Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by Gigachad » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #118

I believe the central thesis of this article is unsupported, and other assertions are false. One, the article asserts that too many stops is the main cause of low ridership in the US. I didn’t even see a correlation (which would still not prove one causes the other) between number of stops and ridership. This is the central thesis of the article. Two, removing stops will likely not make the remaining stops nicer. Cit…

At least in Melbourne, the tram network genuinely does have too many stops. Stops which are only a few minutes walk from each other.

Which results in the trams being incredibly slow compared to driving even if they are frequent, clean, and generally nice. Since the network already needs total overhaul to be wheelchair accessible, there has been a plan to combine 3 stops in to two wheelchair accessible ones. Which will also speed up the trams since they don’t have to stop as often.

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

#392

Post by mikestew » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #328

mikestew wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The muni…because it has to mark every single stop at every block just like any car instead of just having priority. What? I see English words, but it’s still not parseable.

There is technology at least with traffic lights so that buses get priority by detecting an oncoming bus and either extending the green or shortening the red.

Much more clear, thanks.

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

#393

Post by strken » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

righthand wrote: post #316

sailingparrot wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two, removing stops will likely not make the remaining stops nicer. Cities aren’t thinking about how to allocate a fixed bus budget. But that’s not at all what the article is about? The thesis is not that having bus stops with music and heating and free drinks will make more people take the bus, it’s that in the U.S., the slowness of buses is making them an unattractive option. And stopping too often is a major rea…

There is weird stigma in the US about buses but not trains (entirely). If you ride the bus you’re assumed poor or pathetic. I was in Colorado for work, they had me stay in Boulder and I would take the bus in the morning to Lafayette. A few people were on the bus in the morning when I got on and by the time we left Boulder city limits I had the bus to myself. Pretty fast, smooth, and cheap. I would then explain to my…

I took a Greyhound a couple of times when I was in the US, and the experience immediately showed me why Americans hate buses and coaches.

My first transfer was in Sacramento. The entire bus got held up for over an hour because someone saw a man with a knife and security had to search absolutely everyone to try to find it.

Half the stations were literally crumbling, as in the ceilings were falling down and covered in water stains and flecks of black mould. The drivers often turned up hours late, which is apparently expected and normal. The stations tended to be in exciting hotspots such as Skid Row, to cater for the desperate clientele who had no choice but to run the gauntlet.

Also, after the first time I rode it and told everyone about the knife that nobody ever found, people started showing me news stories about the man who got beheaded on a Greyhound in Canada.

Overall I think they have very patchy bus and coach systems and over-index on the worst examples.

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

#394

Post by Detrytus » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

rickydroll wrote: post #175

epolanski wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an European I don't mind buses at all. I neither feel unsafe nor I find them dirty. A single bus carries on average 20 times the people cars occupying the same space would (as you rarely get more than 1 person per car in peak hours). I'd rather take buses than the car in any city. Cars make cities dangerous, noisy, polluted, congestions make people nervous behind the wheel, fights are far from uncommon. Finding pa…

I know I'm a corner case on this, but there are two cases where our car life significantly improves your quality of life. 1: you live with ADHD: "Oh my God, I need to leave five minutes ago" scheduling method. To anyone who says, "You just need to be more disciplined about time," I refer you to the part about ADHD. 2: If your quality of life depends on activities that are more wilderness/far away from cities, such as…

1: This "ADHD" issue is because you've never seen properly ran bus system. I used to live in big European city, riding bus to work everyday, and I never even knew the bus schedule. I did not have to. They would come every 15 minutes, or every 7-8 minutes during the rush hour. So I could just show up at the stop anytime and be sure that a bus will appear quite soon. Zero advance planning required.

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

#395

Post by mattlondon » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:34 PM UTC

Yep this is a "problem" with buses in London. They stop all the time so you never get beyond about 15mph before you start slowing down again for the next stop. The 100% EV buses are better as they accelerate faster, but not by much.

They are starting to introduce "superloop" buses that interlink the more suburban "spokes" for tube & train so you can go "across" London without having to go to the centre and then back out again. I.e. basically express buses that only stop at tube & train stations and other major interchanges.

It is a great idea, but it has been done for political and ideological reasons. They have not introduced express buses for people who work in central London for example (so instead to get to central London on a bus from a suburb means stopping every hundred meters or so, so even with bus lanes progress is brutally slow). These buses going "across" are not actually that useful for most people I expect because people using transport for high-paying central London jobs will be going "in" not "across". It is the "working class" lower paying jobs that might benefit from sideways interconnects between the suburbs - this is the ideological/vote-buying reason they've introduced them.

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

#396

Post by iamcalledrob » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #384

iamcalledrob wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a US-centric perspective. In the US, buses (and public transport in general), are thought of as social programmes. Anyone can use them, but they are really for people who can't drive or are too poor to own a car. The rider makeup then looks like that. The elderly and the poor, sadly. Services run at a huge loss and are dependent on massive and unpopular government subsidies. Quality of service is bad.…

Busses get tiny subsides in the US. It’s a large percentage of total bus revenue by design, and a significant expense for some local governments. But the number only look large because of how we split the vast majority of government spending into federal and state budgets with local budgets being relatively anemic by comparison.

The farebox recovery ratio in the US is awful. Most cities are somewhere between 5-25% of operating expenses coming from fares.

Perhaps the tiny subsidies (in absolute terms) are because the bus systems are just so small?

SFMTA's farebox recovery is around 25%. London Underground is about 130%. Osaka Subway is 209%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

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

#397

Post by n8cpdx » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:48 PM UTC

I’m surprised at the chilly reception to this article.

I ride bus and MAX (light rail) in Portland and despite not being the worst offender, too frequent stops is quite noticeable. When the bus stops every two blocks to let one person on or off each time, it really slows things down.

You can also notice when playing Cities Skylines. It is quite intuitive that making your transit stop constantly is not efficient.

On the rail system, the system has been closing redundant stations and it has made it feel much faster. Small adjustments can make a big difference.

Sure I’d like more transit investment, but that can be paired with using resources well.

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

#398

Post by stevesimmons » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:51 PM UTC

retired wrote: post #378

enraged_camel wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Maybe it goes without saying, but the reason you don’t mind the bus in Europe is not because you are European but because the European buses are nicer. Actually I think it is both. Car culture in Europe is nowhere as dominant as it is in the US. Many Europeans grow up with public transportation as the default mode of getting around. So they are more likely to be accustomed to things that become grievances for Amer…

> public transportation as the default mode Do you have any sources on that? In basically any European country the car dominates and is used far more than public transport. Even in cycle-friendly Netherlands the majority of people go to work by car. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...

That's not majority of trips, it's by distance travelled.

Basically in the Netherlands, if you're within 5-10km, you go by bike. If public transport is reasonable, which it mostly is in urban areas, you take it. You'd almost never choose car within a major city, unless it's on the outskirts.

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

#399

Post by analog31 » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:51 PM UTC

iamcalledrob wrote: post #359

Retric wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm personally able to walk a block or two further “A block or 2” each way at the start and destination is a significant difference (4-8 blocks) for most elderly people. Busses fill two different roles, as primary means of transportation and arguably more importantly as a backup means of transportation. They can serve a vital role for cities without the kind of investment it would take to make most typical HN reade…

I think this is a US-centric perspective. In the US, buses (and public transport in general), are thought of as social programmes. Anyone can use them, but they are really for people who can't drive or are too poor to own a car. The rider makeup then looks like that. The elderly and the poor, sadly. Services run at a huge loss and are dependent on massive and unpopular government subsidies. Quality of service is bad.…

This idea occurred to me while I was traveling in Europe. Many of their trains have two classes of cars, where the first class is just slightly nicer. This could be done with buses too. Just alternate buses on the same route, that are expensive and free. The poor can take the free bus, and those who want a more exclusive social experience can pay for the expensive bus.

I can't make any excuses for the social and class implications, but if it got more people on the bus, it might only need to be a temporary measure.

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

#400

Post by AndrewDucker » Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 9:52 PM UTC

So removing the bus stops costs you 2 1/2 minutes of walking (150 seconds). And gains you 20 seconds per stop removed that you pass. Therefore you need to pass 8 removed stops to break even. Which seems like quite a commute to me.

I agree that low-stopping services are a good idea. Particularly in the suburbs. Use the high-stopping services to get people to the low-stopping services - and let them change buses for free/cheap. But I think that you still need regular stops, particularly if you are dealing with elderly people. And that in the middle of cities it's totally worth having a lot of stops, so that people can easily find one.