Nithin Vejendla describes the benefits of reducing the number of stops in a service, called bus stop balancing. The two in most interested in are increased frequency and accessibility.
Bus stop balancing involves strategically increasing the distance between stops from [210–240 meter], common in older American cities or in London, to [396 meter], coser to the typical spacing in Western Europe, such as in Hanover, Germany.
It's logical that fewer stops means a quicker service if the bus also doesn't have to contend much with other traffic.
Bus stop balancing saves riders’ time. Riders save between 12 and 24 seconds per stop removed. San Francisco saw a 4.4 to 14 percent increase in travel speeds (depending on the trip) by decreasing spacing from six stops per mile to two and a half.
The benefit is also visible on express services.
Limited stop services – aggressive forms of stop consolidation, effectively express buses – can see even more impressive savings. Los Angeles saw operating speeds increase by 29 percent and ridership by 33 percent on its Wilshire/Whittier Metro Rapid corridor.
Quicker buses also showed better accessibility. That is passengers were and to get further with the same amount of time.
By speeding buses up, stop balancing actually increases the number of destinations reachable within a given timeframe.
The article has a neat isochrone map of Philadelphia showing the regions that would be accessible with bus stop balancing.
The frequency could also go up with faster buses and shorter services.
Buses that move more quickly can traverse their routes more times per day. That means that achieving the same frequency requires fewer drivers as the speed of the journey goes up.
The main counter arguement is the reduction of stops available by passengers requiring a longer walk at the start or end of their trip. For this reason I'm not sure this is a solution applicable to every area. The area does take some time to cover this, including referencing multiples studies.
Stop balancing need not even reduce the number of access points much. Many North American bus stops have overlapping ‘walksheds’ (the areas within walkable distance of them) and are competing with each other. The combination of many stops and a street grid means that many riders have two or more stops that they can use, so that closing one only requires a marginally longer walk to the next.
There's a lot more detail in the article including links for further reading. I discovered this through HackerNews where there's also a lot of discussion in the comments.
Read from link