why do buses have so many stops? are they necessary?

March 13, 2006 3:12 PM

I recently, out of curiosity, tried the public transportation systems in Los Angeles and Orange County, CA. I know that you can’t seriously depend on buses to get around – most buses run every 20-30 minutes, not to mention the waiting time for connection. Ok, I can accept that. But what puzzles me is that there are so many “unnecessary” stops, a lot of which are installed BOTH before AND after the traffic lights at the same intersection. Twice as many stops double the travelling time. It just seems to me such a waste of resources and lack of efficiency. Are people not willing even to walk across the streets to catch the buses or is this some kind of community service issue? Any input will be appreciated.
posted by dy to work & money (22 comments total)

Hmmm, I notice the same thing with school buses nowadays. They seem to stop every house or two to drop off the little darlings. Can't kids walk a few hundred feet anymore? I'd be grinding my teeth if I was one of the cars stuck behind them on my little two-lane road...

Oh gawd, I sound like an old fogey. OK, I'll back away now, and spare everyone the "Why, when I was their age, I had to walk..." story ;-)
posted by wordwhiz at 3:19 PM on March 13, 2006

In San Francisco, when a streamlining of one of the main bus routes (which goes through some of the poorer parts of town) was proposed, community activists claimed it would be a hardship for the older and poorer folks (who were most likely to take the bus) to walk even a block or two more while trying to juggle groceries, kids, walkers, canes, etc.
posted by occhiblu at 3:22 PM on March 13, 2006

More info on the SF bus rigamorale.
posted by occhiblu at 3:24 PM on March 13, 2006

--what puzzles me is that there are so many “unnecessary” stops, a lot of which are installed BOTH before AND after the traffic lights at the same intersection.

This might be specific to LA/OC--here in Vancouver, bus stops are spaced at least one block apart, more usually two or three.
posted by russilwvong at 3:25 PM on March 13, 2006

Kerb cuts are not generously or consistently laid out in Los Angeles. A bus might have to stop on either side of an intersection to allow stroller pushers or wheelchair users to get on.
posted by firstdrop at 3:25 PM on March 13, 2006

This might be specific to LA/OC--here in Vancouver, bus stops are spaced at least one block apart, more usually two or three.

There are many, many bus stops in vancouver placed both before and after the lights. 41st and Knight eastbound, 41st and Victoria eastbound and 41st and Granville westbound come immediately to mind on just one route.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:38 PM on March 13, 2006

I can tell you that in Chicago, where I grew up, stops that close together only happened if people specifically asked the driver to drop them at a place other than a stop, or in really lousy weather if the driver was feeling nice. Now that I live in Los Angeles, it does not surprise me in the least that people are unwilling to walk even the smallest bit more than they have to, having seen healthy-looking people without handicapped plates waiting for a parking space to open up instead of taking one of several empty spaces 100 yards away on a nice day inside a covered parking garage.

That said, firstdrop's mention of the kerb cuts is a valid one; they're few and far between. By way of comparison, the newly-opened Orange Line (dedicated bus line) has one stop in each direction. Then again, it's also the only bus line in town you can rely on to keep a reasonable schedule.

If you live and work such that you can take the Orange Line to the Red Line station, then take the Red Line subway from there, or if you commute on Pasadena's new Gold Line light rail, you'll have an experience much more comparable to other major metropolitan cities than you will otherwise.
posted by davejay at 3:41 PM on March 13, 2006

The line I live near in Portland, OR, has stops every block for about the first mile of my trip to work. Somedays, it seems like there is one person at every stop, which drives me mad. I don't even wait at the stop nearest my house because there is a covered stop one block further up.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 3:47 PM on March 13, 2006

The before/after the lights thing; is the cross street a major one or where there's a/several major bus lines?

For example, 41st @ Granville - Northbound there's the 98 express and a bunch of trolly busses to downtown. Southbound, there are all sorts of express-ish busses to Richmond plus the 98 express.

In heavy traffic, a bus stopping before and after the lights gives people a little more time to catch the bus - also if the bus is really full it's less of a hassle for, say, all the South-bounders to get off the bus followed by the North-bounders.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:37 PM on March 13, 2006

Are people not willing even to walk across the streets to catch the buses

In LA, no, people are not willing even to walk across the street. I remember being flabbergasted when I was visiting my brother and his wife some years back and they literally drove across the street to get groceries. And I have personally been stopped by a cop who was concerned that I was.... walking. What was I doing? Did I have a particular destination? Did I know someone who lived on the block?

Weird place, Southern California. And yes, the buses are awful; I had to depend on them when I was in college, and I can still remember having to change buses downtown to get from anywhere to anywhere else.
posted by languagehat at 5:53 PM on March 13, 2006

Anecdote:My experience is that in most places in Europe, if no one is waiting at the stop, and no one presses the button to get off, the bus doesn't even stop at marked stops. It definately helps you to get home faster.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:55 PM on March 13, 2006

Most smaller-city bus systems I've seen don't have bus stops, per se - You go to the corner before the intersection the bus will be passing through and flag it down, and people signal from within if they want the bus to stop before it passes through the next intersection - With exceptions for places like the airport, malls, and the transfer centers, which might have a shelter and/or a copy of the maps/schedules screwed to the wall.

The idea that made bus systems and scheduling make sense to me is that they're basically a government subsidy for businesses that use minimum-wage workers.(IE: If there's no bus run to the mall, then the stores have to pay enough to attract employees who are making car payments.) So, you see plenty of runs around shift changes at various employment centers, and not much else. Guess how much respect people give the time of minimum-wage workers. (And imagine how much fun it is to look for a better paying job or attend vo-tech when your shift-plus-commute is over 10 hours a day.)

[Derail]If you want to give yourself a headache, take a look around the New Jersey Transit website - You can get just about anywhere by bus, but figuring out how to do it is sometimes a whole-evening job. [/derail]
posted by Orb2069 at 6:15 PM on March 13, 2006

My experience is that in most places in Europe, if no one is waiting at the stop, and no one presses the button to get off, the bus doesn't even stop at marked stops

What else would they do?
posted by cillit bang at 7:16 PM on March 13, 2006

In San Francisco, when a streamlining of one of the main bus routes (which goes through some of the poorer parts of town) was proposed, community activists claimed it would be a hardship for the older...

It's quite true that nobody walks in L.A. I found in Pasadena (which counts as L.A. for this discussion) that it really was true that people would only take the bus if they were too poor or too old to drive a car. The old ones would often take the bus (which only came every 15 minutes) two or three blocks. This is the demographic that Pasadena's civic leaders seem to believe they are serving by having buses, and evidently they are correct.
posted by Aknaton at 7:46 PM on March 13, 2006

dy, you might make sure there's no express or rapid bus version of the same route. Maybe if you posted your route someone from LA might be able to suggest a better bus option?

Cities are starting to catch on to this problem in general -- hence the rapid bus trend. And to the fact that fixed rail systems like subways are expensive. They're trying to get the best of both systems: fewer stops = fast, no construction of railroad tracks = cheap. I'd say the trend is away from what you experienced -- they're removing stops from the routes I know in the San Francisco Bay Area.
posted by salvia at 7:50 PM on March 13, 2006

Because you can miss the bus in the time it takes to wait for the light to change and walk across the street. It’s simple usability. The bus is there to pick you up. It is not a race.
posted by joeclark at 5:59 AM on March 14, 2006

dy, do the buses still run on schedule? Every bus system has a printed schedule which tells when they will be at a particular time. The bus service here runs pretty accurately on that schedule +/- 3 minutes. As long as they run on schedule, what difference does it make how many stops they make or how often they run? Take a book and enjoy the ride. If you have a long distance to go, try an alternative route as others suggest.
posted by JJ86 at 6:02 AM on March 14, 2006

But it would make a difference in terms of how long the commute is, even if the bus stayed on schedule. It would be less incentive for people with other means of transportation to use public transportation.
posted by occhiblu at 8:41 AM on March 14, 2006

dy, you might make sure there's no express or rapid bus version of the same route. Maybe if you posted your route someone from LA might be able to suggest a better bus option?
I took OCTA 71 from Santa Ana to Huntington Beach at 4:30pm on a Wed. afternoon, a frustrating experience; the bus literally stopped at every corner except certain sections on Red Hill where there is nothing but office buildings. The thing is when you stop before the signal to let people off, 4 out of 5 times you‘ll miss the light.
I once had to wait for 30 min for Bus 234 (in LA) after I got off the orange line at Sepulveda. In that half an hour I saw 5 orange line buses passed before one 234 finally came. BTW, there were at least 10 people waiting next to me. What’s the point of having the fancy Orange line run so often when connection is almost unbearable?

The only good experience that I have almost every time is OCTA 721 express line leaving from Fullerton to Downtown LA. On the good days it only takes about 30 min and stops right at the red line metro in LA.
posted by dy at 9:11 AM on March 14, 2006

Why in this age of personal phones, pagers, and all other computer technology do you have people standing in the street waiting for huge, mostly empty, gas-guzzling buses to come and take them a huge time intervals along some rigid route anyway? Municipal bus service is still running by 19th Century horse trolly rules. There has to be something better than this. I'd like to see what the free enterprise system would come up with if city bus monopolies were abolished.
posted by Faze at 10:19 AM on March 14, 2006

In LA, when you see stops on both sides of an intersection, they're not the same line. Rapid Bus (red express lines) stop at the far side of the intersection, while local buses (orange, or at least orange-striped) usually stop at the near side of the intersection.
posted by the jam at 11:06 AM on March 14, 2006

Faze mentioned: Why in this age of personal phones, pagers, and all other computer technology do you have people standing in the street waiting for huge, mostly empty, gas-guzzling buses to come and take them a huge time intervals along some rigid route anyway? Municipal bus service is still running by 19th Century horse trolly rules. There has to be something better than this. I'd like to see what the free enterprise system would come up with if city bus monopolies were abolished.

Well, that would be taxicabs. I've ridden mass transit in many cities from Berlin, to Madrid, to Chicago, and here in Milwaukee and have never felt that a rigid route was an encumbrance. In these cities mass transit is very excellent and very well used.
posted by JJ86 at 12:05 PM on March 14, 2006