> it can't do much about things like bus stop placement

Why not? Fewer cars means more room for bus stops.

Because there has to be a place where the bus stop could sensibly be. A history of car-centric design often eliminates those opportunities.

▲

alamortsubite 2 days ago | parent [-]

I see. I think you're talking about stop placement on a higher level? Removing street parking can free up room for lots of extra stops, which can help with bus bunching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bunching

	▲	zahlman a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm talking about what you physically see, or even step over, at the actual physical location where you're contemplating putting the bus stop; which is there because people were only thinking about cars when doing the zoning and construction.

▲

bluGill a day ago | parent | prev [-]

car centric areas put their front door far from anyplace a but can easilly get. Either the but slows everyone else down because it is going in and out of all these parking lots and cul-de-sacs, or the walk from the but stop to where you are going is already your entire travel budget.

▲

alamortsubite a day ago | parent [-]

I think it gets confusing because we start out talking about cities but we'd also like to include other areas that are overrun with cars in the conversation. Buses in Ghent and Paris aren't going to be navigating parking lots and cul-de-sacs, no matter how much car infrastructure is removed. We can free up a lot of room for bus stops, though, which helps keep buses moving smoothly.

	▲	bluGill 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Suburbs are either cities in their own right, or part of the whole city. It deoesn't make sense in this discussion to think of them as not part af the city: they cover too much of the population.