# Which major city has the best / worst bus network



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Which City has the best / worst bus network infrastructure?

Many people get hooked-up on trains and shiny buses but isn't the good old bus the worlds work horse for mass transit.

So which city has the best / worst infrastructure to allow buses to get people moving.









*
Bus lane Km's per bus*


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

*Best*
London - Extensive, 24 hour and frequent
Berlin - Extensive, 24 hour and frequent
Stockholm - Extensive, 24 hour and very frequent core routes with even less populated routes with decent frequencies.
Hong Kong - Very extensive though a little expensive over time and very frequent. Shame it isn't 24 hours.

*Worst*
Perth - Improving rail system, but very poor frequencies on buses.
Melbourne - Circuitous and pointless bus routes. 
Tokyo - Worlds most extensive urban rail system that normally runs like clockwork, but poor, hard to understand bus service.
Auckland - Generally bad public transport. Poor frequencies, good coverage but terrible late night buses. Confusing routes that bundle but don't coordinate (5 buses within 2 minutes but then a gap of 30 minutes or more for example).


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Hong Kong - Very extensive though a little expensive over time and very frequent. Shame it isn't 24 hours.


I would argue HK should not be on the list of best. It has lots of buses but very little road infrastructure to give buses a priority. So is you take a bus you get stuck in congestion. Although practically every shopping mall has a bus station underneath.

London's system is very extensive


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Hong Kong has a number of overnight N bus routes, much like London.


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

From what i have experienced, i give credits to Stockholm. The city has an enjoyable to use transport network with an easy access in whole the capital region.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Longershanks said:


> I would argue HK should not be on the list of best. It has lots of buses but very little road infrastructure to give buses a priority. So is you take a bus you get stuck in congestion. Although practically every shopping mall has a bus station underneath.
> 
> London's system is very extensive


Despite the lack of priority, I found they flowed pretty well when I used them. Plus I mainly used them as feeders to the nearest MTR station which made them efficient. I wouldn't use them for long distance in HK to be perfectly honest. That's how I find the best bus systems are - feeders to rail.


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Despite the lack of priority, I found they flowed pretty well when I used them. Plus I mainly used them as feeders to the nearest MTR station which made them efficient. I wouldn't use them for long distance in HK to be perfectly honest. That's how I find the best bus systems are - feeders to rail.


But for long distances buses are sometimes faster than the MTR and only 50% of HK is covered by the MTR. Getting stuck in chronic congestion is a daily and worsening problem for HK's bus users.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Longershanks said:


> But for long distances buses are sometimes faster than the MTR and only 50% of HK is covered by the MTR. Getting stuck in chronic congestion is a daily and worsening problem for HK's bus users.


Well, I have seen your posts on the Hong Kong forum (yep, I read that forum) in the MTR thread and others and I know your views on how buses should be run, but I tend to view buses as a feeder system only. The MTR is being expanded a huge amount and so hopefully buses being caught in congestion will be less of an issue. It would be quite handy to have bus lanes in HK though on main roads I do agree (Nathan Road springs to mind) but in general the buses fulfil their transport role well. HK does have one of the best bus systems in the world that I have used. I think you need to see how terrible some other cities are so you appreciate HK more.


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> I tend to view buses as a feeder system only.


Of the total trips made by Hong Kong people, about 30% of the people use rail with many long distance journeys completed by bus or minibus. 

Buses are good in HK, bus station infrastructure is generally good (except at newer MTR stations) but priority schemes on HK roads are severely lacking. Strangely most bus lanes seem to end with the bus having to give way to the rest of the traffic.

*have a look at Bus lanes networks in selected Major cities for a rough cut comparison*


----------



## ipohboy (Apr 12, 2011)

best is definitely goes to Tokyo
worst ever? got to be India, sorry.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

ipohboy said:


> best is definitely goes to Tokyo
> worst ever? got to be India, sorry.


Best buses?! Are you kidding? Tokyo has a fantastic rail system, but the buses are generally awful, low frequency and circuitous routes.


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Best buses?! Are you kidding? Tokyo has a fantastic rail system, but the buses are generally awful, low frequency and circuitous routes.


You may have visited to Tōkyō, but you probably don't know enough about the system to make an educated statement. I can't fully blame you, since very little is provided in English.

There are plenty of corridors where the frequency gets quite high (let's say around 30 buses per hour or more, even in a more suburban context). The problem is you are looking on a route-by-route basis, which doesn't work... You should be looking at a corridor basis because of two reasons:

Many of the routes are "interlined"
Japanese bus operators tend to be overly detailed regarding route nomenclature, and even comparatively minor differences in route will be given a different line number (and an entirely different schedule).
I can point you to the places to look if you wish

In fact, the Tōkyō bus network is exactly what you describe as the "ideal" bus network: a feeder to the rail system. While there are longer distance routes, most of the bus service is designed to get you to / from the nearest train station.

No doubt there is room for improvement (cross-company integration, even route or schedule simplification), but they are also ahead in other ways:

Pollution / noise (no idling; drivers usually turn off the engines, even when only stopped at intersections)
Fare collection (like Japanese TVMs for train lines, the fareboxes on a Japanese bus can do just about anything, including give you change)
Cleanliness (no graffiti, no trash, no smells)
Comfort (no hard plastic or metal seats, all fully-cushioned)
You are entitled to your opinion, but grouping the Tōkyō bus network into one of the "worst" bus networks alongside a place like Auckland seems like just a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

quashlo said:


> You may have visited to Tōkyō, but you probably don't know enough about the system to make an educated statement. I can't fully blame you, since very little is provided in English.
> 
> There are plenty of corridors where the frequency gets quite high (let's say around 30 buses per hour or more, even in a more suburban context). The problem is you are looking on a route-by-route basis, which doesn't work... You should be looking at a corridor basis because of two reasons:
> 
> ...


I used buses in parts of Tokyo (with difficulty) in the suburbs, though not in the central city. You are dead right about the lack of information in English I had to ask people which buses to use thanks to my poor Japanese (a failing on my part rather than the buses). I didn't feel they were particularly frequent, but that's a personal observation.

As a tourist, if a network is convoluted, difficult to understand and has too many different operators offering overlapping routes and showing poor interoperability then I would class that as a bad network. I've used public transport in many cities where I had little comprehension of the language yet I never struggled like I did in Japan. The rail networks? No problem. Buses? Eeehhh, that's another story. 

Okay a few points on your "pluses":

#1. Pollution is often not much of an issue in other cities either given that some (like Stockholm on my list) use biofuels or CNG automatically making them better than a diesel engine. I did like the Japanese drivers habit of turning their engines off at intersections though. A lot of the buses I saw in Tokyo were older meaning they automatically had less efficient diesel engines. 

#2. Fare collection on many bus networks around the world is better - many have eliminated cash altogether. 

#3. Cleanliness in Japan is something to marvel at, agreed. This doesn't mean other networks aren't clean, though. I've used many around the world and graffiti isn't as much of a problem as you'd believe.

#4. Most buses have comfortable fabric seats. I've never been on a bus with hard, plastic seats thankfully! The most comfortable ones were some of the new KCR buses in Hong Kong.

#5. Interlining occurs in many other cities too and often results in high frequencies. Some corridors in Auckland have buses every few seconds, but that doesn't mean I regard Auckland as having a good bus network. Each route should be considered on its individual merits as each route often has it's own, solitary end point. Ergo, if a route only comes every hour, then it's a poor service frequency despite the fact that 2km away it might join up with 8 other routes resulting in a frequency of one every 5 minutes or so.

The other thing I noticed is that the buses had low capacity compared to other systems. Part of this is due to the unique urban fabric of Japanese cities making larger buses difficult to drive, I understand that, but even so the buses didn't seem large enough to cope with patronage.

Anyway, those are just my feelings. I take nothing away from Tokyo's transport network as a whole as I still think it's one of the best I've used - Tokyo was truly a pleasure to travel around even at peak hour(!) - it's just I felt it's bus network was lacking given the size of the city. If I lived there, then I would rather cycle to a station than use one of the buses.


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> I used buses in parts of Tokyo (with difficulty) in the suburbs, though not in the central city. You are dead right about the lack of information in English I had to ask people which buses to use thanks to my poor Japanese (a failing on my part rather than the buses). I didn't feel they were particularly frequent, but that's a personal observation.


What was your itinerary? It could simply be that your itinerary did not warrant regular service at high frequencies. Even in Tōkyō suburbs you can find extremely high-frequency service, but it all depends on where the demand is. If you happen to pick a route that only a few want to take, you can't complain about the entire system's frequencies.



> As a tourist, if a network is convoluted, difficult to understand and has too many different operators offering overlapping routes and showing poor interoperability then I would class that as a bad network. I've used public transport in many cities where I had little comprehension of the language yet I never struggled like I did in Japan. The rail networks? No problem. Buses? Eeehhh, that's another story.


Again, what was your itinerary? If you're going out to some random Tōkyō suburb just to explore what the transit service and development pattern is like because you're a transit geek (that's not an insult, btw... I do the same), do you think your average tourist will be doing the same? How many non-Japanese-speaking tourists do you think actually need to take the bus in Tōkyō? If you were a Japanese tourist (or how about a Chinese tourist) doing the same thing, don't you think your experience would have been different? It sounds like you expected a good portion of it be spelled out in English for you, or at least in an alphabet that you could partially decipher.



> #1. Pollution is often not much of an issue in other cities either given that some (like Stockholm on my list) use biofuels or CNG automatically making them better than a diesel engine. I did like the Japanese drivers habit of turning their engines off at intersections though. A lot of the buses I saw in Tokyo were older meaning they automatically had less efficient diesel engines.


BDF is in use on Toei Bus. Not on all buses, but they are using it. And thanks to having access to large bus manufacturers like Hino, they can easily test out the newest technologies like hydrogen fuel cell or lithium-ion / nickel metal hydride batteries. They are currently testing HFC on a route to Haneda. This is not to say they are the ONLY ones doing this... They obviously aren't.



> #2. Fare collection on many bus networks around the world is better - many have eliminated cash altogether.


Who says eliminating cash altogether is better?

As I said previously, your typical farebox on a Japanese bus can do everything. It can take both cash or IC card. You can also put value onto your IC card using the farebox.

Eliminating cash altogether means you are either forcing people to use an all-electronic system like a smartcard (which may or may not be convenient to obtain on a bus system) or doing some sort of honor-based system (which also may not be ideal due to fare evasion 
and revenue loss).

I will skip #3 and #4. You may not know how bad some places are, and we may have different standards for cleanliness and comfort.



> #5. Interlining occurs in many other cities too and often results in high frequencies. Some corridors in Auckland have buses every few seconds, but that doesn't mean I regard Auckland as having a good bus network. Each route should be considered on its individual merits as each route often has it's own, solitary end point. Ergo, if a route only comes every hour, then it's a poor service frequency despite the fact that 2km away it might join up with 8 other routes resulting in a frequency of one every 5 minutes or so.


I am not saying interlining doesn't occur elsewhere... I am saying it generally doesn't occur to the same complexity, and that is why you may look at schedule and see only one or two trips an hour. Even minor route deviations are often treated as entirely separate routes and show up with their own schedules.

As for your example, it seems extremely simplistic. Do you know what environment it is running in on that 2 km section? What if it's all industrial uses, there's no ped traffic, and it's just a bunch of trucks on the road? What if there's very little of any development at all? You cannot have high frequencies everywhere... It needs to be tailored to the demand. Which brings me back to my first question. What was your itinerary when you rode the buses?



> The other thing I noticed is that the buses had low capacity compared to other systems. Part of this is due to the unique urban fabric of Japanese cities making larger buses difficult to drive, I understand that, but even so the buses didn't seem large enough to cope with patronage.


I think you answered your own question... You will generally not find articulated buses. Even standard 12 m (40 ft) coaches will have difficulty negotiating most routes since the streets are too narrow.

But it sounds like you found the buses well-used. 



> If I lived there, then I would rather cycle to a station than use one of the buses.


And you would be just one of 1+ million who already do. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it's probably better for the environment all around.

FYI:
Bike and walk mode share to / from stations is very high in Tōkyō... On trips to / from stations in the National Capital Region (i.e., the secondary mode in a trip where rail transit is the primary mode), bike mode share is as high as bus mode share (both are about 8 percent). Walk is 80 percent.

Perhaps this is also why you might perceive poor frequency of bus service, as the demand for short-distance trips may not seem like much since everyone is biking or walking to / from the station. In other locations, many of these short-distance trips might be made using buses.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Thanks for your long reply. I didn't mean to turn this into a backwards-forwards debate on the merits of the bus system in Tokyo...

Firstly, 我说中文. Well, a little anyway. The thing is that Japanese is totally different to Chinese. Sure there is some overlap, but not as much as one would expect. Since I only read simplified (a failing on my part) I struggle to read Kanji, and might not be able to read it at all in some cases. Couple that with my lack of knowledge of hiragana or katakana and it makes no difference that I can speak a little mandarin (my girlfriend is in the same boat and she's a native mandarin speaker). I didn't expect anything to be written in English and had written down key stations in characters to help me. The thing is, maps and line diagrams of routes are workable in any language, and that was lacking for the Tokyo bus system on the whole (or if they did exist I couldn't find them). I also know my numbers in simplified Chinese too - 一二三 etc etc, so I could at least understand a bit. 

As for the area I caught the bus - I caught them in Tama New Town, but went back to the rail system as it was excellent in the area and much easier. I also caught buses in Kyoto, but they were generally low frequency and not that great even in the centre, but that's another story. 

Overall, I won't construct another rebuttle to your post as I'll have to bow to your experiences given that you live there and I'm an outsider. 

One thing I will comment on is cashless boarding on buses. Yes, it involves buying a smart card, but this is a perfectly easy thing to do when they're sold at every convenience store in the city and can be charged up there. The cashless system makes things a lot easier overall, but I think that's just a preference thing.

As a side note - keep up your excellent work in the Japan Urban Transport thread and the Railways thread - I love reading them.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

London, efficient and quick. The doubledeckers really are superior when it comes to inner city traffic.


----------



## sidney_jec (Jun 10, 2005)

ipohboy said:


> best is definitely goes to Tokyo
> worst ever? got to be India, sorry.


which city in India?


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Key factors for assessing if a bus system is good for me (in priority)

1) Is it faster than driving (it should be for urban journeys - in HK it is usually much faster driving as buses are restricted to congested routes and have no bus lanes)
2) Fair fares - Is there a cross charging scheme so if you swap buses or get off early (even between operators) you only pay for the journey you take
3) Is it clean and air-conditioned

Being safe should be a 'given'. Obviously if there is a rail solution that is faster then people will use that but it is not possible to have rail everywhere.

What criteria do you use to score the 'best/worst' bus systems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_lane#Major_city_networks


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Longershanks said:


> Key factors for assessing if a bus system is good for me (in priority)
> 
> 1) Is it faster than driving (it should be for urban journeys - in HK it is usually much faster driving as buses are restricted to congested routes and have no bus lanes)
> 2) Fair fares - Is there a cross charging scheme so if you swap buses or get off early (even between operators) you only pay for the journey you take
> ...


I doubt there is any major city where driving can be slower than taking the bus. Bus lanes help buses move, but they stop many times along the way as well.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Gotta admit I'm shaking my head at some of the cities mentioned so far - have people even been in the places they mention ( London, Tokyo, Hong Kong??? :? )

I've been some what around and so far the only city mentioned that makes sense regarding the topic is Stockholm and Berlin..




Anywhoo.. not about to do the hole list thing.. instead here is what is offered in Copenhagen..

The city bus network is expansive - every larger street has multiple lines and service is around the clock..

We have multiple kinds of buses - express buses, main lines, residential lines and even small van seized ones that covers the smallest parts where even cars rarely go.. 

Some are still using diesel, but many are fully electric or hybrids..

They run often - depending on line from every 3min to at worst every 20min.. ( most every 5 to 7min )

Design examplez:









They are clean and modern with both free Wifi and internal TV information system and of course with climate control that actually works..

Example:









They have dedicated lanes on all streets with room for it, they also have special light signals giving them head starts at intersections and by law has the right of way..

There are also many "bus only" parts where all other cars/trucks etc are banned from using and in general they are very highly prioritized over the rest of the traffic..

Bus only street:









The network even spans the habour with multiple harbour bus lines ( the yellow one )










So while I will refrain from making any lists myself I will bet a beer that my city's bus network belongs very high up on a global scale and that ignoring the Scandinavian capitals in this thread topic will be ignorant as it's one of the areas where they really shine..


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

FREKI said:


> Gotta admit I'm shaking my head at some of the cities mentioned so far - have people even been in the places they mention ( London, Tokyo, Hong Kong??? :? )


Yep, I've been to all the places I mentioned and lived either in or near two of them (London and Auckland). Tokyo I found to be lacking due to the reasons I outlined above, though Quashlo disagrees. Hong Kong I found to have an excellent bus system, but it does lack priority measures. It is extensively used and I found it comfortable and modern, but that's me. After all, it is a preference thing at the end of the day.


----------



## BrizzyChris (Sep 11, 2002)

FREKI said:


> They are clean and modern with both free Wifi and internal TV information system and of course with climate control that actually works..
> 
> Example:


Free Wifi and LCD screens in buses is a brilliant idea! The amount of times I hear people ask "where is this?...what is the next stop?...etc" - the TV screens would solve a lot of issues, plus have the option of gaining advertising revenue as well.


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> I doubt there is any major city where driving can be slower than taking the bus. Bus lanes help buses move, but they stop many times along the way as well.


Many major and minor cities in the western world offer park and ride schemes where priority bus schemes means parking outside town and getting a bus into the centre IS faster. Due to cramped city centres bus lanes have been created by taking away car user rights to all lanes of the roads. Park and ride schemes are simple and clearly show that bus systems can reduce travel time. And this pro-public transport policy helps combat the Lewis–Mogridge Position


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

FREKI said:


> Gotta admit I'm shaking my head at some of the cities mentioned so far - have people even been in the places they mention ( *London*, Tokyo, Hong Kong??? :? )
> 
> I've been some what around and so far the only city mentioned that makes sense regarding the topic is Stockholm and Berlin..



London has great bus network, with a large amount of infrastructure to support it.


- London has 290km of bus lanes (red lanes). (source)











- London buses have TV screens and internal LCD information systems.











- 700 bus routes. Over 7,000 buses. Regular frequency on all routes.

- Multiple bus types. Single-decker, double-decker and articulated buses.

... plus many other points, which make London a suitable contender.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^well I certainly hope it has improved drastically since my visit.. ( 2002 )..

30+min delays - extremely slow speeds and I even managed to walk 5km home faster to the hotel than my GF at the time did using a bus with a 10min head-start..

A bus network needs to be excellent in the center/inner city too to make the list IMO and while I may have been extremely unlucky or times have changed since then - I was anything but impressed back then..


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Longershanks said:


> Many major and minor cities in the western world offer park and ride schemes where priority bus schemes means parking outside town and getting a bus into the centre IS faster. Due to cramped city centres bus lanes have been created by taking away car user rights to all lanes of the roads. Park and ride schemes are simple and clearly show that bus systems can reduce travel time. And this pro-public transport policy helps combat the Lewis–Mogridge Position


Park and ride still encourages car use and Hong Kong is well-connected by transit and dense enough to even eliminate the drive yourself to the train station option.

Forcing passengers away from heavy rail to bus would be disastrous for our roads. Rail is and will always befar more efficient and faster. Smaller cities with insufficient density or funds to build rail will just need to cope with the BRT alternative.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

To be honest, no developed nation deserves to have a city on the "worst" list. In several nations of the world (especially in Africa), there is no public transportation system and people without cars are at the mercy of minibus/taxi services, many which have dubious safety standards.


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> Park and ride still encourages car use and Hong Kong is well-connected by transit and dense enough to even eliminate the drive yourself to the train station option.


Don't HK's roads have the highest vehicle density on the world with chronic congestion and associated pollution that comes from congestion. It is a fallacy to suggest trains remove congestion they just offer an alternative and boost economic capacity.

Today was pretty much pollution free but there was still a smog cloud encircling Central! Hong Kong must be almost unique in not having inter district bus lanes and 24/7 vehicular access to all areas with no congestion management schemes when the majority of people use the bus to travel. The Government even subsidises down-town city centre parking for the car owning class!!

Interestingly if you travel from Kowloon to central through the cross harbour tunnel at two locations most mornings Government employees are paid to to ensure cars get better through congestion faster than buses.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Longershanks said:


> Don't HK's roads have the highest vehicle density on the world with chronic congestion and associated pollution that comes from congestion. It is a fallacy to suggest trains remove congestion they just offer an alternative and boost economic capacity.
> 
> Today was pretty much pollution free but there was still a smog cloud encircling Central! Hong Kong must be almost unique in not having inter district bus lanes and 24/7 vehicular access to all areas with no congestion management schemes when the majority of people use the bus to travel. The Government even subsidises down-town city centre parking for the car owning class!!
> 
> Interestingly if you travel from Kowloon to central through the cross harbour tunnel at two locations most mornings Government employees are paid to to ensure cars get better through congestion faster than buses.


High vehicle density does not mean high private car usage. Understand how people travel around first *before* thinking about how to improve traffic flow.


----------



## hmmwv (Jul 19, 2006)

hkskyline said:


> I doubt there is any major city where driving can be slower than taking the bus. Bus lanes help buses move, but they stop many times along the way as well.


Beijing came to my mind where buses are the better choice (other than subway) compare to driving.


----------



## Longershanks (Mar 10, 2008)

Also London it is often faster to catch the bus than drive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCilA4S-Ok


----------



## TsLeng (Dec 12, 2009)

SE9 said:


> - 700 bus routes. Over 7,000 buses. Regular frequency on all routes.
> 
> - Multiple bus types. Single-decker, double-decker and *articulated buses*.
> 
> ... plus many other points, which make London a suitable contender.


Well, won't be any soon. hno: Shame to see them go. 

But looking forward to the new double decks. Whenever they come!


----------

