←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.45s | source
Show context
jillesvangurp ◴[] No.43981512[source]
I like this; it's smart. It's a low tech solution that simply coordinates transit based on demand and self optimizes to serve that demand.

The value of buses and trains running on schedule is mainly that you can plan around it. But what if transit worked like Uber. Some vehicle shows up to pick you up. It might drop you off somewhere to switch vehicles and some other vehicle shows up to do that. All the way to your destination (as opposed to a mile away from there). As long as the journey time is predictable and reasonable, people would be pretty happy with that.

replies(14): >>43981629 #>>43981734 #>>43981761 #>>43981832 #>>43982029 #>>43982065 #>>43982311 #>>43982461 #>>43984012 #>>43984218 #>>43985477 #>>43987281 #>>43987568 #>>43988589 #
throw310822 ◴[] No.43981629[source]
In various countries there are private vans that ride along the normal bus routes, marked with the same numbers as the buses. They work exactly like buses, collecting and leaving people at the stops, but they're much smaller and usually more frequent. I always thought they were an excellent solution- I don't get why there shouldn't be anything in between big, rare, and shared public buses and small, on-demand, individual private cars.
replies(3): >>43981710 #>>43981977 #>>43984796 #
grumpy-de-sre ◴[] No.43981710[source]
I'm not really aware of many rich countries that operate minibusses in urban areas. The bulk of the cost of operating public transport is labor so there's a strong incentive to scale.

Now if we get Waymo style self driving minibusses, that'd be great. But if the running costs for full size electric busses aren't too dissimilar it might just make sense to standardize on larger automated busses for increased surge capacity.

replies(11): >>43981751 #>>43981975 #>>43982012 #>>43982095 #>>43982140 #>>43982310 #>>43982360 #>>43982591 #>>43983034 #>>43983046 #>>43990216 #
vkou ◴[] No.43982012[source]
Vancouver has 20-person minibuses serving suburban routes. They are what make the rest of the transit system work.

I'm told (but have no idea of how true that is, since my social circles don't intersect it) that New York has a cottage industry of private bus-vans, that sit somewhere between a taxi and a vanpool that get people (usually working poor) to and from work.

replies(2): >>43982161 #>>43985719 #
grumpy-de-sre ◴[] No.43982161[source]
From some googling it appears a major reason for the community shuttles is that they are allowed to operate on narrower, suburban streets than full sized busses and have lower fuel consumption per mile.

I'll concede geography limits are a valid reason for smaller vehicles.

replies(1): >>43985981 #
1. vkou ◴[] No.43985981[source]
They also do less damage to roads. Large vehicles do disproportionately more damage.

They are also cheaper to buy, clean, and maintain.

replies(1): >>43991998 #
2. grumpy-de-sre ◴[] No.43991998[source]
Axle weight is a really good point tbh, if you don't have to pay labor costs for the driver it'd make a ton of sense to downsize. Ideally this would be accomplished with taxes on gross vehicle weight. Would make smaller vehicles inherently more economical.

I'm not sure the cheaper argument actually works out in other areas though. If due to peak capacity requirements you have to buy and operate two minibuses vs one full sized bus then that one full sized bus is going to be cheaper to maintain/clean/etc.

However if it's a low utilization route then for sure a minibus is a no brainer. Seems we see that model deployed in a lot of locations referenced above (excluding dollar vans etc, which I see more as a failure of the state tbh).