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

21–30 of 656 posts

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

#21

Post by piinbinary »

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.

That's an interesting point.

I'm also curious how bus stops interact with timed lights. Presumably each time the bus stops, it gets kicked back to the next cycle of green lights (which might be a low-single-digit minute delay).

Hopefully there's a traffic engineer in the audience who can give the real answers.

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

#23

Post by bluGill »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

> Bus stop balancing saves riders’ time. Riders save between 12 and 24 seconds per stop removed. I wonder if this savings includes the additional time to walk further to a stop. Especially in light of this quote: > In England, where 28 percent of all bus passengers are on concessionary fares for age or disability

It depends on how long you are on the bus. It cost a few minutes, but a couple miles on the but makes up for the lost time. So for short trips where healty people should walk or bike it slows things down but for longer trips it is faster.

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

#24

Post by bpodgursky »

petcat wrote: post #19

> 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 s…

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.

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

#25

Post by nine_k »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #7
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.

> and as a result even private competition can not emerge. Demonstrably untrue, if you were to look at taxis, ubers, lyfts, and ... small vans that operate exactly as you describe, in many large cities. (In NYC, I know there exists such a van network in Brooklyn, and near the George Washington Bridge running across the river.) And besides, buses have advantages that "intelligent routing"-based vans - predictability a…

Confirmed: the van network in Brooklyn exists, a ride still costs $2 (compared to $3 on an MTA bus), the vans / minibuses largely follow popular bus routes, and stop basically anywhere along the route where it is safe, including on a red light.

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

#26

Post by heyitsmedotjayb »

I think this kind of thing is a bigger problem than people realize. I take a regional commuter bus to and from my local international airport when I fly. The huge bus has to slowly and carefully enter my local universities 'bus loop', making several tight turns through traffic lights to get to the bus stop, and then make the journey out again. It takes 10-15 minutes in traffic to move the bus ~200feet from the boulevard to the bus stop and back to the boulevard again.

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

#27

Post by mothballed »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #7
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.

> and as a result even private competition can not emerge. Demonstrably untrue, if you were to look at taxis, ubers, lyfts, and ... small vans that operate exactly as you describe, in many large cities. (In NYC, I know there exists such a van network in Brooklyn, and near the George Washington Bridge running across the river.) And besides, buses have advantages that "intelligent routing"-based vans - predictability a…

I've ridden collectivo type vans in a number of latin america countries (Philippines has same although sometimes in form of jeepnee), they work quite well, you shout 'para' or some such where you need to stop and wave boldly when you need to get on. Much prefer it to a bus, and also since they are privately owned it is very easy to kick assholes off which is one of my biggest gripes with dealing with public transit.

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

#28

Post by petcat »

bpodgursky wrote: post #24
petcat wrote: post #19

> 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 s…

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.

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.

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

#29

Post by IAmBroom »

kshacker wrote: post #12
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

I'm guessing you don't live in a city. They plan bus stops at lights, so that doesn't really happen - just sometimes there's an extra-long bus pause for mount/dismount.

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

#30

Post by piinbinary »

Back when I lived in SF, there was one bus route (the 6, I believe) that I could use to get to work. The bus was so slow due to frequent, long stops and traffic lights that I could keep up with it on foot by walking briskly. I only bothered taking it when it was raining because it didn't get me to work any faster than walking.
Post reply on HN