3.87MPG to 4.59MPG (or 4 to 5 mpg in UK gallons) makes this still a very high figure, but its not surprising given the stop-start nature between stops and in urban traffic conditions.

If I do the maths right, you'd need at least 6-8 people to be using a bus to make it as fuel efficient as a single occupant driving an average car (not SUV obviously!!), and if a car has more occupants, multiply that number for a bus to be more efficient. So, say a car with 3 people will need a bus to have 18-24 people to be equally efficient on a miles per gallon per passenger basis as a car with three passengers.

I know that buses would be more efficient if more people used them, but this only depends on whether the bus in question is actually taking the route that people want to travel on and at the time they need it. And it also needs to be quick, not diverting round countless housing estates, as most do.

This then doesn't make buses as efficient as some people make them out to be. But is this a reason to suggest buses are a bad thing? No. They still provide useful mobility to people who don't have a car or who don't want the hassle of commuting, provided of course that the said bus provides a convenient alternative. So they have a purpose, much like cars which meet different journey types. They also make better use of roadspace especially in dense urban cities.

Hence having a diversity of ways of getting about is a good thing for choice, rather than adopting a restrictive attitude, like some people and politicians of a more greener persuation who adopt a autophobic attitude even to people who only have the car as an option.

Buses are a fantastic form of transport for cities: you can fit about 90 people on them in rush hour, and you don't have to park them.
and so on, ...

However, I often see them being driven very fast with hard acceleration as described in this article.

So why don't more transport companies try to train their drivers in eco-driving.

I have a few thoughts here:

a: The drivers are stressed out, and use the acceleration as a way of relieving their stress.

b: The drivers are so unionised that management won't say boo to them.

c: Management just couldn't be bothered.

So what could they do:

a: Train them, obviously.

b: Give them some kind of bonus for eco driving.

This could be 10% of the fuel saved or whatever.
The problem is that if they got wind of the system, they would drive very badly in the month before the system started when the targets were being set, and would generally game the system.
Also, how long would you run such a scheme, and how would you phase it out ?
What would happen if you got hybrid buses?

Another idea would be to use smaller buses on the same routes at the quiet times - I often see buses flying past my window at about 50mph with 3 or 4 people on them.

Again, extra complexity and hardware for some fuel savings.

Easier to just get the guys to slow down and anticipate stopping.

Hard acceleration does NOT mean less efficient engine operation, for gas or diesel (short of WOT, where extra enrichment is often provided); so these algorithms and arguments are flawed.

Leisurely accelerating a 15 ton bus (and the irate drivers following) to 30mph only to ALMOST make the traffic light is very inefficient.

Reasonably hard acceleration, braking and cornering are not what is inefficient - they are simply the easiest indication or measure of inefficient driving.

The real goal is to drive with very little breaking.

So rather than trying to make hundreds of bus drivers drive like old ladies, how about providing traffic notifications regarding how to make (or slow since you will NOT make) the next light – for ALL vehicles/drivers to use.

We’ve covered this before – even those pedestrian cross walk timers are WAY better than nothing.

Reasonably hard acceleration is not a sin.

Those who arrogantly believe that simply imposing more restrictions on others is intrinsically good should be sent to Cuba.

You must be a politician.

Most of us think that each law is evidence of failure and is often a worse failure than the original.

First God created time;
then God created man
that man might, in the course of time, perfect himself;
then God decided that He'd better create eternity. ~Robert Brault.

OK TT, I accept your comment on acceleration.
Brisk acceleration should be encouraged - just don't exceed the speed limit too much and anticipate braking.

(Or whatever a proper eco-driving course would teach.)

What's with this preoccupation with aggression and sexism?

Why should one gender HAVE to drive like another? We are entering the age of energy abundance and saving a few gallons of diesel will become meaningless. Of course for the moment it's nice to save fuel - especially fossil fuel.

I've ridden buses in big cities for years and have yet to encounter an "arrogant, aggressive male driver." Job preservation dictates that.

Eco-driving is about anticipation of what is coming, not about driving slowly.

Particularly for buses that need to stick to a schedule, accelerating to avoid a red light can save a huge amount of fuel, if only the driver uses the time saved to coast to the next stop (when feasible and possible, of course). Furthermore, if you drive the same city route day in, day out, it is not too much to ask to 'know the lights' if they run on timers. I use that all the time to anticipate the correct speed approaching an intersection. I absolutely loathe to come to a full stop only to have a green light one second later. That is bad timing on my part and I beat myself up over it.

High cornering speed is also good for fuel economy - and average speed - but not always feasible with a bus where people are standing up.

I remember hearing that the open-pit tar sand operations like/prefer female drivers for the enormous dump trucks because they cause less wear on the equipment while being just (guessing) 2% slower.