Bus stop balancing is fast, cheap, and effective
Many US cities have an abundance of bus stops, slowing service to a crawl and hindering overall efficiency. This article suggests that strategically removing stops, akin to European practices, could significantly boost speed and reliability, all while cutting costs. However, the Hacker News community vigorously debates the political will required and the potential negative impacts on accessibility for vulnerable riders, highlighting deeper systemic issues within American public transit.
The Lowdown
The article from Works in Progress champions "bus stop balancing" as a low-cost, highly effective strategy to rejuvenate public bus transit in the United States. It posits that America's dense concentration of bus stops, particularly in older cities, makes service slow, unreliable, and expensive compared to European counterparts.
- US bus stops are often spaced 700-800 feet apart, versus 1,300 feet in Western Europe, leading to slower service. Frequent stopping accounts for roughly 20% of a bus's total travel time, encompassing dwell time for passengers and non-dwell time for deceleration, acceleration, and maneuvering.
- This inefficiency makes buses less competitive with other transport modes, reduces ridership, and inflates labor costs, as drivers are paid hourly.
- The sheer number of stops in the US also prevents adequate investment in amenities like shelters, seating, and real-time information, common in European cities.
- Bus stop balancing, by increasing stop spacing, has demonstrated significant improvements in travel speeds (e.g., 4.4-14% in San Francisco) and reliability, making bus travel more predictable and less frustrating.
- Faster buses enable higher service frequency with the same number of vehicles and drivers, leading to substantial operational cost savings (e.g., $700,000 CAD annually for one Vancouver route), which can be reinvested.
- Contrary to intuition, consolidating stops often expands a transit network's effective reach (isochrones) and has minimal impact on overall coverage, as many stops have overlapping 'walksheds.'
Ultimately, the author argues that bus stop balancing is a rare, implementable reform that offers immediate benefits without requiring massive financial or political capital, transforming bus service from a last resort into a genuinely attractive option.
The Gossip
Political & Practical Pains
While the article champions stop balancing as a cost-effective solution, many commenters highlight the immense political and practical obstacles to its implementation in the US. They argue that removing stops, even if economically sound, incurs significant 'political cost' due to inevitable public backlash, especially from local residents unwilling to lose convenient access. This is often attributed to NIMBYism and the need for extensive 'community input' processes. Critics suggest this focus on optimization is merely 'tinkering at the edges,' sidestepping the deeper, more expensive, and politically challenging reforms like dedicated bus lanes or increased funding.
Accessibility vs. Efficiency Equivocation
A central point of contention is the trade-off between increasing bus speed and potentially reducing accessibility for vulnerable populations. Commenters strongly emphasize that elderly, disabled, and low-income riders disproportionately rely on frequent, close stops and often lack alternative transportation options. They question whether the article adequately factors in the added walking time and physical burden for these groups, particularly given the often-poor pedestrian infrastructure and safety in US cities. Many argue that US bus systems function as a critical social safety net, meaning changes must carefully consider the impact on those with the fewest choices.
Broader Bus Blues
Numerous commenters argue that bus stop spacing is a superficial issue compared to the deeper, systemic problems plaguing US public transit. They point to chronic underfunding, unreliable schedules, excessively long wait times, and the pervasive perception of buses as dirty, unsafe, and hostile environments. Other contributing factors cited include car-centric urban planning, the opioid epidemic, and mental health crises affecting rider experience. Many conclude that these fundamental issues have relegated US buses to a 'welfare service,' leading to a 'death spiral' of declining ridership and continued service cuts, requiring more than just marginal adjustments to overcome.