You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, but buses generally suck. Give me actual rail, thanks.
The DC Metro was amazing.
They don’t have to suck though.
They pretty much do have to suck. They arrive infrequently, stop frequently, accelerate like an overloaded lorry, and are only remotely feasible if your start and end points are on the same route. Switching buses is a huge time penalty. They only approach usability in urban hellscapes that are so densely populated, it makes my skin crawl.
Yet they keep putting them in small cities and towns where they take 3x as long to get anywhere as driving because of indirect routing, while causing traffic congestion because of frequent stops and low performance. Seriously, fuck buses.
None of this is inherent to buses. Poorly planned and managed bus routes may have some of these features. And in the US this may be common but there are many many bus routes that do not resemble this at all.
Also the idea that buses make traffic worse than cars is absurd. Buses are a solution to traffic, not a cause of it.
I swear this is a no-true-Scotsman argument: "you don't hate buses/apartments/transit, you just have never lived anywhere that has the good stuff".
I've lived many places and traveled plenty, and I'm convinced there's no good stuff. To have transit that works, you need density that's oppressive. I did it in NYC, which is a best-case scenario for transit facilitated by high density. NYC has transit that runs frequently, and 24/7/365. Buses, subway, trains, and even ferries. It's so dense most people don't own a car (I certainly didn't). Everyone lives in apartments. Walking and biking is the norm. Even pizza delivery is done by bike instead of car. Catching an Uber was still much faster for many point-to-point trips, because transit necessarily can't go direct from everywhere, to everywhere.
Now that I'm back in suburbia, a trip to the grocery store takes 1/4 as long by car (same distance). I don't have to spend a ton of time waiting to catch a connecting train or bus that I missed by 30 seconds. I don't have to ride though stop after stop, packed in with other people. I can just go direct from origin to destination in quiet comfort, without the headaches
I'm not claiming your bad bus experiences aren't true buses, so that phallacy doesn't apply in any way I can tell. You described what you said were universal features of bus routes. I pointed out that those are not at all universal. And indeed, you now admit that you yourself have used buses that run frequently, which undermines your original argument, even if they had other flaws in your view.
I've never lived in New York but I think there's still lots of room for improvement even there. But regardless, I've used transit that was better and faster than driving many times. So that remains my point, even if you haven't experienced that.
It sounds like you just don't like cities or being around too many other people. Which is fine for you but tons of people do or at least it does not bother them. And for those people, buses, when run properly (clean, on time, frequent, with dedicated lanes so they don't get stuck in traffic, and directly connecting places people need to go) are an excellent way to get around. I've even used some buses in rural areas that beat out car travel, though that's more rare obviously. So yes, it can be done well. Maybe not to your standards of zero wait time ever and zero tolerance for being around other people but most people aren't that picky.
phallacy
Nice.
Your argument parallels the no true Scotsman fallacy much closer than you realize.
You: no Scotsman would commit such a crime
Me: but it says here that a Scotsman committed the crime
You: No true Scotsman would commit such a crime...
Compare:
You: buses are great!
Me: I take buses and they suck!
You: good buses are great, you just aren't taking the good ones...
It's exactly the same. You get to decide who is a true Scotsman for the purpose of argument, and what constitutes a good bus service. You can simply declare that the bus service isn't a good one and therefore doesn't reflect badly on bus services, just as you can decide the criminal wasn't a true Scotsman, and therefore you're always right.
you now admit that you yourself have used buses that run frequently, which undermines your original argument, even if they had other flaws in your view
I have used buses which run frequently for buses, but which are still too infrequent and thus add lots of unnecessary time.
I think NYC is an excellent representative of transit done well. It may not be world-best, but there aren't many places that are as dense or more dense and that creates a best case scenario for running at all hours and with maximum frequency. Also, most people don't own cars and don't drive there. There are few places with so many built-in advantages for transit as NYC.
It sounds like you just don't like cities or being around too many other people.
No argument there.
I think you need to read up on what that phallacy is before tossing it around: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
It applies to generalized statements, which I never made. You even had to falsely paraphrase my statement to make it more applicable (that phallacy is called a straw man by the way). But I never said all buses are great. In fact I think you’re right that most buses in the US are terrible. I’m just saying that they don’t have to. It’s a totally different type of claim. If anything your argument is more logically similar because you are making a universal claim that buses are always bad.
Part of the issue is that we probably don’t have a common definition of a good or bad mode of transit. I would say cars are a terrible way to get around in most urban areas, but you obviously don’t agree because we have different definitions of what makes something a good or bad way to get around.
But I will maintain that bus systems, when properly managed and implemented would be preferable over driving for that majority of people in urban areas, and even in some rural or small towns too.
I read the link I posted, which is the same one you linked. I think some of the way you presented your argument suggests to me that you're making a distinction between well-executed and poorly-executed transit, and saying that because I find transit/buses to be inefficient and an unbearable mode of travel, I must be using a poorly-executed system. That sounds a lot to me like no-true-scotsman, because you seem to be judging whether I'm experiencing the "real thing" based on whether I thought it was efficient or not. Clearly I must be experiencing a bad version of it if it was inefficient or otherwise not to my liking - or at least that's what you seem to have implied.
I agree that we probably don't have a common definition of good or bad transit.
I also think you should read up on what a phallus is.
London buses definitely don't suck. You can't lay light rail everywhere and buses are great at bridging that gap.