When a member of STRH posted a photo of an almost empty bus crawling past a sea of brake lights in Richmond Hill, the image felt like a riddle.
Why would anyone choose to sit alone in traffic inside a private car while a mostly empty bus glides by in the same congestion?
The reactions we received were revealing — and unsurprising to anyone who has read Human Transit by Jarrett Walker. The answers weren’t about ideology. They were about design.
It’s Not About Virtue. It’s About Geometry.
Walker’s core principle is disarmingly simple: transit is a tool for moving large numbers of people efficiently through limited space. Roads are geometry. So are cities. If too many people try to move in large vehicles designed to carry one or two people, congestion is inevitable.
An empty bus in traffic is not proof that transit doesn’t work. It is proof that we have designed a system where transit is optional, inconvenient, and therefore underused.
The “Last Mile” Problem Is Real
Some residents pointed to the long walk at the beginning or end of their trip. This aligns directly with Walker’s argument that frequency and network design matter more than coverage everywhere. A system that tries to be close to everyone often ends up being slow for everyone.
Richmond Hill’s suburban layout — wide arterial roads, separated land uses, and cul-de-sacs — makes it hard to design fast, direct transit. If the walk feels long, it’s often because destinations are far apart by design.
Transit can’t fix land use alone. But land use can quietly sabotage transit.
Transfers Feel Like Failure — But They Aren’t
Others complained about needing multiple transfers. In North American political culture, transfers are often treated as a flaw. In reality, they are the foundation of any high-functioning network.
Walker argues that a connected grid with frequent service allows people to move in many directions efficiently. But this only works if frequency is high enough that transfers don’t feel risky or punishing.
If you must wait 20 or 30 minutes between buses, a transfer feels like a gamble. If buses come every 5–10 minutes, a transfer becomes simply part of the journey.
The problem is not transfers. The problem is infrequency.
Waiting Is What People Hate Most
Many residents said they dislike “wasting time” waiting — at the origin stop or during transfers. Walker emphasizes that frequency is freedom. High frequency eliminates the need to consult schedules. You simply go.
In much of York Region, service outside peak hours remains thin. When transit only works well at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., it becomes a commuter service — not a mobility system.
Comfort, Cleanliness, and Dignity
Some responses focused on comfort and cleanliness. These are legitimate concerns. Transit must feel safe and dignified. But here again, Walker’s broader point applies: systems that are treated as social services rather than essential infrastructure tend to be underfunded and undervalued.
If buses are framed as a charity option for those who “can’t afford” cars, they will never attract broad ridership. And without broad ridership, political support stagnates.
Total Travel Time Still Rules
For most people, the ultimate metric is simple: how long does it take door-to-door?
If driving takes 20 minutes and transit takes 45, no moral appeal will close that gap. Transit must compete on usefulness, not guilt.
That means prioritizing direct routes, higher frequencies on key corridors, and resisting the temptation to spread service too thinly in the name of fairness.
The Bigger Cultural Problem
One of the deepest North American transit challenges is philosophical. Transit is often framed as a subsidy for the poor rather than as a productivity tool for the entire city.
But a city is wealthy when its people can move efficiently without needing to own and operate expensive private machinery. A bus full of professionals, students, seniors, and families is not a symbol of scarcity. It is a symbol of collective efficiency.
When middle-class residents choose transit, congestion drops. Public space becomes more productive. Household transportation costs fall. Local economies strengthen.
Transit is not charity. It is infrastructure.
The Empty Bus in the Traffic Jam
That empty bus in Richmond Hill wasn’t a failure. It was an invitation.
An invitation to ask whether our network design prioritizes frequency over coverage.
Whether our land use supports walkability.
Whether our political culture treats transit as essential or optional.
People do not reject transit because they love traffic. They reject it when it does not respect their time.
If we want those traffic lanes to empty out, the bus cannot simply exist. It has to be the obvious choice.