[mikeash]

It seems to be universal. I've seen it in places from SF to DC to small-town France to Beijing: the bus a second choice that you only take when the train doesn't go where you need it to go.

I'm still trying to figure out why, though. Despite sharing that opinion myself, I still can't quite figure out what the concrete reasons are. It seems to come down to: subway routes are much easier to figure out, stops are much better labeled, and the ride is much more comfortable. However, those first two don't seem like inherent problems with buses, merely how they happen to be built, but it seems like they're that way everywhere.

[cameldrv]

Trains are faster if they're grade separated because they don't have to wait for traffic. Not waiting for traffic also makes them more reliable, especially during rush hour. If you can't rely on the schedule, you have to put padding into your schedule, which makes them effectively even slower. Trains are also faster because they have lots of doors and the passengers are waiting at the same level as the doors, and you're not waiting for people to buy tickets, so the stops are quicker. Since they move faster, you can also run a more frequent service with the same number of vehicles (driver cost is a very large component of operating costs of a public transit system) They're also smoother and so more pleasant to ride. You're usually also waiting for them out of the elements.

[peeters]

The grade separation is a big thing. When I compare taking the bus in Toronto to taking the bus in Ottawa, which has (some) dedicated transitways for buses, complete with dedicated overpasses and bridges, there's a world of difference.

For an example, follow the roads in this satellite imagery: https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4116853,-75.6640352,489m/data...

[kgermino]

The thing is "They're also smoother and so more pleasant to ride. " is the only thing on that list that's even remotely inherent to trains over buses. Yet you rarely see people arguing to improve the buses so the other things you mentioned aren't an issue.

[cameldrv]

Ok, but if you take a bus and do all of the things I mentioned to it, you end up with a "rubber tire metro", which does exist, and is used in Paris and Mexico city, at least. These are basically indistinguishable from a passenger perspective to a train. The smoothness of trains is really out of necessity. If the tracks weren't smooth, the train would derail.

[tacticus]

Capacity is significantly higher and stop frequency significantly lower allowing a high speed high volume route.

[Fishkins]

I'd say the biggest reason is they aren't subject to traffic or (usually) weather, which makes them much faster and more consistent in urban areas. All the other factors are just little perks IMO. Although I personally like that I can read on a train without getting motion sickness, but not on a bus.

[mradamh]

I'm sure I am in the minority, but avoid bus trips wherever possible because I get horribly motion sick on them. I few years ago I had a job with a 20 minute bus commute and it was torture. I'd break out in a cold sweat every time and stagger off the bus feeling light headed and dizzy.

This does seem to be an inherent problem for me with road vehicles. I experience a similar problem riding in the back of a car. I'm not immune from motion sickness on trains, but it is an order of magnitude better.

[andrewf]

Have you tried medication? (Took me years to realize that feeling sick on an hours-long coach ride need not be inevitable)

[toomuchtodo]

> I'm still trying to figure out why, though.

I'm in Chicago, same as OP. The elevated train has exclusive access to the tracks, whereas busses have to compete with private vehicles on the road. I'd rather be on the El.

[TillE]

I agree with all three of your reasons, and I'll add another big one: speed. Trains are faster, both inherently and because they make fewer stops.

[ForHackernews]

Interesting article about that here: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/06/21/explaining-the-psychol...