7 ms·

Reality check: the main cost driver of bus service are driver salaries.

littlestymaar 3y ago
Even if it was true it would be a great argument for driverless bus, not for driverless cars. The original argument doesn't hold though: even if a bus line isn't profitable in a place because there's not enough people doesn't mean that a cheaper taxi service wouldn't be.
- dash2 3y ago
  Rural areas often don't have enough passengers along routes to fill a bus, so the car is going to be better. (Doesn't have to be privately owned though.)
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Those areas often have buses to fulfill ADA requirements, so a lot of the riders are mobile challenged. Vans might work. Or those bigger taxi cabs that can take a wheelchair. I’m not sure how that could be self serve, however.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  It is true [1]. And clearly driverless technology applies to vehicles of various sizes. [1] "Depending on bus type, driver cost accounts for between 40 and 70 per cent of total bus operator cost in Singapore (Ongel et al., 2019) and Australia (own calculation based on ATC, 2006). In Japan, driver salaries account for 53% and 70% of total operating costs of buses and taxis, respectively (Abe, 2019)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012219300802 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22120...
- al_borland 3y ago
  Put that bus on rails instead of tires and operating it autonomously becomes infinitely easier and more realistic in the near term. As far as profits on rural lines… each line doesn’t need to be equally profitable. Some might even lose money, as long as the popular lines can make up for the less popular ones. There is a significant value to a community in having ubiquitous coverage.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Building rails is harder than using the roads that already exist. It's always going to be a trade-off
    - al_borland 3y ago
      But is building rails harder than developing a self driving car/bus? We had rails 200 year ago; it’s a solved problem that mostly requires political will and capital allocation to execute. Self driving cars have been in development of some kind for at least 40 years[1] and it’s still a struggle technically, and will still require some political will going forward as we try to solve all the legal problem they bring up, and the development has also been very capital intensive[2]. If we have to spend the money and deal with the politics anyway, why not put that effort toward something we know works, we can do today, will reduce traffic on roads, and has a better safety record than automobiles. Augmenting a rail system with some kind of taxi system is fine, but it seems odd to put all the eggs in the autonomous car basket. We were promised cars would be driving themselves across the country 6 years ago, and it’s still just promises[3]. How long are we willing to wait for something that’s actually viable for the masses? And how much are we going to pay per ride? Right now it looks like it will be more expensive than hopping on a train. People often say Elon pitched the HyperLoop and Boring company ideas to try and kill rail plans, since he owns a car company. I have to wonder if these someday promises of self-driving are a similar tactic. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-06/even-after-100-billion-self-driving-cars-are-going-nowhere https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-06/even-afte... [3] https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1474/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-attempt-autonomous-la-to-ny-drive-soon https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1474/elon-musk-says-tesla-...
      - konschubert 3y ago
        Let’s do both.
  - xnx 3y ago
    Tear up the rails and let autonomous vehicles use that right of way. Vastly more flexible and efficient.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Even if it was true it would be a great argument for driverless bus, not for driverless cars. The original argument doesn't hold though: even if a bus line isn't profitable in a place because there's not enough people doesn't mean that a cheaper taxi service wouldn't be.

dash2 3y ago
Rural areas often don't have enough passengers along routes to fill a bus, so the car is going to be better. (Doesn't have to be privately owned though.)
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Those areas often have buses to fulfill ADA requirements, so a lot of the riders are mobile challenged. Vans might work. Or those bigger taxi cabs that can take a wheelchair. I’m not sure how that could be self serve, however.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
It is true [1]. And clearly driverless technology applies to vehicles of various sizes. [1] "Depending on bus type, driver cost accounts for between 40 and 70 per cent of total bus operator cost in Singapore (Ongel et al., 2019) and Australia (own calculation based on ATC, 2006). In Japan, driver salaries account for 53% and 70% of total operating costs of buses and taxis, respectively (Abe, 2019)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012219300802 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22120...
al_borland 3y ago
Put that bus on rails instead of tires and operating it autonomously becomes infinitely easier and more realistic in the near term. As far as profits on rural lines… each line doesn’t need to be equally profitable. Some might even lose money, as long as the popular lines can make up for the less popular ones. There is a significant value to a community in having ubiquitous coverage.
- konschubert 3y ago
  Building rails is harder than using the roads that already exist. It's always going to be a trade-off
  - al_borland 3y ago
    But is building rails harder than developing a self driving car/bus? We had rails 200 year ago; it’s a solved problem that mostly requires political will and capital allocation to execute. Self driving cars have been in development of some kind for at least 40 years[1] and it’s still a struggle technically, and will still require some political will going forward as we try to solve all the legal problem they bring up, and the development has also been very capital intensive[2]. If we have to spend the money and deal with the politics anyway, why not put that effort toward something we know works, we can do today, will reduce traffic on roads, and has a better safety record than automobiles. Augmenting a rail system with some kind of taxi system is fine, but it seems odd to put all the eggs in the autonomous car basket. We were promised cars would be driving themselves across the country 6 years ago, and it’s still just promises[3]. How long are we willing to wait for something that’s actually viable for the masses? And how much are we going to pay per ride? Right now it looks like it will be more expensive than hopping on a train. People often say Elon pitched the HyperLoop and Boring company ideas to try and kill rail plans, since he owns a car company. I have to wonder if these someday promises of self-driving are a similar tactic. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-06/even-after-100-billion-self-driving-cars-are-going-nowhere https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-06/even-afte... [3] https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1474/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-attempt-autonomous-la-to-ny-drive-soon https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1474/elon-musk-says-tesla-...
    - konschubert 3y ago
      Let’s do both.
- xnx 3y ago
  Tear up the rails and let autonomous vehicles use that right of way. Vastly more flexible and efficient.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]