[lexlambda]

Some of the proposed solutions are problematic. A public transport systems absolutely needs to be reliable for the people who use it.

Skipping stops is the worst in that regard and breaks the whole point. No schedule causes issues downstream, since now there won't be a schedule to depend on when needing to switch to trains or other busses.

But in general, the only thing to realistically improve without decreasing reliability is the amount of time spent at a stop (also mentioned in the article).

All in all, I see these suggestions as "what to do in a worst-case scenario", i.e. if the service already has major issues.

[snackbroken]

No-schedule works fine if (and only if) service is sufficiently frequent, say every 5 minutes. The overwhelming majority of intra-city trips will have 3 transfers or less in a well designed bus network and when planning to catch a less frequent service, it's acceptable to bake in a 15 minute safety margin.

[sokoloff]

Is someone going to regularly take a trip that requires them to take 4 buses? I largely avoid trips that would require even a single bus transfer (admittedly, the Boston bus system is pretty terrible, meaning bus transfers are daunting when contemplating trips).

[Muromec]

Yeah, 4 buses sounds terrible. I already don't like it when my trip to that one fancy office is bus-metro-tram instead of just bus/tram and metro. I would totally hate if buses in question were overcrowded, smelling hobos and not having a schedule.

Is this the usual European supremacy propaganda? Yes, of course it is.

[jdeisenberg]

Here in Graz, Austria, if nobody wants to get off at a bus stop and nobody is there waiting for the bus, it continues right on to the next stop. It all seems to work, somehow.

[williamdclt]

Same in London

[bell-cot]

> Skipping stops is the worst in that regard ...

If the expectation is that the bus will stop at every bus stop in its path.

Vs. a larger system can easily have "commuter", "direct", "express", "park-n-ride", and other busses, with different expectations.

Plus the trivial case - the bus will roll past a stop which has 0 people waiting for a bus, if no current passenger has pulled the "Getting Off at Next Stop" signal cord.

[baq]

> Skipping stops is the worst

Depends. If the timetable is packed or the buses are already bunched, skipping a stop is actually preferable - unless you want to hop off at that stop, too bad then! ;)

[bsimpson]

This is one of the things I find infuriating about the Subway in NYC.

There are local trains and express trains. Often, you'll have to wait on the platform for an extra ~10 minutes for a local (v.s. getting on the first available express).

Then partway through the journey, they'll declare that the local needs to go express to make up time. You'll be kicked off and told to wait for the next train.

To make matters worse, the next train is usually in the same predicament, so you end up waiting indefinitely (or giving up and finding another way home).

[phanimahesh]

Sounds like a dark pattern to push people towards express. If the train changes how fast it moves or where it stops, that's their problem. The passengers should be allowed to get off at the nearest stop to their original destination, and any potential difference in fares should be eaten by the operator