I agree that a half-way reliable 10-minute-interval service is the least for what I would consider to be a "walk-up" service -- one I don't plan on catching a particular vehicle from.
Actually, if a 10-minute service is pretty reliable, such as the Berlin S-Bahn, I would still plan on catching a particular train rather than blindly taking off from home.
Every person has a different tolerance for headways, just as everyone has a different tolerance for distance. A lot depends on what you are used to. A bus every 15 minutes sounds fine if you are used to one every half hour, but it really sucks if you are used to something like the Toronto Subway. I've talked to several people, and they have said similar things:
30 minutes (or worse) -- If they have to.
15 minutes -- The point at which people will switch from driving.
10 minutes -- When people take both spontaneous and timed trips. Ten minutes is really nice, because once you know a station, it becomes like AM radio ("every ten minutes on the fours").
7.5 minutes to roughly 3 -- Definitely spontaneous. But people avoid transfers.
Buses every light cycle -- Transfers don't matter. People take transit trips for short distances, although a lot of people just prefer walking (less hassle, buses don't jaywalk, etc.).
I think a lot of distinctions are psychological. Fifteen seems to be a lot more popular than twenty for some reason. I get why people like ten minutes, but it is baseline for an urban system, in my opinion. If you can do better, then you should.
A like this very informative article, except that you do not address the issue of stop dwell times. This is a huge problem here in the UK, where single-doorway are the norm. On frequency of urban bus routes, European (including British) experience is that every 15 minutes is not good enough. Every 10 is fine; every 6-8 minutes is the optimum. If you attempt a frequency of 'better' than every six minutes, BUNCHING (in Britain we call them 'convoys') is inevitable.
Bunching has a lot to do with the length of the line and the consistency of the dwell time. Traffic lights play a part, but a relatively minor one (they mostly prevent de-bunching). The increased dwell time is a vicious cycle. The lead bus is a little late, so it picks up riders that would normally go to the trailing bus. This makes the lead bus increasing slower, and the trailing bus increasingly faster. If the line is long enough, they bunch. More consistent dwell times and routes with fewer stops helps -- there are also control systems that allow the buses to be in sync.
You make a lot of good points. Frequent service makes the bus bearable. Most of my riding happens at rush hour on well serviced routes, so I have not had to deal with poor service . But your points about wayfinding are really important for visitors and when a local is going somewhere unfamiliar. Having a good app helps too.
I was struck by your photo of a typical Toronto bus stop. I live in the U.K. in outer London and have slowly come to appraise the bus system. One thing which is especially good are the actual bus stops and I find them especially informative. Every bus stop has a unique name and it clearly states which destinations are applicable from each bus stop. Add to that a display of the bus routes servicing the bus stop and specifically relevant bus route timetables and it provides the passenger with a lot of helpful information which is itself reassuring, I am not saying it is perfect but London is in many ways blessed by the range and quality of the service. Over 19000 bus stops, over 7000 bus shelters, close to 600 bus routes and close to 60 all night services. TfL have achieved a lot over the years in improving the service
Interesting. I would never guess that from a public transit standpoint, Seattle is any way, shape of form better than Toronto. But our buses are relatively comfortable (similar to our trains). Likewise, they have electronic reader boards, listing the next stop (and whether a stop is requested). Some buses have audio messages as well -- which is handy if the bus is really crowded. There are plenty of electric buses (running under wire) and I find the diesel-electric buses relatively smooth. They shake around some, but so does our light rail line. Of course the train doesn't make any turns, or go up or down any steep hills (so overall it is smoother).
The bus stops vary, but are fairly good, overall. Many have electronic reader boards, announcing when a bus is expected. This is handy, as there are plenty of overlapping buses and riders often have to make a last second decision as to which bus to take.
Which gets me to some of the issues you mentioned. The bus system has simplified over the years, but it is still overly complicated in my opinion. It could definitely use some consolidation. Like most North American systems, the biggest weakness is lack of frequency. All of those go together, of course.
In terms of speed, the city has been chipping away at the problem. There are plenty of lanes which allow only bus and turning vehicles, as well as bus-only lanes. More need to be added.
Like most of North America, our stop spacing is poor. There are too many, basically. To be fair, there are a lot of hills; but even when you account for that, we have too many stops on a lot of our buses. Dwell time has improved, as fewer people use cash, and most use an electronic cards (ORCA). Most now board in the front, and exit the rear. But we aren't like San Fransisco, that has 100% off-board payment. It would be nice if we were.
Overall our buses are comfortable, they just don't come as often as they should.
Oh, I thought you wrote that the buses in Toronto had bad seats, and lacked displays (or announcements) for the stops. If that is the case, the quality of the buses (and maybe some bus stops) are better in Seattle while Toronto has better frequency. Personally I think the latter is more important, but both would be nice.
No, the buses in Toronto do have displays and even color LCD ones, but they could be a lot better. Seat wise, its more of a general North American thing to have relatively think and poorly padded seats, though Toronto's are less padded than most.
I agree that a half-way reliable 10-minute-interval service is the least for what I would consider to be a "walk-up" service -- one I don't plan on catching a particular vehicle from.
Actually, if a 10-minute service is pretty reliable, such as the Berlin S-Bahn, I would still plan on catching a particular train rather than blindly taking off from home.
Haha, a man of precision!
Or not. Quite regular when I do that, I leave too much buffer and watch the train before mine depart shortly before I reach the station ...
Every person has a different tolerance for headways, just as everyone has a different tolerance for distance. A lot depends on what you are used to. A bus every 15 minutes sounds fine if you are used to one every half hour, but it really sucks if you are used to something like the Toronto Subway. I've talked to several people, and they have said similar things:
30 minutes (or worse) -- If they have to.
15 minutes -- The point at which people will switch from driving.
10 minutes -- When people take both spontaneous and timed trips. Ten minutes is really nice, because once you know a station, it becomes like AM radio ("every ten minutes on the fours").
7.5 minutes to roughly 3 -- Definitely spontaneous. But people avoid transfers.
Buses every light cycle -- Transfers don't matter. People take transit trips for short distances, although a lot of people just prefer walking (less hassle, buses don't jaywalk, etc.).
I think a lot of distinctions are psychological. Fifteen seems to be a lot more popular than twenty for some reason. I get why people like ten minutes, but it is baseline for an urban system, in my opinion. If you can do better, then you should.
A like this very informative article, except that you do not address the issue of stop dwell times. This is a huge problem here in the UK, where single-doorway are the norm. On frequency of urban bus routes, European (including British) experience is that every 15 minutes is not good enough. Every 10 is fine; every 6-8 minutes is the optimum. If you attempt a frequency of 'better' than every six minutes, BUNCHING (in Britain we call them 'convoys') is inevitable.
That sounds like a topic for a future piece!
Bunching has a lot to do with the length of the line and the consistency of the dwell time. Traffic lights play a part, but a relatively minor one (they mostly prevent de-bunching). The increased dwell time is a vicious cycle. The lead bus is a little late, so it picks up riders that would normally go to the trailing bus. This makes the lead bus increasing slower, and the trailing bus increasingly faster. If the line is long enough, they bunch. More consistent dwell times and routes with fewer stops helps -- there are also control systems that allow the buses to be in sync.
Alon Levy wrote a great article about the subject, but that is the gist of it: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/08/18/the-dynamics-of-bus-bunching/
You make a lot of good points. Frequent service makes the bus bearable. Most of my riding happens at rush hour on well serviced routes, so I have not had to deal with poor service . But your points about wayfinding are really important for visitors and when a local is going somewhere unfamiliar. Having a good app helps too.
Absolutely, but there are other things that can make it bearable too . . . It's when you have a confluence of mediocrity that the problems arise!
I was struck by your photo of a typical Toronto bus stop. I live in the U.K. in outer London and have slowly come to appraise the bus system. One thing which is especially good are the actual bus stops and I find them especially informative. Every bus stop has a unique name and it clearly states which destinations are applicable from each bus stop. Add to that a display of the bus routes servicing the bus stop and specifically relevant bus route timetables and it provides the passenger with a lot of helpful information which is itself reassuring, I am not saying it is perfect but London is in many ways blessed by the range and quality of the service. Over 19000 bus stops, over 7000 bus shelters, close to 600 bus routes and close to 60 all night services. TfL have achieved a lot over the years in improving the service
Interesting. I would never guess that from a public transit standpoint, Seattle is any way, shape of form better than Toronto. But our buses are relatively comfortable (similar to our trains). Likewise, they have electronic reader boards, listing the next stop (and whether a stop is requested). Some buses have audio messages as well -- which is handy if the bus is really crowded. There are plenty of electric buses (running under wire) and I find the diesel-electric buses relatively smooth. They shake around some, but so does our light rail line. Of course the train doesn't make any turns, or go up or down any steep hills (so overall it is smoother).
The bus stops vary, but are fairly good, overall. Many have electronic reader boards, announcing when a bus is expected. This is handy, as there are plenty of overlapping buses and riders often have to make a last second decision as to which bus to take.
Which gets me to some of the issues you mentioned. The bus system has simplified over the years, but it is still overly complicated in my opinion. It could definitely use some consolidation. Like most North American systems, the biggest weakness is lack of frequency. All of those go together, of course.
In terms of speed, the city has been chipping away at the problem. There are plenty of lanes which allow only bus and turning vehicles, as well as bus-only lanes. More need to be added.
Like most of North America, our stop spacing is poor. There are too many, basically. To be fair, there are a lot of hills; but even when you account for that, we have too many stops on a lot of our buses. Dwell time has improved, as fewer people use cash, and most use an electronic cards (ORCA). Most now board in the front, and exit the rear. But we aren't like San Fransisco, that has 100% off-board payment. It would be nice if we were.
Overall our buses are comfortable, they just don't come as often as they should.
I’d actually say Toronto is very similar to Seattle! But I think neither are there. TO does do frequency great though.
Oh, I thought you wrote that the buses in Toronto had bad seats, and lacked displays (or announcements) for the stops. If that is the case, the quality of the buses (and maybe some bus stops) are better in Seattle while Toronto has better frequency. Personally I think the latter is more important, but both would be nice.
No, the buses in Toronto do have displays and even color LCD ones, but they could be a lot better. Seat wise, its more of a general North American thing to have relatively think and poorly padded seats, though Toronto's are less padded than most.
As long as they aren't hard plastic, on a bus with no air conditioning on a hot day. Those are an experience. :)