• jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Buses are great for public transit and the most cost effective option for some communities. There also seems to be a stigma against buses, though, where people are more willing to take a train than a bus. I’m starting to suspect that stigma extends to people wanting to build trains instead of buses that can get the same job done for less money than building a brand new train system.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I live in a city with a decent network of busses and trains. The trains are just nicer. The trains aren’t that different in fanciness to the busses, but they are bigger on the inside and I think that makes a big difference.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      There also seems to be a stigma against buses, though, where people are more willing to take a train than a bus.

      I’ll absolutely take a train over a bus if they are going to the same destination.

      • train has fewer stops meaning train reaches the destination faster
      • train has ultimate right-of-way, and doesn’t have to stop for pedestrians on the tracks, red lights, or other things
      • trains in some cities, go under waterways meaning more direct routes than busses
      • there’s more space inside trains and usually more choice of seats. Standing is also an option which isn’t allowed on most busses
      • acceleration and deceleration are more predictable and comfortable
      • nearly all metro light rail trains are powered by electricity, while many city busses remain diesel
      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Having lived in several countries in Europe, in and around major cities, I have actually chosen the train over even the tube (aka subway) because it’s significantly faster for longer distances (fewer stops, better acceleration) and in general more pleasant (a bit more space, actual open spaces outside the windows rather than just dark walls).

        In my experience, trains, subway and buses have different optimal use cases: trains for longer distance (in a city context that’s 20+ km) mass transportation of people to and from hub points in the city (they basically feed people to and from cities), the subway distributes people around the city center and buses are what feeds the trains and tube stations in the areas further away from the city center (were the subway coverage is far more spread out) and in cities without a subway they do the work of the subway (but they’re less efficient than one).

        Note that I’m not talking about the use case of trains to transporting people between different cities at long distances (50km+), but a different use case which is of trains for commuting which feed people from the suburbs and satellite cities to a main city and back.

        Trams basically fit the same niche as the subway when there’s no subway - they’re much cheaper do deploy but can get stuck in traffic unless the tram lines are in physically segregated lanes from automobile traffic.

        The way I’ve seen buses used in general is them set-up to going around to “every nook and crany” in residential areas plus with main tube/train stations as part of their route (often at the start and end of the bus line), so they have pretty windy routes and are a pretty slow way to do longer (5km+) distances since they’re really there to feed people to and from the train and tube lines so are trying to cover as much of the residentia areas as possible hence travel back and forth in out of the way places and stop a lot.

        Buses are also used in the city centers when there is good subway coverage but there they tend to just be secondary to the subway, generally just making up for gaps or other flaws in the subway network design (for example, parallel subway lines which only join far away so to do the trip with the subway you would have to go all the away around so the bus has a direct route) and as you get further out from the city center and the subway lines open up a spread out to cover those areas which end up too far from a subway station.

        When the timetables of those things are properly synched it’s really amazing: you can be living in a suburban area or smaller village outside the city proper, use a bus (or a bicycle, or walk) to get to the train station, catch a train to a main station in the city center and in there switch to the subway which takes you to a station near your destination were you just exit and then just walk to your final destination (with a proper subway service, in the central area of the city you seldom have to walk more than 500m to get anywhere from the nearest subway station) and you’ve spent maybe 30 - 45m to get from a house or appartment in the suburbs to an office in the center of a major city, zero chance of getting stuck in traffic, no worries about having to find a parking space, way less exposure to polution that if driving.

      • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Most of those can addressed by busses too actually.

        Train has fewer stops meaning train reaches the destination faster

        Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or any bus line can have less stop for this reason. To expand on BRT routes, they can be dedicated lanes for busses, with right of way. They can be specific only for busses, and cars not allowed to use it ever or also mixed usage where certain rush hours are for bus use only but outside those hours can be used by other vehicles.

        Train has ultimate right-of-way, and doesn’t have to stop for pedestrians on the tracks, red lights, or other things

        This can also be done with BRT routes.

        trains in some cities, go under waterways meaning more direct routes than busses

        BRT as well.

        there’s more space inside trains and usually more choice of seats. Standing is also an option which isn’t allowed on most busses

        Busses can absolutely support this. Paris has more open busses to allow more people standing or people with disabilities.

        acceleration and deceleration are more predictable and comfortable

        With dedicated BRT lanes, I believe that can also be done considering there’s only bus stops that need to be slowed down on.

        Nearly all metro light rail trains are powered by electricity, while many city busses remain diesel

        I know technically electric busses are possible, but I’m not certain how feasible this is.

        My understanding is that BRT routes are cheaper and faster to setup than trains, and can be upgraded to trains. I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the US.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          For this discussion, you’re really torturing the definition of a bus if you’re going to use BRT to mean busses. BRT does not meet most peoples definition of “city bus” as the conversation up to now has suggested.

          I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the U

          BRT would nearly always be a zero sum solution to make your statement true. You would have to subtract from current roads that accommodate traffic to create BRT to meet your metric. Land, espeically in dense cities is nearly always already allocated. If anything besides the zero sum BRT, light rail would likely be a better choice than BRT because it can subterranean or elevated with fewer building challenges/dangers.

          I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the US

          I’m interested in an example of a city you have a in mind that BRT would be a better choice than city busses or light rail.

        • DempstersBox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hey, BRT is great! I’ll happily support that rather than building regular car infrastructure.

          I also still vastly prefer the train. Or a ferry, if that’s an option.

          Point not brought up by the other person: Bicycles. I am primarily a bike commuter, and have had one good experience with a bike and bus:

          Last bus out of the city, like 2:30am. Driver has no time for our shit, tells us to bring them inside and hang on, to hell with the front rack. We didn’t even pay.

          I’ve also had my bike half pop out of said front rack, get taco’d, and got absolutely nothing out of it. Totally fucked. No restitution.

          Best case with bikes on a bus is you get lucky and get a spot, usually you’re better off just riding the whole way.

          Trains, have room. Never not made a train with my bike.

        • IHateReddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago
          • trains can drive at higher speeds than buses
          • train wheels don’t emit microplastic particles like bus tires do
          • trains are significantly safer than buses
          • trains move on tracks which results in them moving in a stable and predictable way while buses often shake more which can result in people feeling sick (happens to me often when taking the bus)