Remix.run Logo
evmar 11 hours ago

A trick I learned from an east bay friend is that (when possible) the bus across the bridge is way nicer than the BART under the bay, especially around sunset.

HaloZero 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The NL and other transbay buses are so fantastic. They do get stuck in bridge traffic though.

andrepd 9 hours ago | parent [-]

A bus that gets stuck in traffic is by definition a failure. It will (again by definition) never be a viable alternative to driving, meaning a reinforcing loop where more driving means more traffic for the bus to be stuck on, meaning the bus is even slower and less attractive...

paavope 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It will (again by definition) never be a viable alternative to driving

I don’t follow the logic here. Why would a bus (periodically) getting stuck in traffic forever invalidate it in comparison to getting stuck in the same traffic in a car?

mitxela 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In aggregate, people go the fastest way - no way to stop this from happening. In places where everyone takes public transit, the transit is fast. To make more people take public transit, you make the transit fast.

Reserving lanes as bus lanes can actually speed up car traffic by making more people switch to bus.

nayuki 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If buses and cars participate in the same road traffic (i.e. the bus doesn't have dedicated lanes), then a bus trip will never be faster than a comparable car trip. This is because you have to walk to/from the bus stop at both ends of the journey, wait for a bus to show up, ride the bus and have it stop for other passengers, transfer between routes, the bus has slower acceleration and turning than a car, etc.

Think about even the most strawman trip possible: A bus rider and a car driver start exactly at the location of a bus stop, the bus shows up exactly at the start time, both contestants ride/drive straight for a few kilometres (which happens to follow exactly one bus route, without changing buses; but the bus might stop a few times along the way for other passengers), and end exactly at a bus stop. The car will win every single time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQY6WGOoYis

mitxela 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Caveat: the bus can be a little bit slower and still win, because you don't need to drive. Or the car can be a little bit slower and still win, because people are antisocial. When the difference is more than a little, then you're correct.

sampullman 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's good to have dedicated bus lanes, but the point of a bus isn't to get from point A to point B faster than a car.

It's a part of a transit ecosystem that makes it possible to survive without a car. It fills in the the gaps where it's not economical to add train/metro lines.

8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
miki123211 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except that many buses broadcast their location, and many cities prioritize green lights for buses over cars.

So the car might need to stop on red multiple times (unless following a bus), while the bus will have most lights automatically turn green in front of it.

paavope 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, the car will be faster, unless there are accommodations that benefit the bus only (like dedicated lanes). But the bus doesn’t have to be _faster_ to be viable to many people: there are other things going for the bus like not having to park, often being cheaper especially if it allows you to not own a car, etc. etc.

mitxela 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A big one: no need to find parking! Or to go back to your parked car on the reverse trip. You can do a triangle trip A,B,C,A with public transit. With a car it has to be A,B,C,B,A as you left your car at B.

vel0city 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

I do trips like A,B,C,A all the time in a car. Sometimes even A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A trips in a car.

If you're sprinkling in little rules like "ah but you couldn't park at C", well, "the bus doesn't go to C" is also a valid restriction I run into often. So often when I take transit, its drive to train station -> take train someplace -> take bus someplace -> walk several blocks to destination -> walk several blocks back to bus stop -> ride bus to train station -> ride train back to train stop -> take car home so a A,B,C,D,C,B,A trip is actually quite common just to do the same as A,D,A with a car.

nikvaes 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Bus lanes make a bus a very good alternative to driving, and they are much more efficient space-wise compared to cars (and god forbid, pick-up trucks), which means you can get more throughput...

novia 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah but then you're on a bus...

alex_duf 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've heard multiple times Americans complaining about being on the bus.

Genuine question, what's up with being on the bus?

I lived in Vancouver BC, I can't see anything wrong with their bus. Not perfect, but yeah... It's a bus, goes from stop to stop. Anything special about bay area buses?

zjaffee 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Service quality is just abysmal, extremely crowded at basically all times, delayed or skips your stop when your standing there, when it isn't crowded there's all sorts of other issues with the service, and this doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really take you where you want to go without transfers.

Truthfully, whenever I'm in the bay area I just find myself walking. There's a reason why e-scooters first found major adoption there.

larusso 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah. I took the bus in NY and SF and I’m also not sure why the complained. Maybe because I’m a tourist but especially in SF I had always nice interactions with the driver. Mind you I took the Bus in the City Centers. Is it that much worse in the outskirts or is it just the concept of taking a Bus with multiple other people the problem?

novia 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We were discussing riding the bus to a place that depending on traffic is a 20 minute car ride from SF, or a 2 hour car ride in the worst case scenario traffic.

There are a few bridges that connect SF to other places across large bodies of water, the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge. These bridges do not provide a dedicated lane for the buses. These bridges act as a choke point for traffic. As a result, the buses are not reliably on time, because the traffic is hard to predict and it depends on whether or not people have a car accident that evening.

As I mentioned in another comment, these buses do not have bathrooms inside. So you are spending an unpredictable amount of time standing at an unsheltered bus stop, often with no bench to rest on, followed by an unknown amount of time on the bus.

The buses come infrequently enough that if you go find a restroom after waiting a while at the stop, and the bus comes while you are gone, it will be a decent chunk of your life spent waiting for the next bus to come as well.

This might be fine if you're on vacation and you just wanted to explore the Bay Area, but if you live here and work here, this is just too much time!

If you have a car, there is essentially no upside to taking the bus in this situation, which means if you are greedy and choose to drive instead you contribute to traffic by taking up more space on the road.

In contrast, if you choose to take the train, you know exactly how long the trip is going to be, because there's no variable traffic disrupting the schedules. It's predictable. It's convenient. Sometimes the train might get stopped for one reason or another, but the trains come so frequently that this is rarely an issue.

Before your trip, you're also inside a train station, which is sheltered, has seating, and even often has bathrooms.

There's a sign telling you clearly how long until the next train arrives, you don't have to count on something on your phone to find out.

larusso 5 hours ago | parent [-]

My understanding of the initial commend “But then you are on a bus” was a negative one to buses and or public transport in general.

I know the geology of SF and drove both bridges a few times myself but was always lucky to not end up in traffic. I would also always prefer the train over the bus. But currently where I live this also is put to the question. I live in Berlin and we have a great public transport network which at the moment struggles a bit on multiple fronts. This happens every few years at least in my experience.

I like to try out the public transport situation in different cities for my own comparison. Funny enough one of the best times I had was driving the metro in D.C. Met a very energetic metro employee who explained the machines and the system :).

IneffablePigeon 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's pure snobbery

throwaway473825 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think so. American buses are ridiculously outdated, while having to compete with some of the most well-equipped cars in the world. If Europe had such buses, they wouldn't be popular either.

mitxela 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Europe isn't the richest place. Some of the western cities surely have nice buses, but there are plenty of old shabby buses there too and people still ride them. Might be that the routing and timing sucks, or the general cultural individualism.

throwaway473825 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The places that have outdated buses also have outdated cars. This isn't the case in the US. The outdated buses have to compete with modern cars.

larusso 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Might want to visit Budapest. The charm are the old trams etc. and they have tons of modern cars.

frantathefranta 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In my experience, a Nissan Altima/GMC Acadia are about as nice as a Gillig bus.

lxgr 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Buses are widely perceived as signaling low socioeconomic status in the US, to the extent that it's become a self-reinforcing negative spiral. (As soon as a system loses its higher income riders due to real or perceived dangers or inconveniences, political support for tax subsidies and infrastructure investments (bus lanes etc.) tanks, quality then actually declines, rinse and repeat.)

I've taken buses in the Bay Area and New York a bunch of times and personally haven't had negative experiences (at least not compared to rail-based US transit), other than that the comfort of the buses was generally a few decades behind those in Europe. On the other hand, many of them even have Wi-Fi!

trollbridge 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Where I am, buses are heavily subsidised; cost is about $3 per passenger mile. Fares are much cheaper (so cheap nobody ever really thinks about it, other than worrying if they have quarters for exact change).

They are often empty or have 1 or 2 riders.

They are slow, often show up to a stop late, so you have to plan everything an hour early.

They don’t have amenities like bathrooms and are uncomfortable for long trips, even though that’s the only sensible way to use them.

Due to political pressures, they have many, many stops and few express buses, so they are much slower than a car. The stops usually have nobody at them but the driver still has to slow down and check (sometimes they will just skip a stop they know is almost always empty).

The bus depots are not particularly safe or pleasant after dark and have trouble with attracting antisocial people.

Meanwhile, it would be cheaper to just pay for Ubers for anyone who wants them, and just make the Uber show up randomly late to replicate the experience.

There is a market emerging here often branded as “hood Uber”, “Alicia’s Uber” etc of people who will drive you for $1 a mile (cheaper than Uber) negotiated by text message and paid via CashApp etc. It’s completely unregulated. Some are now offering regular service in a minivan on a fixed route taking people to/from employers every day.

lern_too_spel 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a double decker.

novia 11 hours ago | parent [-]

As a human who sometimes needs to use the restroom, I like my transit rides to take a predictable amount of time.

Sunset on the Bay Bridge is prime rush hour traffic time, and the favorite pasttime of many Bay Area drivers is to get in a traffic accident after work.

As far as I can tell, these double decker buses are not equipped with a restroom for their riders. Even though I'm sure the view is amazing, the red line is less often obstructed by traffic.

Barbing 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

West Oakland to Embarcadero is great: 7min BART, or 45-60(+) at rush hour on the bridge. No better timesave that I know of with BART.

trollbridge 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clean, comfortable restrooms on buses are possible. There just has to be the will to do it.

kyleee 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Easy to solve with a colostomy bag

kogger7 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Probably quite a few young men with these in California too lol

rrr_oh_man 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? Can you explain?

kogger7 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Rampant homosexuality

Drupon 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every person alive has had to use the restroom. What you mean is that you have a bladder issue.

novia 8 hours ago | parent [-]

No bladder issue. Probabilistically, when you load a bus up completely with people (the ideal situation for transit) one of them will have to use the restroom over the course of an hour and a half.

lern_too_spel 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It takes a truly exceptional jam to make the crossing take an hour and a half. What about all the people in cars?