# Do people really prefer trains over buses?



## CHamilton (Feb 24, 2015)

The Myth That Everyone Naturally Prefers Trains to Buses

An interesting piece. But I disagree with it to some extent, since there are a number of factors at work here. One is good, frequent, and reliable service, certainly, but many people perceive that trains are more likely to have:


Amenities like covered, lighted, heated and safe waiting areas.
Off-vehicle ticketing.
Simpler and easier-to-understand route structures.
No unexpected detours (tourists are scared of ending up somewhere they don't want to be).
Avoidance of traffic (this is where streetcars sometimes fail).
Fewer undesirable passengers.
Newer and nicer equipment.
A hard-to-measure "cool factor."
That last one drives the professional transit planners crazy. But it's definitely there: voters will support train-based transit much more than buses.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 24, 2015)

Trains cost a lot of money. Where they are provided it shows that planners and politicians care.

Buses are ad-hoc and do not represent real commital.

Thus in a city that has streetcar tracks, businesses can see that somebody is investing in their area and is investing long term. Therefore they decide it is a good place to do business.

If there is a bus route passing along the same street, nobody sees that as a raeson to invest as that bus route might vanish from one day to the next.


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (Feb 24, 2015)

Why would anyone take a bus when they could take the train?


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Feb 24, 2015)

In Europe it's referred to as the bus penalty. Converting to bus service can lose up to 40% of the ridership.
LRN has their illustration of the problem here: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm
The BRT option includes a rough ride as the road surface becomes rutted and worn, noise and vibration from the engine, more crowding because the bus has to be narrower and slower trip times because the bus has slower acceleration.
The author is apparently in the BRT camp, so he doesn't catch the hint when he says, "What makes those findings more vexing is that every city involved in the survey is familiar with both modes."
The people have tried both modes and they really do prefer rails to ruts.


----------



## rickycourtney (Feb 24, 2015)

Well again it all goes back to the problem of how "watered down" a BRT system is. The ruts can be prevented if the agency spends the money to lay concrete instead of asphalt. If the agency spends the money to purchase diesel electric hybrid buses, they're very quiet (or silent if they install trolley wire).

But the biggest problem with trolleybuses (and streetcars) is that they are often watered down by transit agencies that are strapped for money or political influence (which is often why they are building BRT in the first place). So you end up stuck with a bus stuck in traffic that calls itself BRT.


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Feb 26, 2015)

Concrete breaks down, too. Translohr and Seimens both have trouble with their guideway buses because the high axle weight flakes off the reinforced concrete guideways. Soon the special and highly expensive concrete surface is a rugged trail.
Maybe if they went for textured steel plates or a grating set into the surface it might help.
That's why a well built BRT route costs as much as a light rail line.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 26, 2015)

Preliminary look at data suggests that the Santa Barbara extension of the San Diegans had ~7.5x the ridership of the Thruway bus the year prior (which doubled the year of that train extension), so I think it's safe to say that there's definitely a rail preference.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 26, 2015)

There is no doubt that busses are, by nature, more convenient and flexible. However, should two geographical points be served by bus and train, and the cost were the same, I cannot for the life of me understand why one would choose a bus over a train.


----------



## BCL (Feb 26, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> There is no doubt that busses are, by nature, more convenient and flexible. However, should two geographical points be served by bus and train, and the cost were the same, I cannot for the life of me understand why one would choose a bus over a train.



Perhaps with all things being equal - that both will get you there on schedule. However, I'd think that many would consider details like on-time performance, especially with some routes notorious for being delayed by freight traffic.

For the most part I've never seen anyone who seemed like a total societal outlier on Amtrak. I'm mostly thinking of the homeless or severely mentally ill. I've ridden on public transportation around here, and there are the occasional homeless riding all day who clearly have personal hygiene issues. Riding Amtrak, they will likely refuse to allow such people on board, although I have encountered the occasional backpacker who might be unkempt but not necessarily offensive. I'm not sure about Greyhound, although I've heard of quite a bit of interesting things such as being used to transport released prisoners or where government social service agencies or hospitals have sent certain people (including the mentally ill) on one-way trips to become someone else's problem.


----------



## Train2104 (Feb 26, 2015)

One thing that was brought up at TransportationCamp, was that "you can't call a bus a bus". Notice that almost all big service enhancements to encourage bus ridership have involved a marketing change of some sort ("rapid", "Select Bus Service", "flyer", "BusPlus", Orange Line). They're all buses - some on dedicated guideways and given rail-like treatment, others with not much more than some signal priority. But they need to be distinguished in the ordinary commuter's mind as "not your average bus".


----------



## DetroitTed (Feb 27, 2015)

crabby_appleton1950 said:


> Why would anyone take a bus when they could take the train?


What he said. I LOATH buses and take them only when there is no alternative ( meaning it's too far to walk and there's nothing else available). If an Amtrak route I was taking had a bustitution and I knew that far enough in advance to cancel the whole trip, I would.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 2, 2015)

I remember as a teenager riding a Trailways bus back home from an Appalachian Trail Hike. It was a fine long-distance coach, but the bus was a local, and it had a manual transmission. So as we slowed down and sped up, the gears ground, the bus lurched. OK, I was also soaked and cold, and I think I had developed trench foot during our last few miles of hiking in the rain, but that was indeed one of the most miserable bus rides I ever had, and I wish we had been able to take the Reading Railroad RDC that ran the route. It would have been a lot more comfortable..

Then there was the time I was on the Capitol and got Bustituted to DC from Pittsburgh. The driver must have been doing 70 mph on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in a pouring rainstorm. I thrill ride I could have done without, as I was coming down with some sort of virus. On the other hand, even though we left Pittsburgh 4 hours behind schedule, we arrive at DC right on time.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 2, 2015)

Wow!, that was a Supercharged Bus if it could make up 4 Hours between Pittsburgh and WAS! Or was there lots of padding in the bus schedules like Amtrak has??


----------



## CHamilton (Mar 22, 2015)

Preference for light rail service over bus is not always the case: Sacramento and Elk Grove




> While research about willingness and actual use of transit finds the wealthiest use railroad, the next wealthiest subway, and the least economically well off use the bus, this is not categorical.
> 
> The reality is that in the US, mobility is dominated by the car, and only about 5% of daily trips are conducted by transit. in most of the US, transit is seen more as a "social service" provided to people who can't afford to drive ("Public Transportation’s Demographic Divide," Governing Magazine).
> 
> ...


----------



## Chey (Mar 22, 2015)

Buses are okay but for long distance I definitely feel safer (see "Fewer undesirable passengers" factor; I generally travel alone). There's also something very soothing to me about the rhythm of a train, and I get to see things I would not see from a bus or driving my car).


----------

