> Some buses in London also have "Hail and Ride" zones, where a bus can be stopped with a wave on the hand at any point on the route.
Unfortunately in my experience growing up in London, such zones really operated with informal unmarked stops. The buses would only stop at these points and would drive past someone hailing between them.
So it was no different from the usual system, except the bus stops were not marked and therefore useless to anyone not familiar with the bus route.
Slightly tangential, but here's a viz of how sprawled out London's bus network is https://youtu.be/xAnCD_Czwxw?t=648. Quite amazing how well the bus system works.
Even more tangential, but setting up a truly proper bus system in Cities XL is usually the task the runs me into a brick wall and leads me to stepping away from the game for a bit.
Makes me all the more in awe of London's bus network despite the occasional tardiness.
I've not played Cities, but interested to know the usual stumbling blocks to build such a system. Too large a city to cover, and too expensive to cover extensively?
It's funny because I believe if a person was to study my gameplay in Cities XL and then also watch me function throughout a day, they would find very clear similarities in my frantic disorganization in general.
I believe, probably, it is mostly a 'me' problem. Maybe not, though. I just find it incredibly overwhelming when you get to the point where your citizens are demanding bus stops everywhere. There is already such a massive, established road network at that point and I have no idea where to begin. The funds are not an issue at that point (usually) because the city is large enough that money is kind of rolling in. It is more just the size of the city. It will need A LOT of bus stops, which makes sense... so I guess it is more just the overwhelming nature of the task.
Would it perhaps make more sense and be much less overwhelming if I were to be placing at least some bus stops as I progress through the earlier half of the game? Of course it would. Now, there are times where it wouldn't be as economically feasible, of course. Money flows much more freely in the later game, I have noticed. But, it would definitely ease the burden later in the game as far as having such a large city to cover. Then there is the question of 'is this bus stop too close/too far from the last one?'
I think it is really just the scale at which I have to place them and lack of preparation on my part (which is my life in general with pretty terrible ADHD).
Highly suggest giving that game a try, though. It's pretty incredible.
What you need to do is get over the intuition that a transit network is supposed to be random access and point to point. Its not. Some places are more important and more likely than others. Don't fall for the trap of compulsively filling in lines until there's spaghetti everywhere and everything that could meet at the ends does. Have core structures, basic sorts of routes. Be neither radial nor mesh, but rather federated with ample chances to make transfers. Think of it as a plumbing problem. Your primary people flow is between cheap rent and good jobs. Other people flows exists, but its ok to use smaller pipes on that.
> Think of it as a plumbing problem. Your primary people flow is between cheap rent and good jobs.
That's an interesting idea. Just thinking out loud, I wonder how one affects the other. I.e cheap rent -> create better transport links -> increased rent -> etc etc.
I know this is true with tube stations raising the cost of certain areas in London.
"Some buses in London also have "Hail and Ride" zones, where a bus can be stopped with a wave on the hand at any point on the route.—It certainly wouldn't be practical in urban areas where the bus could be stopped every few meters."
Funny the author writes that but these sorts buses do exist in certain cities like İstanbul. A special class of privately operated 'mini-buses' run along a predefined and long route, picking up and dropping passengers at practically any point along the route.
The system works because of the sheer volume of these buses and the simple, straight road. It almost resembles a river and the settlement around it.
It worked really well in London while it had Routemaster buses with the back door that was always open... it meant there was almost no delay when getting on a bus.
> but these sorts buses do exist in certain cities like İstanbul. A special class of privately operated 'mini-buses' run along a predefined and long route, picking up and dropping passengers at practically any point along the route.
And they are very, very, very bad for traffic in general. Because they haphazardly weave in and out of traffic, and stop unpredictably, often blocking several lanes, to pick up people
This is also how the Hong Kong privately owned minibus [1] is run. Not only is it hail and ride, you are also expected to shout your destination to the driver shortly before arriving. It is not for the faint of heart, both tourists and socially awkward locals. Highly recommend a try.
There has recently been a big problem in London for the elderly - many bus stops have been removed and replaced with bicycle lanes, meaning the elderly have to move a considerable distance to their nearest bus stop.
It's not just elderly people who need to sit down – I fractured my T11 vertebral body (amongst lots of other back-related woes) and find standing up for a prolonged period of time moderately excruciating.
It's also a problem of people not wanting to be "in the way". Even if services are available on-demand, some older folks get the opinion that they don't want to explicitly request help as they'll add additional work for others, which they don't want to do. If the service is available anyways, they don't feel bad using it.
My maternal grandparents are in their mid 90s, and they're both generally upset whenever it turns out they can't do something which was not a problem in their 80s - by that I mean e.g. cooking for ten people and organizing a family get-together.
Wait, since when are TFL removing stops for Cycle lanes? Wouldn't they need to re-engineer the whole road as that would mean moving the pavement as well?
the whole article I thought they were measuring distances travelled between each stop. then, right at the end of the article, the admission they were using point-to-point measurements. makes any analysis seem a bit pointless? especially considering the amount of one-way systems in the city
When buses stop every 200 meters, as an able-bodied person, this tips the scales just enough for me to not consider the price of the ticket to be economically viable.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. It sounds like you want to say you won't take the bus for a journey under 200 metres - which is fine. But the meaning of your sentence is something like: if you want to travel 2 km and the bus stops every 200 metres means you won't take the bus because it would cost too much? How come? And how did you arrive at that 200 metre threshold?
edit: I completely failed to appreciate the distance - after doing a bit of measuring on Google Maps 200m is actually a really reasonable cutoff point, in my city at least.
If the bus stops every 200 meters, it has a chance of stopping 10 times, which takes a lot of time. If the weather isn't prohibitively horrible, I have to wait for the bus to arrive and if there's traffic, chances are I'll be able to reach my destination on foot faster than by bus.
It's fine by me, but it seems that I'm just not the target audience for busses.
It doesn't usually stop that often because half the time people aren't pushing the button every stop.
In central areas where demand is high, busses usually come every ~5-minutes. Even further out in the suburbs, the wait times are 8-10 minutes.
Bus rides are £1.75. You can take as many busses in a day, and it automatically caps at £5.25. You don't need coins, you pay using contactless credit card, or oyster card prepaid cards.
Unless there is service disruption I find the bus is at least twice as fast as walking, typically a lot faster.
I walk if the distance is less than ~30-minutes, but if I do take the bus I never feel like I've wasted my time or money.
My experience in London is rather limited, but it seems it's very similar to Edinburgh. As a student in Edinburgh, waiting for a bus to ride 4 stops for some money or walking 2km for free was a no-brainer. Waiting 40 minutes to get into the city from the suburbs via the bus when there is no traffic is really insane when the same trip could be done in a car in 15 minutes, or 25 minutes on a bicycle - in these cases I much prefer the drive, cycling or the walk. Even if walking ends up being 5 minutes slower, I'd still choose walking as I normally need to walk more rather than less, and I get to save a quarter of a pints-worth of money.
> Unless there is service disruption I find the bus is at least twice as fast as walking, typically a lot faster.
Anecdata, but I can say the opposite is true in central London (London Bridge to Liverpool Street, for example) during rush hour. The bus takes about 20 mins on a good day, and I can walk it in the same time.
Agreed, but that is really only true for some very specific sections at very specific times (5pm rush hour around the City fringe and Westminster) -- even in rush hour I would say that the 2x rule of thumb works in general.
Especially given if you're not on the bus you don't (probably) have to walk bus stop to bus stop, you go straight to wherever you're going. Lots of little alleys around there too, saving 2x road to the junction and a light change.
This is a perfectly valid comment. And a situation I experience many times.
For example, reaching from Liverpool street to Farringdon could take 30 minutes during peak times. I still have the image of nearly a dozen busses queueing up and trying to take people from the station.
I decided to talk very often instead of not taking the bus and it wasn't slower.
> chances are I'll be able to reach my destination on foot faster than by bus
This is only true in extreme cases - very short distances, very heavy traffic, being able to take shortcuts on foot. The majority of bus journeys would be slower on foot by a large margin.
Nearly every time I think "I can walk quicker than the bus", the bus overtakes me. Even with a bus stop every 200m. The only time I truly can walk quicker than a bus is when it's in complete gridlock traffic.
Stops are quick and busses are (at least for now) frequent. It’s rarely faster to walk and never faster to drive in the areas where busses stop that frequently.
I guess it would also depend on distance. If it's a 10 minute walk vs waiting up to 5 minutes for the bus then a 5 minute bus ride I get it. Also I just plotted distances between stops on my tram commute (waiting for the CI[0] :D) and 200 metres is much shorter than I realised, so actually I think I am with you. The stop distances for my commute home are:
- 100m
- 761m
- 681m
- 371m
- 506m
- 335m
And since it's a tram this is a bit different since it doesn't have to contend with vehicles (it's extremely rare to be blocked by cars or trucks) so this 2.75km ride takes ~11 minutes and that first 100m hop feels really short. I don't know where my ideal cutoff is, but that #63 route in London stopping on average every 42 metres must feel really slow.
For the context, though, the article states that there is only one route with an average stopping distance of 42 metres and that the the next shortest average distance is twice that (83) and the next again (third shortest) ~4x that (152 m);
and
that these routes are "stop on demand" - not stopping every 40m, just potentially if someone waves from a stop or rings the bell.
Yeah fair, I didn't think about that as our "request stops" are usually further out of the city centre (where they're actually further apart) and trams, trolleys and buses tend to stop at every stop closer into the city.
Unfortunately in my experience growing up in London, such zones really operated with informal unmarked stops. The buses would only stop at these points and would drive past someone hailing between them.
So it was no different from the usual system, except the bus stops were not marked and therefore useless to anyone not familiar with the bus route.