This analysis ignores the fact that the two modes (bus and AVs) load and discharge passengers very differently. The problem is not only the physical space AVs t

This analysis ignores the fact that the two modes (bus and AVs) load and discharge passengers very differently. The problem is not only the physical space AVs take when in motion on the road. See, e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/bus-best-public-transit-cities/574399/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/bus-b... “How many people’s doors can a driver get to in an hour, including the minute or two that the customer spends grabbing their things and boarding? The intuitively obvious answer is the right one: not very many. An Eno Foundation report promoting microtransit could not cite a case study doing better than four boardings an hour of service. John Urgo, the planner of demand-responsive service for AC Transit in Oakland, California, has said that seven boardings an hour is “the best we hope to achieve.” Few fixed-route buses perform that poorly. Across sprawling Silicon Valley, for example, fixed-route buses carried 12 to 45 people an hour in 2015. In a dense city such as Philadelphia, the number can exceed 80” Door-to-door transit simply cannot achieve the throughput of buses! Which is not to say door-to-door would not be profitable or even have a role in a mass system. It's probably an improvement over the current dominant mode (although my suspicion is that it's simply a slightly less bad local minimum). But the point of the original article is to argue that certain groups of people (decision makers in cities, mostly), should not extrapolate from their own needs and preferences when designing a system designed for mass use, because they're by definition unusual and they're each N=1