Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 656 posts

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#11

Post by mschuster91 »

moralestapia wrote: post #2

Very detailed analysis. I agree with the claim that "fewer stops, faster service" on the surface. However we'd have to see if that's truly the case, as cities have red lights and traffic, so the bus stops anyway ... I believe, taking this into account, the difference might not be that significant.

> However we'd have to see if that's truly the case, as cities have red lights and traffic, so the bus stops anyway.

Two problems - for one, riders entering and exiting takes time, especially if the public transit scheme says you can only enter at the front and have to show/buy tickets at the driver, and the other problem is that in most areas, buses cannot request a green light, so with a loop time of 1-2 minutes (quite common in German cities on busy roads) you may easily lose 2-3 minutes in the worst case just from a mismatch of departure with the light being green.

And over the course of a few stops, that lost time can add up quickly.

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#12

Post by kshacker »

moralestapia wrote: post #2

Very detailed analysis. I agree with the claim that "fewer stops, faster service" on the surface. However we'd have to see if that's truly the case, as cities have red lights and traffic, so the bus stops anyway ... I believe, taking this into account, the difference might not be that significant.

Imagine stopping at the bus stop and then immediately stopping at red light

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#14

Post by benleejamin »

(Anecdotally) reliability is a huge factor for me — living in NYC, there are a few neighborhoods that would be much easier to reach by bus, but arrival times can vary by more than the length of the entire trip. Easier to just take a subway, even if it means an extra ten minutes of walking on each end.

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#15

Post by jghn »

forthwall wrote: post #9

I always bemoan the extra stops when I'm on the bus but I love always being near a bus stop; I do think the limited/skip stop bus idea is good though, as long as theres ones that alternate, though I do also like frequency, so hopefully service remains the same. I think though, more frequency beats speed though

As always, it's a careful balance. And specific to every bus route/stop combination, not to mention it can change over time. Routes should always be evaluated based on ridership data, where people are getting on & off, how long each stop actually delays the overall journey, and more.

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#17

Post by macintux »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #5

United states does not need buses ! What might benefit is smaller vans that do more intelligent routing than fixed bus routes. Unfortunately city admins run bus services as jobs programs for adults and not for the convenience of the people. Buses get funded by taxes and not fare collection and as a result even private competition can not emerge.

Sharing a van with strangers is more unpleasant than buses, given the cramped seating.

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#19

Post by petcat »

> 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.

Re: Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective

#20

Post by banana_sandwich »

aiauthoritydev wrote: post #5

United states does not need buses ! What might benefit is smaller vans that do more intelligent routing than fixed bus routes. Unfortunately city admins run bus services as jobs programs for adults and not for the convenience of the people. Buses get funded by taxes and not fare collection and as a result even private competition can not emerge.

nothing in this comment is rooted in reality
Post reply on HN