←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.017s | 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 #
AStonesThrow ◴[] No.43983034[source]
In Maricopa County, each city has discretion to operate a system of circulators or shuttles. Many of them do. Many of them are fare-free.

For example, in Scottsdale there are old-timey "trolleys" which look like streetcars, but they are just buses with fancy chassis. They operate routes which go through some neighborhoods and commercial districts, such as Old Town, to get people shopping and gambling and attending events.

In Tempe, there are "Orbit" buses which mostly drive through residential neighborhoods. They are mostly designed to get riders to-and-from standard bus routes and stations. You can also do plenty of shopping and sightseeing and day-drinking on these routes.

In Downtown Phoenix there is a system of "DASH" buses which, among other things, have serviced the Capitol area, which is due west of the downtown hub, where buses fear to tread, because it is also the site of "The Zone" where the worst street people congregate and camp-out.

Now all of these free circulators tend to be popular with the homeless, the poor, and freeloaders, but they are also appreciated by students and ordinary transit passengers, because we need to walk far less, and there are far more possibilities to connect from one route to another.

An innovative feature of many circulators is the "flag stop zone". Rather than having appointed stops with shelters, signs or benches, you can signal the operator that you wish to board or disembark, anywhere in the zone. The operator will stop where it's safe. While it is still a fixed route, it gains some of the flexibility for the passengers to make the most convenient stops.

replies(1): >>43984334 #
bluGill ◴[] No.43984334[source]
Charge a small fee and those routes would be profitable on their own. You can of course add reduced/free fares for homeless/students if you wish, but most people can afford a fare and that money can go into running more service which the typical adult needs a lot more than the savings of a small fare.
replies(1): >>43987128 #
1. AStonesThrow ◴[] No.43987128[source]
Why be profitable? Charging fares on a free circulator is counterproductive. It costs to maintain and enforce fare boxes, and you’re adding friction to a system that’s designed to bring riders to the main routes. And you’re already running more service! The more successful circulators you have, the more passengers will be using the main system.
replies(1): >>43988095 #
2. bluGill ◴[] No.43988095[source]
Any money you make from fares is another source of money that can be used to run more service and make the network better. The vast majority of your riding population is not poor and would gladly trade a little money for better service. (if the vast majority of your riders are poor you must be running really bad service)
replies(1): >>43988377 #
3. AStonesThrow ◴[] No.43988377[source]
The free circulator network is made better by the sheer number of people riding it, not the revenue it can bring in.

Firstly, more people riding circulators equals more stimulation of the economy, via shopping and event-going. People getting out of their homes and out of their residential neighborhoods is an overall good for commerce.

Secondly, I believe that one of the issues for collecting fares is the reluctance to create a new tier. Because the circulators are not full-size, full-service bus routes, they would necessarily need to charge less fare, and setting that up and maintaining a lower fare tier is labor-intensive, and requires a lot of education of the public. If a bus runs around the neighborhood with EXACT FARE REQUIRED and people are out of quarters, well they're just going to forgo riding that bus. If a bus is fare-free, and gets them into the full-fare zone, they're going to go for it.