9 ms·

Driverless vehicles will revolutionize public transport: - removes the biggest expense: drivers - works well with restricted area/route requirements - is fle

Driverless vehicles will revolutionize public transport: - removes the biggest expense: drivers - works well with restricted area/route requirements - is flexible with respect to deployment of services in response to demand The ultimate goal of public transport should be that it is as flexible as a taxi (which is also public transport) with costs lower than buses or trains which have higher capital costs.

jltsiren 3y ago
...and with as little traffic as with buses and trains. Constant traffic makes urban streets unpleasant. City life is better when the streets are mostly empty, with at most one or two vehicles per minute in each direction.
bowsamic 3y ago
In situations where 1 person is driving a bus averaging 10 people it hardly seems worth getting rid of the driver
Larrikin 3y ago
What about the economy post COVID has given you any hope that if private corporations are allowed to control the tech, that they will be cheaper than our current solution? Companies have done nothing but inflate profits mostly for making more profits. The nightmare scenario in self driving is if we can no longer own cars, but have to subscribe to car services, money from public transportation goes to private corporations, and they can raise profits or remove routes as they see fit for the most money.
GaggiX 3y ago
If everyone in the city took a taxi, the traffic would be unbearable, the city would be clogged, at least a standard European city. One thing I like about metro systems is that they usually take up no space on the ground, many of them are already completely autonomous, they cannot be stopped by manifestations or traffic, and of course they are much more space efficient for transporting people.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I took a taxi to/from work in Beijing even though I eventually lived on line 10 which would do much of the same route (well, a bit more walking in the work side). I shifted my work schedule to really early to do it, and I think it was worth it. The subway is slow, has annoying security to line up for at the stations, and you often don’t get a seat for most of or your entire ride. I tried it a couple of times and it just wasn’t worth it unless I needed to travel during rush hour. I’m sure if it were Tokyo instead I wouldn’t have a problem (or even the option given the higher cost of taking a taxi).
- midasuni 3y ago
  They also rely on a lot of people travelling from a small area to a small area. The square mile around me has fewer than 4 journeys an hour to anywhere, so how does that work with anything other than an automated taxi or at most minibus?
  - GaggiX 3y ago
    Do you live in a city where there are only 4 trips per hour in an entire square mile? What city are you talking about? I'm assuming it's a US city because of their characteristic sprawling layout.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      No I don’t, I live in a small village. A taxi service would be brilliant, my son could get to scouts and back under his own steam. Automated or manual doesn’t matter, but we can’t sustain a taxi service.l - there’s one in a town about 6 miles away. One taxi.
      - smaudet 3y ago
        This is why rail systems were/are great. Sure, you had to have a station, but you could service far more small towns, no need to economically support them. If the train didn't have anyone to pick up it simply wouldn't stop, and unlike the bus it could take on many more cars, amortizing the extra costs of emptier stops. Instead we have networks of roads that are largely unsafe, inefficient, and more costly to replace, and a dated rail system that hardly services major cities any more.

jltsiren 3y ago

...and with as little traffic as with buses and trains. Constant traffic makes urban streets unpleasant. City life is better when the streets are mostly empty, with at most one or two vehicles per minute in each direction.

bowsamic 3y ago

In situations where 1 person is driving a bus averaging 10 people it hardly seems worth getting rid of the driver

Larrikin 3y ago

What about the economy post COVID has given you any hope that if private corporations are allowed to control the tech, that they will be cheaper than our current solution? Companies have done nothing but inflate profits mostly for making more profits. The nightmare scenario in self driving is if we can no longer own cars, but have to subscribe to car services, money from public transportation goes to private corporations, and they can raise profits or remove routes as they see fit for the most money.

GaggiX 3y ago

If everyone in the city took a taxi, the traffic would be unbearable, the city would be clogged, at least a standard European city. One thing I like about metro systems is that they usually take up no space on the ground, many of them are already completely autonomous, they cannot be stopped by manifestations or traffic, and of course they are much more space efficient for transporting people.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I took a taxi to/from work in Beijing even though I eventually lived on line 10 which would do much of the same route (well, a bit more walking in the work side). I shifted my work schedule to really early to do it, and I think it was worth it. The subway is slow, has annoying security to line up for at the stations, and you often don’t get a seat for most of or your entire ride. I tried it a couple of times and it just wasn’t worth it unless I needed to travel during rush hour. I’m sure if it were Tokyo instead I wouldn’t have a problem (or even the option given the higher cost of taking a taxi).
midasuni 3y ago
They also rely on a lot of people travelling from a small area to a small area. The square mile around me has fewer than 4 journeys an hour to anywhere, so how does that work with anything other than an automated taxi or at most minibus?
- GaggiX 3y ago
  Do you live in a city where there are only 4 trips per hour in an entire square mile? What city are you talking about? I'm assuming it's a US city because of their characteristic sprawling layout.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    No I don’t, I live in a small village. A taxi service would be brilliant, my son could get to scouts and back under his own steam. Automated or manual doesn’t matter, but we can’t sustain a taxi service.l - there’s one in a town about 6 miles away. One taxi.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      This is why rail systems were/are great. Sure, you had to have a station, but you could service far more small towns, no need to economically support them. If the train didn't have anyone to pick up it simply wouldn't stop, and unlike the bus it could take on many more cars, amortizing the extra costs of emptier stops. Instead we have networks of roads that are largely unsafe, inefficient, and more costly to replace, and a dated rail system that hardly services major cities any more.