[petcat]

I ride the bus and I can tell you right now that I would be pissed if this guy took away my bus stop. That's my critique. I think it's perfectly valid.

[bluGill]

Only because you know your loss but cannot imagine your gains in time.

[cucumber3732842]

So 1/Nth of the ridership is gonna have their stop deleted at a sum total of X man years. But it's all gonna be worth it based on a projected possible upside that may not materialize dependent upon many factors?

This is even worse than the usual slight of hand wherein one takes a widely diffuse hard to quantify cost and rounds it to zero and then dishonestly acts as though that justifies implementing their pet policy that has some small upside because in this case the downside is known and the upside is less defined.

I'm open to the idea that we could improve the system by deleting stops, but in light of a quantifiable downside I don't see a convincing argument without having some quantification on what the upside looks like.

[petcat]

The gains just mean that I sit on the bus while twice as many people are trying to board at every stop. The bus is stopped for twice as long.

[anthonybsd]

You would be pissed that you have to walk for an extra 2 minutes? I wouldn't, but sure. Would you also be pissed about overall bus travel time decreasing by a generous amount?

[yorwba]

How far do you walk to your bus stop? How far would you have to walk to the next-closest bus stop?

[npinsker]

Would it outweigh you having to stop half as often?

[petcat]

All that means is longer lines and congestion of people waiting to board. So the bus is stopped for longer. This seems like a net nothing to me.

[luz666]

what if they removed only 33% of the stops? so per 3 stops, one is removed and the remaining were rearranged. it might even happen that the new bus stop is closer to your house. i agree, for the average person, the distance to the stop increases though.