Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. A political whim could shut down a whole bus route in a day, leaving commuters stranded. Rail signals long-term investment, and neighborhoods will grow around rail because they can guarantee it'll be there for years to come.
It's more than that. At a personal level buses offer you all the disadvantages of mass transit with a side benefit of all the disadvantages of automobile travel. The only reason you would take a bus in Los Angeles is because you don't own a car.
Much of that could be fixed with enough investment, but we're talking a huge investment.
Don't forget that rail (usually) has its own right-of-way.A badly planned bus system is never faster than driving; you're stuck in the exact same traffic. Rail (especially subway or Rapid Transit) though, automatically has the benefits of BRT... it doesn't get stuck in traffic.
Also when looking at e.g. Light Rail that goes on the road (like Muni's LRVs) you should consider the socioeconomic factors - the bus is looked down as for poor people in a way rail transit isn'. (Which is why, for instance, the NX is a thing; people wanted and got a specially painted bus while the N was undergoing renovations so they wouldn't be on the "common people" bus.)
Remember - a "regular" bus is never faster than driving.
> Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable.
I've always thought that was an advantage for buses. With rail, you have to plan it to go through areas that are not only popular now, but will be popular in 30 years. If some neighborhood suddenly becomes the happening place 10 years from now, you have to build a whole new, expensive line. But with buses, you can just add a new route.
> With rail, you have to plan it to go through areas that are not only popular now, but will be popular in 30 years
It's more like, with rail, you build the line, and if it's a useful line then the neighborhood around it will become popular. In NYC throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, they built rail lines through farmland and the (medium/high density) neighborhoods followed. In LA, we're seeing better rail access revitalize areas like DTLA (or at least contribute to it). It's always a hard sell building rail lines through areas already connected by highways/roads, but if we watch LA over the next few decades we'll see what happens.
If you build a bus route into the middle of somewhere, even a good/reliable one, it probably wont change the neighborhood or stimulate nearly as much development. But hey, now you have a bus line. I used to ride one from my suburban high school in upstate NY into the small city's downtown, and it was fine.
It's an advantage for the transit agency. It's a disincentive for people who wish to structure their daily life around public transit over the long term. Thus, a rail line will usually bump your property value much higher than a bus line.
This article[1] has some info and citations and makes my point a bit more clearly.
> Several scholars have described Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an attractive modal transit option (R. B. Diaz and Schneck 2000; Levinson et al. 2002; Polzin and Baltes 2002; Vuchic 2002). The attributes favoring BRT are its lower capital cost relative to other modes (such as fixed rail) (US GAO 2001) as well as its implementation and operational flexibility (Jarzab, Lightbody, and Maeda 2002).
> There is limited evidence about the relationship between land values and BRT (Rodriguez and Targa 2004; Johnson 2003). Similarly, traditional bus service is rarely considered when discussing the impact of transit on housing costs. In their review of the literature, Hess and Almeida (2007, p. 1043) explain that “…property values near bus routes have only modest gains, if any, from transit proximity, because most bus routes lack the permanence of fixed infrastructure.”
...
> In North America, the relationship between accessibility to BRT and land values is only examined by a handful of studies focusing on bus priority treatments (high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)-bus lanes) and transit ways. In an early study, (Knight and Trygg 1977) examined HOV-bus lanes in Washington, DC, California, Seattle, and Florida. They relied on previously published reports, interviews, aerial photographs, and other secondary sources available at the time to conclude that exclusive bus lanes incorporated into highways appear to have no impact on either residential or commercial development. A later study by Mullins, Washington, and Stokes (1990) found that the BRT in Ottawa, Canada, appeared to have some effect on land development in areas surrounding stations. A review of studies from Houston, Texas, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and San Francisco, California conducted by Rodriguez and Targa (2004), revealed that bus transit had no impact on either residential or commercial development. A hedonic analysis applied to Los Angeles’s BRT, one year after its initiation, did not detect any evidence of benefits to nearby multi-family parcels (Cervero and Duncan 2002a). Recent work by a UCLA student, however, found that Los Angeles’ Orange Line (BRT) had an effect on the neighborhood real estate market. In between 2000 and 2012, areas near the Orange Line (BRT) fixed-guideway saw median rent increase by 25% compared to 15% in the control area, renter occupied units increased by 9% compared to 0% in the control area, and home value increase by 47% compared to 34% in the control area (Brown 2014). No significant differences in median income or household vehicle ownership were found, however other demographic characteristics (growth, education, and race) were found to significantly change.
> Rodriquez and Targa (2004) suggest that these mixed results could be partially explained by the BRT’s lack of fixed guideways, as well as the cross-sectional research design and the newness of the service. Indeed, a study of a 25-year old bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Pittsburgh found a significant price premium for homes selling near the BRT line (Perk and Catala 2009). The implication is that where a BRT system can bring lasting improvements in accessibility on par with a fixed rail transit system housing markets may respond accordingly.
That land values don't increase as much near impermanent infrastructure isn't surprising; this still doesn't explain why people would use it less while it's there. And in any case, this data doesn't distinguish between your theory and the theory that buses are less desirable for other reasons.
I should've prefaced my post with "from an urban planner or potential [permanent] resident's perspective." The opinions of current residents are likely formed by the set of different reasons mentioned in other posts.
Any data to back up that theory? The alternative theory that rail drives neighbourhood growth and has better long-term political safety is more plausible to me.
Not that I disagree but it's no less backed up than the theory you support.
Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. A political whim could shut down a whole bus route in a day, leaving commuters stranded. Rail signals long-term investment, and neighborhoods will grow around rail because they can guarantee it'll be there for years to come.