This fascinating article by Nithin Vejendla in Works in Progress makes the case that bus networks would benefit from bus stop balancing: having fewer stops spaced further apart. This is especially true in the United States where stops tend to be only 700–800 feet (roughly 210–240 metres) apart. While having many bus stops theoretically improves access to the transit network, it also means that buses are slower (more time is spent accelerating, decelerating, and loading/unloading passengers) and less frequent, which reduces where you can actually go in a fixed amount of time, as well increasing the variability in the time it takes to get there.
The biggest problem holding back public transit in North America is that it is unreliable, and bus stop balancing is a rare policy solution that offers improved service without having to spend more. With fewer stops, the same number of buses can complete the same route faster and with greater frequency. This stops a single missed or delayed bus from ruining your plans or forcing you to build in extra time.
A research study from my city of Montreal even gets a shout out. As a big public transit user, I avoid buses where possible in favour of the metro and walking, because these modes of transportation tend to be much more reliable and less variable when it comes to the question of “how long will it take for me to get from point A to point B”. Stop balancing could go a long way toward addressing one of the main complaints about public transit: too many routes are not frequent or reliable enough to let riders stop worrying about the schedule.