I would also put in a plea for more direct ( A to B with out diversions to C through ...). My connection to the DC Metro takes several detours off of the obvious route - to a hospital, to a business, to a commercial area, all to minimise the walking distance for some at the expense of travel time for everyone. The end result is a trip time that is at least double what it should be and this drives me away and I assume it impacts others in the same way.
Take hospitals off that list. If you're taking the bus to a hospital, the odds are decent that having to traverse extra distance is burdensome.
But you do bring up a terrifically valid point: Most buses today are trying to traverse landscapes that were created by, for and only for cars; those landscapes are not sustainable in the long term. Fixing it would be job that greatly exceeds the capacity of a bus system.
Most urban standard bus trips are not that long in duration (from getting on the bus to getting off the bus). Most of the time of the trip is getting to the bus stop, waiting for the bus, and getting from the the bus stop at the other end to the actual destination. More distance between stops so the bus can average 10mph instead of 8? Wouldn't hurt. But it's not the topmost of issues.
For example, if I have to walk three blocks instead of two to get to the bus stop it's no big deal (of course in a few years I might not say that, but...). But if I have to wait for twenty-five minutes in the middle of the day ... that's a big deal. If the journey from my stop to my destination is three blocks instead of two that's fine. But if that journey involves crossing two six lane stroads where it is clear that pedestrians are a dangerous enemy who is not welcome with everything optimized for the comfort of vehicles, that's a problem.
If, during the main part of the day one needs to think of bus schedules for intraurban buses, that is A FAILURE. And it's not going to be cured by making stops a little further apart.
I don’t know about Europe but in NYC in the rare cases when I took the bus it’s hard to know which stop to get off on if you were in an unfamiliar neighborhood. Better signage in the interior of the bus would be helpful.
Here in Iraq, we do not have bus stops; buses roam the street on certain paths people know, and people can wave at the bus and it will stop for them. This is not that big a problem since most buses are Kia minivans that hold ~14 people, so there is not a lot of dwell time. Larger buses (generally Coaster vans that hold ~25 people) generally operate in areas with high enough traffic that you are not moving faster than 20km/h anyway, so stopping here and there doesn’t slow things that much.
In the end, the routes within Baghdad are composed of minivans connecting the outskirts and larger vans connecting the congested downtown. Almost 70% of Baghdadis use the system and it is generally very cheap; you can go from one end of the city to the other for $1, in maybe 130-140% of the time that it would take you to do that in a taxi or your own car.
This is a system that arose due to the general lawlessness of Iraq and a lack of public transport options like metros and trains, but I think it is efficient even in comparison to Europe. Everyone can just go to the street near them and stop a bus, and the routes get allocated smartly because it is the market doing it; drivers are incentivized to go on routes that get their buses filled, so bus allocation ends up being really efficient.
The way to "increase" ridership is to make it more inconvenient for people who ACTUALLY USE THE BUS.
How many times will increasing the distance put a pedestrian unfriendly road in between the rider and the bus? Are the people who use the bus able to walk an extra block or two? Are those blocks well lit and busy for those of us who take the bus late at night?
As for MDScot's wh-complaint - the people who use the bus most are working class people who need to get to the places they work - a hospital, a business, a commercial area - and not just to the Metro.
I'm going to suggest that he should be looking at WMATA buses and not the Ride-ons which usually have a more direct route.
For all of you who think this is a great idea, do you live in a suburb or a city? Do you do your grocery shopping using a bus? Does your job require you to stand on your feet?
As someone who uses the bus roughly two or three times a month, I can tell you that the people I share a bus with do not look like they need any extra hassle.
And if you are not a regular bus user, the next day it rains, please feel free to take a bus.
Great article, but the typo in the title will keep some people from reading it, or taking it seriously. It should read "America" not "American", or "American Buses need fewer stops"
I would also put in a plea for more direct ( A to B with out diversions to C through ...). My connection to the DC Metro takes several detours off of the obvious route - to a hospital, to a business, to a commercial area, all to minimise the walking distance for some at the expense of travel time for everyone. The end result is a trip time that is at least double what it should be and this drives me away and I assume it impacts others in the same way.
Take hospitals off that list. If you're taking the bus to a hospital, the odds are decent that having to traverse extra distance is burdensome.
But you do bring up a terrifically valid point: Most buses today are trying to traverse landscapes that were created by, for and only for cars; those landscapes are not sustainable in the long term. Fixing it would be job that greatly exceeds the capacity of a bus system.
Sure.
But it depends on so much more than the route.
Most urban standard bus trips are not that long in duration (from getting on the bus to getting off the bus). Most of the time of the trip is getting to the bus stop, waiting for the bus, and getting from the the bus stop at the other end to the actual destination. More distance between stops so the bus can average 10mph instead of 8? Wouldn't hurt. But it's not the topmost of issues.
For example, if I have to walk three blocks instead of two to get to the bus stop it's no big deal (of course in a few years I might not say that, but...). But if I have to wait for twenty-five minutes in the middle of the day ... that's a big deal. If the journey from my stop to my destination is three blocks instead of two that's fine. But if that journey involves crossing two six lane stroads where it is clear that pedestrians are a dangerous enemy who is not welcome with everything optimized for the comfort of vehicles, that's a problem.
If, during the main part of the day one needs to think of bus schedules for intraurban buses, that is A FAILURE. And it's not going to be cured by making stops a little further apart.
I don’t know about Europe but in NYC in the rare cases when I took the bus it’s hard to know which stop to get off on if you were in an unfamiliar neighborhood. Better signage in the interior of the bus would be helpful.
DC/MD buses have both a lit sign behind the driver and an automatic announcement of the next stop.
Which makes it so much easier when taking a new bus route.
Here in Iraq, we do not have bus stops; buses roam the street on certain paths people know, and people can wave at the bus and it will stop for them. This is not that big a problem since most buses are Kia minivans that hold ~14 people, so there is not a lot of dwell time. Larger buses (generally Coaster vans that hold ~25 people) generally operate in areas with high enough traffic that you are not moving faster than 20km/h anyway, so stopping here and there doesn’t slow things that much.
In the end, the routes within Baghdad are composed of minivans connecting the outskirts and larger vans connecting the congested downtown. Almost 70% of Baghdadis use the system and it is generally very cheap; you can go from one end of the city to the other for $1, in maybe 130-140% of the time that it would take you to do that in a taxi or your own car.
This is a system that arose due to the general lawlessness of Iraq and a lack of public transport options like metros and trains, but I think it is efficient even in comparison to Europe. Everyone can just go to the street near them and stop a bus, and the routes get allocated smartly because it is the market doing it; drivers are incentivized to go on routes that get their buses filled, so bus allocation ends up being really efficient.
Right.
The way to "increase" ridership is to make it more inconvenient for people who ACTUALLY USE THE BUS.
How many times will increasing the distance put a pedestrian unfriendly road in between the rider and the bus? Are the people who use the bus able to walk an extra block or two? Are those blocks well lit and busy for those of us who take the bus late at night?
As for MDScot's wh-complaint - the people who use the bus most are working class people who need to get to the places they work - a hospital, a business, a commercial area - and not just to the Metro.
I'm going to suggest that he should be looking at WMATA buses and not the Ride-ons which usually have a more direct route.
For all of you who think this is a great idea, do you live in a suburb or a city? Do you do your grocery shopping using a bus? Does your job require you to stand on your feet?
As someone who uses the bus roughly two or three times a month, I can tell you that the people I share a bus with do not look like they need any extra hassle.
And if you are not a regular bus user, the next day it rains, please feel free to take a bus.
also affects foot traffic for small businesses.
Great article, but the typo in the title will keep some people from reading it, or taking it seriously. It should read "America" not "American", or "American Buses need fewer stops"