon as the last person gets in. | |
| ▲ | pkulak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The experience I shared was on a city bus. My point is that you're totally disregarding everything a bus does to stop apart from waiting for passengers to board and de-board. At the very least it has to slow down, then accelerate. Half the time it has to swing the ramp out, which takes forever. Maybe someone has to load or unload a bike. Then it has to re-merge with traffic, and maybe every 10th car will let it in, so that can take a long time too. I don't even know if waiting for passengers is _half_ the time spent, let alone all of it. | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've never been on a city bus where the driver waits for people to be seated. Hell, when I lived in Vancouver, they would start moving before everyone had even paid their fare, basically as soon as the door was closed. | | |
| ▲ | pkulak an hour ago | parent [-] | | And now most (all?) busses have a fare tap at the back door, so you can board anywhere. Vancouver transit is absolutely top tier, at least for NA. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That would be true if busses didn't have to accelerate, decelerate, open doors, kneel and go through the many parts of stopping that aren't strictly people getting on or off. The counterpoint is any bus route that has an express option that runs in parallel. Every time I have taken the express route, the bus can be full to the gills, but is always faster than the non-express bus. | |
| ▲ | keeganpoppen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | that's simply not how it works, and quite obviously so. the stop time is absolutely not linear in the number of people who board the bus. just think about all the time it takes to slow down, possibly make the whole bus kneel, and then sit up again. by your argument, there should be infinity bus stops, each of which only allowing one single person to load. like, what? surely we can think more critically than this... | | |
| ▲ | petcat an hour ago | parent [-] | | So your counter argument is that we should actually only have two bus stops. One a the start of the route, and one at the end? surely we can think more critically than this... |
|
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So 1/Nth of the ridership is gonna have their stop deleted at a sum total of X man years. But it's all gonna be worth it based on a projected possible upside that may not materialize dependent upon many factors? This is even worse than the usual slight of hand wherein one takes a widely diffuse hard to quantify cost and rounds it to zero and then dishonestly acts as though that justifies implementing their pet policy that has some small upside because in this case the downside is known and the upside is less defined. I'm open to the idea that we could improve the system by deleting stops, but in light of a quantifiable downside I don't see a convincing argument without having some quantification on what the upside looks like. |
| |
| ▲ | anthonybsd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You would be pissed that you have to walk for an extra 2 minutes? I wouldn't, but sure. Would you also be pissed about overall bus travel time decreasing by a generous amount? | |
| ▲ | yorwba 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How far do you walk to your bus stop? How far would you have to walk to the next-closest bus stop? | |
| ▲ | npinsker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Would it outweigh you having to stop half as often? | | |
| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | All that means is longer lines and congestion of people waiting to board. So the bus is stopped for longer. This seems like a net nothing to me. | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Doors open time is actually possible to optimize and speed up; with modern tap to pay systems, you can have all door boarding where even at the busiest stops dwells are measured in seconds. The real killer for bus travel times is not getting up to speed, and the delay from finding a break in traffic when pulling out of a stop. | |
| ▲ | enragedcacti 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sections of lines that already have meaningful congestion at adjacent stops wouldn't be a good target for balancing. WMATA in D.C. recently eliminated about 5% of bus stops as part of their overhauled bus network, this is how they described their strategy[1]: "We thought carefully about each stop, looking at things like how many people use it, how far away it is from the next stops, and whether it's safe to walk there. We also listened to feedback from thousands of bus riders." Additionally, many stops with a lot of people loading and unloading are hubs which would never be balanced away, and often are designated timing points where the bus will wait to get back on schedule, so loading/unloading time is often irrelevant because predictability is being prioritized over speed. Improving speed and consistency with techniques like removing unnecessary stops increases predictability and allows for tightening up timetables and minimizing average hold times. [1] https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/plans/Better-Bus/frequentl... | |
| ▲ | 8cvor6j844qw_d6 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > longer lines and congestion of people waiting to board True I've seen that first hand. |
|
| |
| ▲ | luz666 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | what if they removed only 33% of the stops?
so per 3 stops, one is removed and the remaining were rearranged.
it might even happen that the new bus stop is closer to your house.
i agree, for the average person, the distance to the stop increases though. |
| |
| ▲ | skipants 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree. This: > I suspect that removing half of the bus stops in a city will piss people off and cause even less ridership. is thrown out but how do we know it's true? That commenter throws it out as their opinion but my opinion is the opposite -- the stated preference will be that people think it's bad but the revealed preference will show even more ridership as travel times improve. | | |
| ▲ | rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I suspect the evidence here would fall mostly on the side of "it increases ridership", though it's probably hard to study, as it's rarely done in isolation, but more commonly as part of route redesign. |
| |
| ▲ | VLM 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Its a statement of religious belief, so other opinions are no less relevant that some "authority" As a religious belief it would be inappropriate for me to report stats from my local cities bus service. First of all they didn't get into a religious opinion logically and rationally, so spouting numbers and facts at them will not make them change their mind. Secondly my local city has multiple simultaneous impacts so its almost impossible to estimate how their experiments with stop removal has affected ridership. The article falsely claims the only variable in the system is stop spacing whereas bus service is in extreme turmoil in most communities. Pre-covid vs Post-covid is wildly different, there has been massive inflation in operating expenses, there's a long term decline in my area WRT passenger-miles before covid which seems to be increasing post-covid, fares have increased by a factor of a little over 4x since 1990 while incomes have roughly stagnated. The article claims the opex of stops is "high" but our city invested $0 (this is a low crime suburb LOL). We got rid of 1/4 of our routes (and drivers) and increased the standard of stop spacing from never more than 950 feet to an average of about 1100 feet now. The elderly and infirm were very mad and very loud about that and they are the most reliable voters out there but halving the fare quieted them down. We lose so much money on the bus service that giving it away for free wouldn't impact the budget very much. Currently our opex per passenger mile is about $4.50. Fare for adults is $2. We lose about $7 per ride. The loss per rider would pay for two extra people to take an uber on the same route, so there are continual demands to scrap the entire system to save money. Empty buses driving around is causing more, not less, road congestion, and more, not less, environmental damage. Our "Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile" is about 0.6, which boils down to on average every mile traveled by a bus driver results in 0.6 passengers stepping aboard. Our routes are about 4 miles long and run about once an hour, so on average a driver picks up about three passengers per 4 mile trip. Our drivers are usually alone in the bus. Another way of looking at it, is on average we pay our bus drivers $23/hr, so an hourly route costs $23 in labor, and they pick up less than $6 in fares during each work hour... The ratios are better during rush hour... but worse outside of rush hour. (edited: I don't understand some of the numbers on the report, if it costs $23 to pay the driver to run a route that picks up three people the fares can't be more than $6 so even if diesel and maint were free we lose $17 per hour per route, so why does the annual report claim opex per passenger mile traveled is only $4.50? After federal subsidies or similar?) In the long run, an unusable bus service is simply too expensive of a luxury to fund and we'll end up eliminating it. I don't think changing distance between stops matters if the stops, and the bus, are empty, other than it makes sick and old people very angry. If almost no one uses it, it doesn't cost any extra to stop quite literally on every street corner or even stop at every driveway, so increasing stop distance merely makes people suffer needlessly, which seems unusually evil. |
|
|
| ▲ | pkulak 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I suspect that removing half of the bus stops in a city will piss people off and cause even less ridership. Oh do you now? Where do these suspicions come from? How much time do you spend on city busses? Do you have any idea how absolutely infuriating it is to be sitting on a bus while it makes stop, after stop, after stop, after stop, every single one a block or two apart, crawling down the road at a walking pace? All the while backing up traffic behind it and eroding whatever support the transit system had with the majority of the tax-paying public that never uses it. I suspect that people find a destination on Google Maps, click the navigate button, see that the bus takes 3x as long as driving, and take their car or an Uber. |
| |
| ▲ | VLM 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're making suspicions about suspicions without numerical data. According to my cities 2022 annual report (where are 2023-2025?) they provided precisely 464344 unlinked pax trips (UPT) so someone stepped aboard a bus and threw money in the real or virtual fare box 464344 times that year. "Sources of operating funds expended directly generated" which I read as annual fare revenue was $660748. We have a very simple two tier system $2 for adults and $1 for seniors and disabled. 2(464344-x)+1x=660748 x=267940 So we only had 196404 healthy young adult bus riders that year vs 267940 senior citizens. Your experience is not unusual but also is by far not the majority; a SUBSTANTIAL majority of the people on the bus in my city are too old or too sick or too blind to take long walks in the rain, snow, ice, heat, cold, etc. Honestly the bus is so slow, if they could walk, they'd probably just walk. So it should not be overly surprising that most on the bus quite literally can't walk, and really need bus stops close together for disability reasons. So all of this theoretical "well it would be so much faster if there were fewer stops" is irrelevant if the served population is primarily physically disabled, and the system can't survive. And we'd be talking about excluding one of the most powerful voting blocks in the city, that being old people. Eliminating stops would eliminate or reduce 58% of the current riders which would shut the system down, I don't think it could politically survive a hit like that. Ironically that shutdown might be good as everyone would be better off both financially and environmentally in cars than in buses. Bus exhaust is not exactly perfume to mother nature LOL, and essentially our bus program is not a transit system, its a corrupt jobs program for drivers, mechanics, and especially for highly paid administrators. | | |
| ▲ | pkulak an hour ago | parent [-] | | > a SUBSTANTIAL majority of the people on the bus in my city are too old or too sick or too blind to take long walks in the rain, snow, ice, heat, cold, etc. Maybe my city is different, but in every city I've spent substantial time in, there are little tiny busses for those who are not able to walk or roll the average distance between a stop and their home or destination. They are direct, point to point shuttles. If no bus is available, they will send a cab. Those buses and cabs are exactly why you don't have to run a bus up and down every road, with a stop in front of every house, and a driver who can escort passengers to their door. They are astronomically expensive to operate, but the only way to make a transit system that serves everyone. But in my city, we pay a small fortune to run these little busses, and then _also_, for some reason, assume that no one riding the main system has any mobility. Also, I'd argue that the reason a "substantial majority" of your transit population is "old, sick, or blind" is because it's such an unattractive option for anyone who has a choice. When the bus is slower than riding your bike, you're not getting Olympic athletes on that thing. |
|
|