←back to thread

219 points skadamat | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rjmunro ◴[] No.41301868[source]
There's another thing that happens with busses that makes it worse.

The further behind the previous bus a bus is, the more people will arrive at the bus stop. The more people there are at the stop, the longer the bus has to spend picking them all up and selling them tickets etc. Therefore the delayed bus will tend to experience more delay. The bus behind them will have less people to pick up, so it will spend a shorter time at stops and tend to catch up with the first bus, so the two busses are dragged towards each other.

replies(15): >>41302070 #>>41302114 #>>41302390 #>>41302468 #>>41302658 #>>41302680 #>>41302728 #>>41302736 #>>41302776 #>>41302981 #>>41303563 #>>41304355 #>>41304721 #>>41305067 #>>41329626 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[] No.41302390[source]
That bus with more riders on board also has a higher probability of needing to stop to let people off at each location as well, slowing it down even further!
replies(3): >>41302756 #>>41302948 #>>41305652 #
Gravityloss ◴[] No.41302948[source]
Robotic buses could be made smaller than driver buses since the cost of driver doesn't need to be amortized as many passengers as possible. Then you could implement optional stop skipping. At the end of the spectrum you have Uber X ie taxi with ride sharing.
replies(3): >>41303399 #>>41306108 #>>41308434 #
robertlagrant ◴[] No.41308434[source]
What's the cost of the driver vs fuel/maintenance/capital cost of bus?
replies(2): >>41312467 #>>41317555 #
1. iggldiggl ◴[] No.41317555{3}[source]
I've seen a study done not that long ago for a small to medium sized German city. The idea was either taking the existing bus service and expanding it to a 10-minute-frequency all-day on all routes, or else keeping only the three most important (regional) bus routes and replacing everything else with a massive fleet of on-demand vehicles.

The surprising results:

- According to the results of the traffic modelling, the on-demand scenario wasn't substantially more successful in attracting additional passengers than the "classic buses running every 10 minutes" scenario (i.e. in both cases predicted passenger counts increased, but by approximately the same amount). This was because on-demand public transport has quite a bit of time-wise overhead, too: You need to order a vehicle instead of simply showing up at the bus stop, it takes a while for the next vehicle to arrive, due to ride sharing some detours might be incurred compared to a direct route, and the unpredictable journey time variation due to these factors is very disadvantageous when connecting to fixed-route fixed-timetable public transport, such as the remaining three bus routes, or railway services.

- The overhead of operating a large fleet of on-demand vehicles was high enough that even with driverless operation the on-demand scenario was more expensive to operate than the expanded every-ten-minutes bus service with drivers