4 ms·

Self-driving cars solve the last-mile problem of public transport. They also solve the problem of wait times at bus stations, and while buses stop along the rou

by eloff 4y ago

Self-driving cars solve the last-mile problem of public transport. They also solve the problem of wait times at bus stations, and while buses stop along the route. In all you'd do most trips in about half the time in self driving cars than on a bus. In theory the economics would work out so you wouldn't want to own a car anymore, just use these robo-taxis, as it would be cheaper and more convenient. We'll see if it really plays out that way, and how long it takes.

nicoburns 4y ago
> In all you'd do most trips in about half the time in self driving cars than on a bus. Does that assume there is no traffic? I feel like the space savings from buses (in terms of space on the road) ought to mean that they would be much quicker than cars for most trips if they are given priority as they'd eliminate traffic jams, significantly increasing the road speed. This applies only to dense urban areas of course. For rural areas, self-driving cars make quite a bit of sense.
- eloff 4y ago
  Unless you're in an apartment with a bus stop right outside, the losses from walking to the stop, waiting at the stop, having the bus stop all along it's route, and then walking from the final stop to your destination will usually dominate compared with traffic. Even in cities with dedicated bus lanes. In theory you could save time in special circumstances on a bus, but I don't think I've ever done it in practice. One exception could be if you need to search for parking at your destination. A robo-taxi wouldn't have that short-coming.
  - MisterSandman 4y ago
    This is not true at all. Unless you're going very close by, I usually spend longer in the bus/train than walking or waiting for it. Good public transit cones every 15 minutes, so on average you'd be waiting at the stop for 7.5 minutes. Most bus rides are longer than that
    - eloff 4y ago
      Once you get out in the suburbs it's every 30-60 minutes. You've usually got at least 5 minutes walking at each end. Sometimes in inclement weather. There's always exceptions, but there's a reason people use cars when they can afford it. Trains on the other hand can be a lot better if the stations are close to where you live and where you're going, they don't have traffic and they tend to come every 5 minutes or less during peak hours.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  Give them all the priority you want to, they still have to make 15 - 20 stops along their route and that is why the bus takes so long. You try going 10km and stopping every few km for 2m at a time and see what it does to your transit time. Busses aren't faster.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Some cities have started implementing Bus Rapid Transit [0] for these longer journeys, which are buses with fewer stops and a requirement that you buy the ticket before you board (or use contactless payment). This gets you lots of the travel-time advantages of rail without having to build out the infrastructure. These can interchange with slower, stopping buses to provide a comprehensive transit network. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

by eloff 4y ago

nicoburns 4y ago

> In all you'd do most trips in about half the time in self driving cars than on a bus. Does that assume there is no traffic? I feel like the space savings from buses (in terms of space on the road) ought to mean that they would be much quicker than cars for most trips if they are given priority as they'd eliminate traffic jams, significantly increasing the road speed. This applies only to dense urban areas of course. For rural areas, self-driving cars make quite a bit of sense.

eloff 4y ago
Unless you're in an apartment with a bus stop right outside, the losses from walking to the stop, waiting at the stop, having the bus stop all along it's route, and then walking from the final stop to your destination will usually dominate compared with traffic. Even in cities with dedicated bus lanes. In theory you could save time in special circumstances on a bus, but I don't think I've ever done it in practice. One exception could be if you need to search for parking at your destination. A robo-taxi wouldn't have that short-coming.
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  This is not true at all. Unless you're going very close by, I usually spend longer in the bus/train than walking or waiting for it. Good public transit cones every 15 minutes, so on average you'd be waiting at the stop for 7.5 minutes. Most bus rides are longer than that
  - eloff 4y ago
    Once you get out in the suburbs it's every 30-60 minutes. You've usually got at least 5 minutes walking at each end. Sometimes in inclement weather. There's always exceptions, but there's a reason people use cars when they can afford it. Trains on the other hand can be a lot better if the stations are close to where you live and where you're going, they don't have traffic and they tend to come every 5 minutes or less during peak hours.
lelanthran 4y ago
Give them all the priority you want to, they still have to make 15 - 20 stops along their route and that is why the bus takes so long. You try going 10km and stopping every few km for 2m at a time and see what it does to your transit time. Busses aren't faster.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Some cities have started implementing Bus Rapid Transit [0] for these longer journeys, which are buses with fewer stops and a requirement that you buy the ticket before you board (or use contactless payment). This gets you lots of the travel-time advantages of rail without having to build out the infrastructure. These can interchange with slower, stopping buses to provide a comprehensive transit network. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit