3 ms·

You are proposing that this is easily solved by charging enough to enforce widespread, MASSIVE social change (that is, changing from a 9-5 commute schedule), wh

You are proposing that this is easily solved by charging enough to enforce widespread, MASSIVE social change (that is, changing from a 9-5 commute schedule), which will be most punitive for those who also have least control over the behaviour being punished (as your job pays more, the likelihood of flexible hours increases). Unless your proposal comes along with "and use those fees to provide housing for people to live next to the Walmart/pharmacy/bank that they work in so they don't have to pay to commute" then it seems pretty damn inequitable.

rogerbinns 12y ago
It is already expensive at peak times - transport is not free in time or money. The change doesn't have to be MASSIVE. For example shifting by 15 minutes may be enough to better match capacity. The most expensive would be point to point direct service for just you. But the driverless vehicle could pick up several people for a lower cost to them, but taking more time. ie the worst case wouldn't be substantially different than today with its limits and hard routing/timing on public transport. It will also be easier for competition to come in compared to today which will help. It is still possible to provide social services. For example in Britain my over 65 parents get free bus passes. Lower income people can be subsidised in similar ways.