4 ms·
In major cities, its already more convenient not to own a car, even if your stuck using mass transit. The area where that is the case will expand enormously on
by stretchwithme 8y ago
In major cities, its already more convenient not to own a car, even if your stuck using mass transit.
The area where that is the case will expand enormously once a chauffeur driven limousine is cheaper than standing-room-only mass transit.
There's no way I'd drive up to San Francisco and deal with parking when I can be driven up there and dropped off for the same money. Even twice the same money would be a good deal.
- cozzyd 8y agoBut buses will be much cheaper to operate too, so they wouldn't be standing room only. A city that had only buses and no private cars would have a very fast and efficient transportation network.
- dsnuh 8y agoWhy will buses be much cheaper than they are now? Because they are driverless? I think that's one small part of the calculation that goes into fare prices.
- cozzyd 8y agoLabor is usually the dominant cost of running buses in rich countries. You'd still presumably have to hire inspectors to make sure people pay the fare but you only need a small multiplier of those two buses.
- stretchwithme 8y agoThe dominant costs for USING the bus is the wasted time, lost convenience and lost comfort. And it's the total cost that people consider, not just the fare. You wouldn't need inspectors to make sure fares are paid. A lot of trains already don't have them. But eventually it will be very easy to tell electronically if someone boarding a bus has paid the fare. You could even keep track of who doesn't and collect a fine later.
- stretchwithme 8y agoBuses suck. Their fixed routes suck. Their infrequent schedules suck. Stopping at every stop sucks. Having to put up with what other people do on them sucks. Not being able to sleep because you're not by yourself sucks. There really is no way buses win.
- dsnuh 8y agoYeah, even if buses were free, I don't see it ever becoming the main form of transportation.