Or they could just have trains
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
5 points (85.7% liked)
Technology@stad
61 readers
8 users here now
Technology News and Opinion
founded 10 months ago
Trains are great when you have lots of people going from and to the same places, but that only addresses a portion of transport. And creates a new one: Getting people to and from their nearest train stations, and moving around once you've.travelled somewhwre where you sont have a car. They don't in any way remove the need for bus services.
Fair point I suppose, but it could be argued that in that case you could have an inner city electric trolley, however busses have the benefit of dynamic routes. I just think self driving busses is kind of goofy idea. It just seems like they're trying to save a buck by not paying a driver.
but it could be argued that in that case you could have an inner city electric trolley
And that's great for people living in an inner city. I live in a suburb of London that is big enough to actually have trams, but I live 20 minutes walk from the nearest tram station. I'm near a well-served bus route, and 20 minutes on foot also gets me to either of two major train stations, so I'm fine and don't drive, but just a tiny bit further out, and you're screwed if you don't drive because the councils can't afford to run regular bus routes and a lot of people live too far from the nearest train stations. While the train network here absolutely could be improved as well, driving down the cost of providing service in those kinds of areas is a big deal.
Incidentally, better bus services also make better train services more viable, by making it easier for people to take advantage of them.
It just seems like they’re trying to save a buck by not paying a driver.
Well, yes, because the driver makes up a surprisingly large part of the cost, and especially if the demand isn't sufficient to fill a full-scale bus, and so it is a major limiting factor given that most bus systems lose money and depend on subsidies as it is. If you want to expand routes to get more people to give up cars, that's a challenge.
All Good points made. I just wish public transit got more public funding. I had how everything has to be "financially viable" rather than it just existing because it helps people. Not everything should need to be profitable. I wish that would change.
100% agree with that, but even if it just exists to help people you want to make it as cost-effective as possible so you can afford to do as much as possible of it for what money you have available.
When you're limited by the cost of drivers you want those drivers to drive the biggest vehicles you can justify. But when that goes away and price per mile drops significantly, you have a lot more flexibility in scaling up and down based on demand, and that potentially makes routes that otherwise make no sense potentially viable.
Couple that with apps and there will be many options to plug holes in public transport. E.g. imagine an "Uber for public transport" where "bus" waits will always be capped because the system "fills in" bus routes with shared hired cars if the projected bus waiting time is above a certain limit.
Now imagine you then add "virtual" routes that are not yet served by real buses at all, but where you use the ridership from a booked service like that to start scaling up the vehicles used as and when ridership justifies it, or otherwise use it as a feeder service to full-size buses and trains.
Now consider if Uber and taxi companies get regulated so they are required to allow priority booking access for public transport providers in order to provide cars for a service like that...