10 Cities Where Buses Are Normal and Good, Actually

[homebucket]

I know we tend to focus mainly on rail transit here on SSP, but it's important to remember that buses are critical to a good transit system as well.

• Video Link

10. Baltimore 3:13
9. Pittsburgh 3:45
8. Portland 4:10
7. Los Angeles 4:41
6. Las Vegas 5:31
5. Washington DC 6:19
4. Seattle 6:43
3. New York City 9:39
2. SF/Oakland 10:17
1. Honolulu 11:05

Honorable Mentions:
Denver 8:07
Boston
Philadelphia
Chicago
Ames

Dishonorable Mentions:
Mission Viejo

[edale]

I know buses are an important component of any transit system, but I absolutely hate them. Taking the bus is miserable, imo. They're slow and jerky and stop every other block, and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, so they're almost never on schedule. Routes can change on a whim, so it's hard to plan around them from a land use perspective. They're loud and smell bad, suck to drive next to, and, at least in LA, are hostile to pedestrians. The amount of times I've almost been hit in a crosswalk by a bus turning right on red is insane. My friend actually got her foot run over by a Metro bus in LA while crossing in a crosswalk.

The only time I don't really mind buses is when they operate in true BRT fashion, in a grade separated ROW. LA's orange line busway is pretty good. Pittsburgh also has some good grade separated BRT which was very convenient to use.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by edale

I know buses are an important component of any transit system, but I absolutely hate them. Taking the bus is miserable, imo. They're slow and jerky and stop every other block, and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, so they're almost never on schedule. Routes can change on a whim, so it's hard to plan around them from a land use perspective. They're loud and smell bad, suck to drive next to, and, at least in LA, are hostile to pedestrians. The amount of times I've almost been hit by a bus in a crosswalk that's turning right on red is insane. My friend actually got her foot run over by a Metro bus in LA while crossing in a crosswalk.

The only time I don't really mind buses is when they operate in true BRT fashion, in a grade separated ROW. LA's orange line busway is pretty good. Pittsburgh also has some good grade separated BRT which was very convenient to use.

The good systems manage to be reasonably fast and frequent even without BRT. Bus lanes and wider stop spacing can be nearly as good. They can also be clean burning or electric. Being on-time seems to be an issue regardless, but it's less important with good frequency.

[Nite]

Toronto is usually first on this list and even with a subpar rapid transit system , it excels with a frequent bus network that goes all over the city. you are never far from a bus nearby in Toronto

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto is usually first on this list and even with a subpar rapid transit system , it excels with a frequent bus network that goes all over the city. you are never far from a bus nearby in Toronto

Ahead of New York?

[Busy Bee]

^ The graph excludes NYCT

[mhays]

New York came in #3, because rail takes most of their riders.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by mhays

New York came in #3, because rail takes most of their riders.

And Toronto scores so highly largely because it’s rapid transit system is so wildly undersized.

As all the new lines open up Toronto’s bus ridership numbers will drop a lot. Eglinton and Finch West will probably remove nearly 100k daily bus trips.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by edale

I know buses are an important component of any transit system, but I absolutely hate them. Taking the bus is miserable, imo. They're slow and jerky and stop every other block, and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, so they're almost never on schedule. Routes can change on a whim, so it's hard to plan around them from a land use perspective. They're loud and smell bad, suck to drive next to, and, at least in LA, are hostile to pedestrians. The amount of times I've almost been hit in a crosswalk by a bus turning right on red is insane. My friend actually got her foot run over by a Metro bus in LA while crossing in a crosswalk.

In other words, buses suck in every way possible? Pedestrian safety seems like city-wide and nation-wide issue. Are there stats that show that buses are disproportionately involved in pedestrian collisions anywhere?

If buses are stopping too often or failing to stay on schedule, that is a sign that the ridership is too high or the routes are too long for conventional bus service. Time to implement rapid transit measures, including limited-stops. Does LA not have express bus routes? It seems like a failure of system design rather than anything inherent to buses. Probably every major street in LA should have an express route.

As for buses being smelly, nothing inherent to buses. If the transit agency cleans only the trains but not the buses, that's the agency's fault. Same with the constant and sudden changing of the bus routes.

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto is usually first on this list and even with a subpar rapid transit system , it excels with a frequent bus network that goes all over the city. you are never far from a bus nearby in Toronto

Even the NYC area has a huge bus network if you include NJT. But even NYCT alone, the ridership per capita is not far from TTC and STM. High bus ridership is important for rail systems everywhere. When a rail system becomes an anti-bus system, it will fail, and of course the bus system will fail too.

Toronto is a good example of how the lack of rail is holding the bus system back. Maybe that is the same case with Los Angeles too. Expansion of rail is successful when motivated by a desire for expand the bus service.

You can see all over the US what happens when rail is starved of riders due to lack of buses feeding into the stations. Why does the L train have only half the ridership of the TTC subway even though it is twice the size? Lack of buses. You don't like buses? Then forget about building rail.

[mrnyc]

busses are pretty great in nyc.

hell, you dont even have to pay.

meanwhile, way back in the day in cleveland one memorable time i was waiting for the rta bus in the rain and the bus driver drove at a puddle on purpose gave me the finger and never stopped. i was much more shocked than pissed off lol.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto is usually first on this list and even with a subpar rapid transit system , it excels with a frequent bus network that goes all over the city. you are never far from a bus nearby in Toronto

Somehow they forgot that Mexico is in North America. I know it clarifies in the subheading, but the US and Canada are shady when it comes to that label.

[SnowFire]

One of the biggest problems with busses are the drivers. You get slow lazy ones trying to hit every stop light, and you get race car drivers.

Bus automation is needed.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Somehow they forgot that Mexico is in North America. I know it clarifies in the subheading, but the US and Canada are shady when it comes to that label.

shady? or … lazy?

i mean this is what happens when you have twenty somethings filling the voracious internet content maw with unedited blather for peanuts.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by edale

I know buses are an important component of any transit system, but I absolutely hate them. Taking the bus is miserable, imo. They're slow and jerky and stop every other block, and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, so they're almost never on schedule. Routes can change on a whim, so it's hard to plan around them from a land use perspective. They're loud and smell bad, suck to drive next to, and, at least in LA, are hostile to pedestrians. The amount of times I've almost been hit in a crosswalk by a bus turning right on red is insane. My friend actually got her foot run over by a Metro bus in LA while crossing in a crosswalk.

The only time I don't really mind buses is when they operate in true BRT fashion, in a grade separated ROW. LA's orange line busway is pretty good. Pittsburgh also has some good grade separated BRT which was very convenient to use.

Originally Posted by Doady

In other words, buses suck in every way possible? Pedestrian safety seems like city-wide and nation-wide issue. Are there stats that show that buses are disproportionately involved in pedestrian collisions anywhere?

If buses are stopping too often or failing to stay on schedule, that is a sign that the ridership is too high or the routes are too long for conventional bus service. Time to implement rapid transit measures, including limited-stops. Does LA not have express bus routes? It seems like a failure of system design rather than anything inherent to buses. Probably every major street in LA should have an express route.

As for buses being smelly, nothing inherent to buses. If the transit agency cleans only the trains but not the buses, that's the agency's fault. Same with the constant and sudden changing of the bus routes.

Buses can be slow because of frequent stops, but I think that's actually one of the main advantages of buses over rail, which is far more expensive to expand and maintain. They're more easily accessible because there are stops within short walking distance of most people. They're easy to get on and off since stops are right there on the sidewalk (no need to enter a station). Buses serve as a good complement to a good rail system since they help serve the first/last mile or two and/or fill in other gaps or connections.

Speed can also be improved. With road diets/bus only lanes coupled with limited/express/rapid services and transit signal priority, it can still be as fast or faster than driving (and definitely cheaper), especially when you factor the time and cost it takes to park in parking limited cities. Yes it'll never be as fast or smooth as rail, but it's the perfect complement.

While routes can sometimes slightly change, it still shouldn't affect planning much since most buses still run along some major arterial where density can be focused. As far as safety, infrastructure improvements such as new crosswalks and sidewalk extensions or bulb outs should be implemented city wide. Same with cleanliness, which is probably more city/agency specific.

Also, it's a good way to see the city in a way more rail cannot since most urban rail is typically underground.

[mrnyc]

^ actually rail is cheaper than busses on busy bus routes in the err, long run.

for example, i think rail cars last as long as 5-6 busses over a lifetime if taken care of.

i read that somwhere.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Somehow they forgot that Mexico is in North America. I know it clarifies in the subheading, but the US and Canada are shady when it comes to that label.

The dividing line between "North" and "Central" is subjective. Just like Europe vs. Asia. There are different definitions based on geography, culture, national borders... NA can be a shorthand for the US and Canada, ideally with an added line for clarification as this example has.

As for cost (mrnyc), I believe your comparison is only operating and vehicle costs, not system construction.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

I know buses are an important component of any transit system, but I absolutely hate them. Taking the bus is miserable, imo. They're slow and jerky and stop every other block, and they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else, so they're almost never on schedule. Routes can change on a whim, so it's hard to plan around them from a land use perspective. They're loud and smell bad, suck to drive next to, and, at least in LA, are hostile to pedestrians. The amount of times I've almost been hit in a crosswalk by a bus turning right on red is insane. My friend actually got her foot run over by a Metro bus in LA while crossing in a crosswalk.

The only time I don't really mind buses is when they operate in true BRT fashion, in a grade separated ROW. LA's orange line busway is pretty good. Pittsburgh also has some good grade separated BRT which was very convenient to use.

Buses are the backbone of greater LA's public transit system. According to APTA's first quarter ridership report, the region's transit agencies provided on average some 938,200 weekday bus trips (the MTA providing 634,900 of those). If we want to improve public transit in this sprawling region, then we must improve the bus systems first and foremost. Additional rail lines are under construction and planned, but there is not a chance in hell that we can provide light rail, let alone subway, service for even a majority of those current bus riders.

Per the APTA report, buses also remain the backbone of San Francisco's public transit system. San Diego, on the other hand, has a more even modal split--SD's main transit agency provided 109,500 average weekday light rail trips, and 111,000 average weekday bus trips.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by mhays

The dividing line between "North" and "Central" is subjective. Just like Europe vs. Asia. There are different definitions based on geography, culture, national borders... NA can be a shorthand for the US and Canada, ideally with an added line for clarification as this example has.

This is exactly what I mean by shady. Because Mexico is not on the same “level” as the US and Canada it can just be excluded due to subjectivity.

According to the UN, North America includes 3 regions Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean. Anglos adopting the term North America to mean Northern America is shady AND lazy in my opinion. I’m sure people who use it that way think otherwise.


Anyway, back to the topic at hand

Originally Posted by mhays

Bus lanes and wider stop spacing can be nearly as good.

Chicago has some of the shortest spacing when it comes to bus stops. A huge factor in this is the size of the blocks. Going N/S if you skip a block then the spacing is probably too far apart, but right now it’s really slowing down buses that are stopping every block. I’d love to see CTA put some thought into figuring out functional spacing.

[SnowFire]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

This is exactly what I mean by shady. Because Mexico is not on the same “level” as the US and Canada it can just be excluded due to subjectivity.

According to the UN, North America includes 3 regions Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean. Anglos adopting the term North America to mean Northern America is shady AND lazy in my opinion. I’m sure people who use it that way think otherwise.


Anyway, back to the topic at hand



Chicago has some of the shortest spacing when it comes to bus stops. A huge factor in this is the size of the blocks. Going N/S if you skip a block then the spacing is probably too far apart, but right now it’s really slowing down buses that are stopping every block. I’d love to see CTA put some thought into figuring out functional spacing.

It would be great if buses could trigger a longer green so they move their arses a bit faster.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Not sure how they defined outside core city vs inside core city, but it does seem in line with my user experience. The stops in the suburban areas of SF metro are way too far apart, and within SF proper, they are juuust a tad too close together, but that's what express and rapid services are for I suppose, although I do like that I never have to walk too far to get to a bus stop.

But yes, for a bus system to be successful, the transit agency needs to study and analyze city, and even neighborhood specific usage patterns to determine optimal spacing, and utilize local and/or rapid service when applicable, and where stops are conveniently located for passengers to walk to, but also not too close together where service gets slowed down too much.