I'd be worried about getting into a crash on this bike. (still an awesome project)

I think the main idea behind it is that it allows buses to queue up if many arrive at once without blocking the intersection

People complain to their local governments + sue transit authorities that try to do this because they like having a stop right outside their house

I think the article means 'cheap' as in it doesn't really require any new/expensive infrastructure and could theoretically be done overnight.

Though, as you mention it's a big political ask (which is unfortunate).

Removing the stops helps a lot. As an example on SEPTA, the 124/125 [1][2] to Wissahickon T.C. takes 10+ minutes longer than taking the 27 [3] when starting at J.F.K. & 15th.

(for context: the 124/5 operate locally west through center city before getting on the highway while the 27 only makes 1-2 more stops in center city before getting on the highway)

Making these extra stops causes the bus to 'miss' the light cycle at almost every stop.

[1] https://www.septa.org/schedules/124?startStop=17842&endStop=...

[2] https://www.septa.org/schedules/125?startStop=17842&endStop=...

[3] https://www.septa.org/schedules/27?startStop=17842&endStop=3...

> Making these extra stops causes the bus to 'miss' the light cycle at almost every stop.

This would be a much bigger change, but it's also possible for the lights to give priority to buses. When a bus approaches a light, that should trigger the lights to advance to the part of the cycle that gives the bus the green light. That way, you prioritize the 20 people in the bus rather than the 10 people each in their own car.

This happens with trams in the German city I live in. The other advantage is energy efficiency, apparently - if you can keep them traveling at a consistent speed, then they can maintain momentum, as opposed to if they're constantly stopping and starting and need to spend more energy getting up to speed.

It's slightly irritating as a pedestrian when you're waiting to cross the road to get to a tram stop, and you see that the tram is coming in less than a minute, and you know you're not going to be able to cross in time. But that's the sort of slight irritation I'm okay with for better fuel efficiency and faster trams.

This is very true (that re-balancing will help ridership/operations), but politically it's hard to do. Everyone wants better buses, but nobody wants to lose the stop right next to their house/apartment (even if the nearest stop is only a block or two away).

Unfortunately, the naysayers usually get their way as changing the status quo like this is hard to do. Transit Authorities need to be given more leeway to operate how they want w/ less political involvement.

Countries that are less NIMBY/lawsuit/etc happy have vastly better public transit b/c of this.

Philadelphia City Council (which actually doesn't have any direct oversight of SEPTA) pretty much killed SEPTA's attempt at this.

A big red screen that always says "yes"?

> If you genuinely need to use an anonymously published app, you will still be able to do that as a user.

I'm pretty sure the goal of Google's changes is to make it so you can't

Yeah, Google is terrible at validating developers are non-malicious on google play. plenty of fake/malicious/garbage apps make it through the filter.

You can download any APK you like on the internet and run it without google/gov getting in the way

No they don't?