Why ride the bus when biking is faster?

[Steely Dan]

on thursdays i often make a journey from my job in downtown evanston to my friend's house over in jefferson park. the journey is 11.75 miles long. in the winter when i rely on the L and CTA buses to get me there, the journey takes nearly 1.5 hours. yesterday i biked the same route in 45 minutes!

why are buses so goddamn s-------l--------o--------w? it's infuriating that it takes almost 1.5 hours to go about 12 miles on chicago buses, but it's because buses get caught up in rush hour traffic, and with all the stops they have to make every other block, they average about 7 mph, whereas i can average over 15 mph on my bike. as i was biking down lawrence avenue yesterday afternoon, i actually caught up to and overtook 3 CTA buses on the route that i would have been on had i not been on my two wheeled wonder.

buses suck! just ride your bike; you'll get there much faster! and it's also FREE!

[M II A II R II K]

Aside from weather issues and having to carry too much stuff, then sure ride the bike if it's faster.

[Muji]

Yeah, taking the bus really sucks sometimes. In Philly we have to contend with SEPTA buses that more often than not stop at every block, and riders that enjoy wasting everyone else's time by getting off from the wrong door.

But even as an avid cyclist, there are plenty of days when I'd much rather commute by bus (rain, intense heat). And sometimes I'm just too damn tired for pedaling. It's essential to have choices, though I really wouldn't mind having a more efficient public transportation system.

[VivaLFuego]

In a nutshell, because I don't trust poorly-skilled and inattentive drivers combining with my mediocre biking skills to not get me killed or maimed. I only bike on seperated paths (e.g. the lakefront) or short stretches on side streets to get to said paths. I'd bike more if I felt safer doing it, but the injury potential sharing the road with cars is just too high, particularly if we're talking about a morning commute while still waking up.

And of course buses will be slower than a bike -- not only do they make more stops, but they also get stuck behind bikes who decide to ride on a main arterial despite having nice bike lanes on a nearby parallel street without buses (one of my pet peeves riding the Clark and LaSalle buses which get slowed down behind cyclists who don't bother to use the bike lanes on nearby Wells street).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

And of course buses will be slower than a bike -- not only do they make more stops, but they also get stuck behind bikes

that's funny, when i'm out biking on the city streets, i'm always the one getting stuck behind buses and eventually passing them up. i've never held up a bus; i'm too damn fast.

[ardecila]

sadly, many cyclists in chicago are much more lard-assed and stupid than you...

[Cirrus]

1. Sounds like your buses suck. Any route going 11 miles should have a limited-stop version, if not an outright express. There really is no excuse not to.

2. Because many people - especially those who aren't prone to liking mornings in the first place - don't want to exert so much energy so soon in the day.

[fflint]

Buses aren't slow because of bicyclists--that is patently ludicrous. No transportation department or planning firm would ever back up such a lame notion, because the facts don't support it.

Buses are slow because there are too damned many private automobiles clogging the bus routes, first and foremost, and then also because stops are oftentimes spaced too closely, as well as boarding/exiting issues.

[vid]

Bikes only slow up buses if the cyclists aren't paying attention to what they're doing.

[dchan]

Bikes slow down everyone if their operators decide to make the "we have just as much right to be on this road" stand by deciding to ride on the middle or left portion of a traffic lane. Worse if the bicyclists in question are riding at a leisurely pace as well.

[Cirrus]

If there isn't a dedicated bike lane then the middle or left part of the lane is the safest place for a cyclist to be. It's not about being a jerk and holding up traffic, it's about not wanting to die.

If you have a problem with it, get your city to stripe more bike lanes.

[dchan]

^ Even though bikes have become far more acceptable on the streets nowadays than in past years, they're still seen as an on-the-fringe transportation means by many, if not most, Americans. Therefore, even though riding in the middle or left part of a traffic lane might seem safe, it will antagonize many drivers who will try to run you over or pass by with inches to spare just to get their message across. As a bicyclist, I've encountered this (and a lot of cursing out of the passenger side window) even when I was on the right part of the traffic lane - I don't want to know what would happen if I had the "gall" to bike "where the cars are supposed to be".

I would therefore advocate riding around the right part of the lane to allow cars to pass you safely, but far away enough from parked cars to avoid getting doored.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1. Sounds like your buses suck. Any route going 11 miles should have a limited-stop version, if not an outright express. There really is no excuse not to.

first off, yes, chicago's buses SUCK ASS (they're so fucking slow), and all express routes have been eliminated due to budget cuts (recession and all that noise), and even if we had express buses, at rush hour they wouldn't do dick because traffic on lawrence is a complete parking lot. secondly, the 12 mile route i was referencing has no direct busline servicing it, i have to take the L to lawrence, transfer to the 81 bus, take that west to the jeff park transit center and then get on on the 81W bus to my friend's house. those two transfers can be killer if i miss the connections. on a bike there's no worry, i'm hauling ass the entire time.

[dchan]

Limited buses can only save you time if there truly are just a limited number of stops on the route. For example, the Q46 Limited bus once fulfilled this criteria - it had only 2 or 3 stops between the subway stop and my stop. But I'm guessing that a bunch of passengers decided to bitch about that huge section route with no stops between Main Street and Utopia Pkwy, and asked "why-oh-why can't we get our own stops?" So the MTA added 3 more stops in this section - now, there aren't many more local stops than there are "limited" stops along the route.

The extra time adds up: the waits for passengers to embark and leave the bus, the wait for traffic on the adjacent lane to clear so the bus can leave the stop, the missed green traffic lights. It has come to the point in which I could correctly guess when I should take the local bus, since it stops about 3 blocks closer to my house than the "limited" bus. But in years past, when the Q46 Limited truly had a limited number of stops on its route, I would have without question always taken the limited bus.

[Cirrus]

I advocate riding around the right part of the lane to allow cars to pass you safely, but far away enough from parked cars to avoid getting doored.

Oh, so like, the center of the lane.

The whole reason riding to the right is less safe is that it encourages drivers to pass you when there isn't really adequate room to do so. Maybe lanes where you live are a lot wider than where I live, but most of the places I go there isn't room for *both* a car to pass safely *and* for me to be outside the dooring-zone.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by fflint

Buses aren't slow because of bicyclists--that is patently ludicrous. No transportation department or planning firm would ever back up such a lame notion, because the facts don't support it.

tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek...

Originally Posted by fflint

Buses are slow because there are too damned many private automobiles clogging the bus routes, first and foremost, and then also because stops are oftentimes spaced too closely, as well as boarding/exiting issues.

Of these 3, Chicago's slowness (along with bunching/inconsistency) is primarily due to the very close stop spacing, typically every 1/8 mile -- traffic volume causes hotspot congestion at certain intersections and the city has never really made an effort at any sort of bus prioritization at these locations, but on most corridors the traffic volume alone isn't messing up the busses, rather it's the many 6 corner intersections and plethora of intersections without turn queuing lanes or even turn-only signal phases. Boarding/alightings haven't been an issue for a few years, with the migration to RFID farecard technology from around 2003-2006 speeding up boarding time significantly.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

1. Sounds like your buses suck. Any route going 11 miles should have a limited-stop version, if not an outright express. There really is no excuse not to.

Yeah, the average end-to-end bus speeds are something in the range of 10mph... the only large systems that are slower are SF, Boston, and NYC, I believe. Limited stop buses have been tried here (since cut in the latest service cuts...) with mixed results. In terms of the average travel time across the whole route the time savings were not very good, generally maybe only saving 10-15%. However, the travel times of the limited stop services are far more consistent, the local/all-stop buses are prone to the occasional eyeball-bleedingly-slow trip where someone is boarding or alighting at every single stop, every 1/8 mile, along a 10-mile crosstown route. For example, A limited stop bus might have a travel time of 60 minutes +/- 6 minutes while the local would have a travel time of 68 minutes +/- 13 minutes.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

2. Because many people - especially those who aren't prone to liking mornings in the first place - don't want to exert so much energy so soon in the day.

there's no finer way to welcome the new day than with a nice long bike ride. it get's the body moving, the blood flowing, and the mind percolating. it's much more effective than caffeine to get you into awake mode.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

there's no fine way to welcome the new day than with a nice long bike ride. it get's the body moving, the blood flowing, and the mind percolating. it's much more effective than caffeine to get you into awake mode.

No argument once I get my ass on the bike. But when I'm lying in bed contemplating waking up or getting an extra hour of sleep, the extra hour of sleep wins a little bit too often

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

No argument once I get my ass on the bike. But when I'm lying in bed contemplating waking up or getting an extra hour of sleep, the extra hour of sleep wins a little bit too often

really? i find myself jumping out of bed in the morning to check the weather and see if it's a good day for riding. i get so friggin' excited at the prospect of a ride into work. i'm a like a dog who's owner asks it if it wants to go out for walk, i start wagging my tail and jumping up and down, it's all just so damn exciting. every single morning. why doesn't it ever get old?

oh that's right, because bicycles completely rule the universe!

[fflint]

Originally Posted by dchan

...bikes...still seen as an on-the-fringe transportation means by many, if not most, Americans.

If true, that is likely because most Americans live in communities designed and built exclusively for automobile travel. For Americans in less autopian communities, our manifestation of the global urban cycling renaissance is only a few years old. I don't think this ignorance you describe will long withstand the astronomical rise in bicycling witnessed in countless US cities and college towns.

Therefore, even though riding in the middle or left part of a traffic lane might seem safe, it will antagonize many drivers who will try to run you over or pass by with inches to spare just to get their message across.

While I like to jokingly call out "Safety third!" to my friends while we fly down the streets on our bikes, in reality safety comes first. For Americans who ride bicycles, the most common cause of injury accidents is "dooring." Dooring is what happens when a motorist carelessly flings open the driver-side door as a cyclist is passing, causing the cyclist to crash into the door and/or crash trying to avoid hitting the door.

All responsible parties recommend all cyclists ride outside the "door zone." This necessarily puts us closer to the middle of the travel lane in our shared roadways. Cyclists should always be mindful of all that's going on around them, and how badly the motorists are behaving, but should never place themselves in clear and present danger by riding in the door zone. Let the criminal justice system deal with any possible murderous psychopath who wants to use his 2-ton planet-wrecker as a deadly weapon.

I would therefore advocate riding around the right part of the lane to allow cars to pass you safely, but far away enough from parked cars to avoid getting doored.

It's not possible to ride in the right side of a travel lane and also be outside of the door zone, at least not in the kinds of places Steely, Cirrus and I live. The door zone is about three feet into the travel lane, minimum, which puts a cyclist at least four and a half feet toward the middle.