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

Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#51

Post by Macha »

deathanatos wrote: post #46
Macha wrote: post #20

Can only speak from the experience of my own country, but in Ireland This is the inside of a bus: http://www.cityswifty.com/SC241interior1.JPG This is the inside of a train: https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2831/9337782850_41264e4fd4_b.j... That should say it all as to why people like trains more.

Are those both public transit? Both of those, but particularly the bus, put anything I've seen here in America to shame. (Even private bus transit doesn't look that nice…)

Yes. The bus example I linked are as mentioned by a sibling comment mostly used for longer distance routes, but e.g. my usual bus route is the last leg of a much longer route so is one of those.

For routes that are confined to much smaller areas, we also have these buses: [1] (most of the country) and these ones: [2][3] (Dublin). The Dublin Bus ones in particular might be closer to what you'd expect from public transit.

[1]: http://www.cityswifty.com/MC20interior.JPG

[2]: http://www.dublinbusstuff.com/PhotoWeek/AV170%20-%20Interior...

[3]: http://www.cityswifty.com/Enviro400interior.JPG

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#52

Post by dfcowell »

vacri wrote: post #21

The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you'll find, if you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground. The faint sign of tracks on the ground... and that the tram is 50% longer than the bus. That's not minor. It's crazy that they went to the extent of designing the bus and the tram to look identical, then j…

Thank you! I can't believe I had to scroll almost to the bottom of the comments before someone picked up on the length issue.

To add to the already comprehensive list of reasons you gave for tram superiority - due to the electrical drivetrain and bogey system that all rail-based vehicles implement, there is generally more usable room for passengers inside the vehicle, as well as a much quieter environment due to the lack of engine noise. Additionally, the fact that light rail runs on, well, rails, means that generally speaking you enjoy a much more comfortable, smooth ride.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#53

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dfcowell wrote: post #52
vacri wrote: post #21

The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you'll find, if you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground. The faint sign of tracks on the ground... and that the tram is 50% longer than the bus. That's not minor. It's crazy that they went to the extent of designing the bus and the tram to look identical, then j…

Thank you! I can't believe I had to scroll almost to the bottom of the comments before someone picked up on the length issue. To add to the already comprehensive list of reasons you gave for tram superiority - due to the electrical drivetrain and bogey system that all rail-based vehicles implement, there is generally more usable room for passengers inside the vehicle, as well as a much quieter environment due to the…

I've ridden on light rail - and the 'quiet' feature was noticeably lacking. It was rattling, clacking, whooshing, pitching, vibrating so loudly that conversation was impossible. Whilst a bus is generally pretty comfortable and convenient. So I don't agree on that point.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#54

Post by bradleyland »

willyt wrote: post #47
robotcookies wrote: post #6

People do in general prefer trains over buses. This article is basically just saying that as you make the buses more train-like by giving them dedicated lanes and more reliability, people start to like buses more. Make them longer (articulated), faster, with dedicated lanes, and basically they start to become like a train with rubber tires. I think that is in fact, confirming people like trains better. Titles do matt…

Yes but in cities like LA which are planned around cars the major arteries are 3 lanes in each direction, so you can put up signs saying $200 fine if you use the bus lane, give buses priority at traffic lights, run articulated buses with pre paid tickets and you have buses that operate pretty much like trams ('light rail') at a fraction of the cost. In most European cities this won't work as streets are too narrow to…

I'm curious why can't buss s run in tunnels? Is it simply a problem of air quality because of emissions? I wonder if this could be solved by using hybrid diesel electric buses that run off of overhead electrical wiring in tunnels, but an onboard diesel-electric prime mover above ground.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#55

Post by cglace »

mistermann wrote: post #29
louisphilippe wrote: post #19

There is a catch-22 with buses. Buses would be a lot better if cities had congestion pricing that could greatly reduce traffic delays. Buses would also be a lot better if there were more routes and better frequency. But people oppose congestion pricing because it would make commutes much more expensive for the poor. But if you actually had it, then the bus would be a much more feasible form of transportation, because…

> congestion pricing Is that a surcharge for being on certain roads at certain times of the day? It's a good idea if it could be undertaken in a somewhat fair way, are there any well thought out theories that you know of?

Atlanta has "hot lanes" where the prices increase and decrease with the flow of traffic.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#56

Post by whopa »

bradleyland wrote: post #54
willyt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but in cities like LA which are planned around cars the major arteries are 3 lanes in each direction, so you can put up signs saying $200 fine if you use the bus lane, give buses priority at traffic lights, run articulated buses with pre paid tickets and you have buses that operate pretty much like trams ('light rail') at a fraction of the cost. In most European cities this won't work as streets are too narrow to…

I'm curious why can't buss s run in tunnels? Is it simply a problem of air quality because of emissions? I wonder if this could be solved by using hybrid diesel electric buses that run off of overhead electrical wiring in tunnels, but an onboard diesel-electric prime mover above ground.

The Silver Line in Boston is exactly that: dual mode buses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus), and part of the line is a dedicated tunnel for the buses, while the other part is normal streets.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#57

Post by TheCoelacanth »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #7
archagon wrote: post #2

The problem with buses is that they're completely unpredictable. You might as well not even look at the schedule. There's also the issue of having to purchase your ticket; buses rarely have automatic kiosks as do trains and light rail, and you often have to talk to the operator to get your ticket. Finally, bus routes are byzantine and completely impossible to unravel by looking at a map. Rail systems are much more am…

None of those problems apply to proper BRT systems. That's the author's point.

But proper BRT is very rare because it costs almost as much to build as light rail. If you are going to put that much money into it, you might as well spend a bit more and get the other advantages of light rail, e.g. lower operating costs, higher passenger capacity, lower emissions, less noise pollution, smoother ride, etc.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#58

Post by bryanlarsen »

archagon wrote: post #11
bryanlarsen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those problems apply to proper BRT systems. That's the author's point.

I don't see how you can avoid delays if you still have to follow traffic.

Good BRT systems use tunnels / bridges to avoid traffic. When they do interact with traffic lights, they have priority access.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#59

Post by baldfat »

DanBC wrote: post #44
uhwhat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains also sometimes have lounge cars, dining cars and theaters. Buses confine you to a cramped seat and if you're lucky there's a tiny bathroom on board.

In England some coaches (long distance buses) have tables (seat four people); power sockets and WIFI. They might have a fridge with cold bottled water. Some buses have WIFI.

We have wifi and nice coach buses in the US. Still don't want to ride them over a train. Trains are certainly faster and more dependable in terms of time of arrival.

Re: Preferences for Trains vs. Buses

#60

Post by dspeyer »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #7
archagon wrote: post #2

The problem with buses is that they're completely unpredictable. You might as well not even look at the schedule. There's also the issue of having to purchase your ticket; buses rarely have automatic kiosks as do trains and light rail, and you often have to talk to the operator to get your ticket. Finally, bus routes are byzantine and completely impossible to unravel by looking at a map. Rail systems are much more am…

None of those problems apply to proper BRT systems. That's the author's point.

The likelihood of getting a proper BRT system when a city sets out to build one seems a lot lower than the probability of getting working light rail. Granted, both are low.

In NYC, we have "dedicated lanes" for some of our buses. But there are no spikes in the ground and when someone parks in one, the bus doesn't actually smash the car out of the way. So we're back to the mercy of traffic.

Post reply on HN