Making Buses Better

One probably fair critique of my CityBracket challenge is that I overestimated the value of fixed rail over a good bus system. Bad rail certainly is less helpful than good buses, and honestly good buses are a key component in effective transit across a city regardless of the presence of rail.

However, there are also a lot of bad bus networks out there. Enough that they've given the bus as a whole a bad name.

So how do we make them better?

I have in mind this post in particular: how do we make people want to take transit, just using buses? It's not about making driving harder but about making driving not required.

1. Get Them Out of Traffic

Obviously if you actually got people out of their cars and into the buses, wholesale, that would solve the problem of buses getting stuck in traffic. But until that blessed day, the traffic is an issue.

So get the buses out of it.

This is a classic element of full bus rapid transit design, but it doesn't have to be BRT-branded to work. Seattle had a bus tunnel downtown (before they put rail into it) that did this even though nothing on the route would have been called "rapid" transit. When I was growing up, it definitely made buses a more attractive option downtown, because they were going through their own right of way that didn't have to parallel, duplicate, or even really interact with the right of way of cars.

The less time buses spend stuck in this, the more attractive they get.

Yes, cars also get stuck in traffic (see: all the cars above). But buses are already seen (at least in the US) as something of a tradeoff: I'm giving up being able to go door to door to my destination (unless I live at a bus stop and my destination is another one on the same route) in exchange for something--cost, speed, not having to park, etc. So in a car I could theoretically pull onto another route with less traffic, or at least have my own tunes playing; a bus doesn't have those amenities.

What it can have is a removal from traffic: bus lanes, bus tunnels, bus (and other transit/bike) access that cars can't take, etc. 

2. Speed Up the Routes (Zig Zags and Stop Spacing)

A lot of US cities (like the Quad Cities, for four) have winding bus routes in the name of coverage: the bus route goes less efficiently than the road network does between points, so that they can cover more of the city with service, even if that service is slowed down.

But then people with cars will notice that the service is slower than driving, and not take the service, making the "coverage" only for those who can afford no other option, rather than real coverage for all residents.

This also goes to a certain extent to stop spacing as well: if you have so many bus stops that the bus ends up much, much slower than driving, even direct trips get out-competed.

The 2 in Seattle has pretty good frequency and routing, and it interlocks with the 13, overlaps with the 1, and joins a bunch of buses downtown. All of that allows it to have a more direct route from Queen Anne to downtown without zigzagging through the neighborhood.

This is a good example of how to keep up the coverage with more direct routes. Good transfers, good frequency, and basically just more buses. 

Yes, this is why bus cuts can create a vicious spiral of doom: when you stop funding it, it gets worse, and no one rides it, so it needs more funding, which it doesn't get because no one is riding it.

3. Let Me Actually Catch A Bus

If seeing a bus in the wild feels like a miracle, people not only won't take it, they won't think about taking it.

Lincoln, NE has good bus routes, but this is the only time I've actually found one in the wild to photograph--not a great trend.

The more often you see buses, the more they feel like an option. That's because the more you see them, the more you could actually take them, because they're there. That means frequency, it means coverage, and it means putting them on routes that go where people are (so they see them, but also so you serve those places).

It also means not prioritizing individuals in cars over multiples of people in buses. Go ahead and put that bus stop right at the place people want to go. Give them signal priority. Give them dedicated places to load and unload and not just the side of the road.

\

This can be an issue with trams too, as in Toronto where they actually drop off in the middle of the street sometimes.

Put buses, and their infrastructure, like stops and lanes, in people's way so that they see them. And then let them actually ride them (including a functional pay system). Then people might actually take the bus.

Basically, a good bus system is totally possible: but you can't just slap some buses on a theoretical map and call it a day. You have to actually run enough buses, in good enough places, at good enough speeds and frequencies, for people to notice and act on noticing, so that you build up a system.

And then you have to not gut it when the larger government decides they hate your city, or all cities, or the concept of funding transit.

But that's a different concern. Build it, and people will at least ride it, even if you can't get funding later.